Childbirth and Children

In Hafner-Eaton and Pearce, the argument is made for women who choose to have what is now considered non-conventional child birth. This method, using midwives and having their children at home, have been the main form of child birth for thousands of years before obstetrician regulated births. More women are choosing to have these in home births with mid wives because the statistics show that there is a lower infant mortality and mother rate than with main stream births. Also there is less intervention with midwives than with obstetricians which can lead to complications. Even the beliefs that hospital births are the way it should be to prevent complications, studies show that they actually cause more complications and more pain. These are some of the reasons women choose mid wife births at home. I also believe that birth through mid wife is the way to go because they practice more of a natural birth process. God made the birth process a certain way, and allopathic physicians think that their way is a way to fix the natural way of birth, but in reality it is not fixing anything, it only complicates the situation.
Friedman's article shows how over time there has been a move to loosen legal ties between parents and children. In years past there was a long lasting control of parents over their children, even into adulthood, but now this tie is decreasing more and more. For instance, the idea of the father arranging marriages shows control over his child into adulthood, but this is not usually used in Western societies. Also the idea that the child then becomes caregiver to the elder parents is slowly declining. Friedman says that the state has begun to take the responsibility that were once considered to be the children's responsibilities. In effect parents and children (after a certain age) are having less ties. THere are also cases when children are still very young. In these the government steps in and takes the role of the parent in cases where they say that the parent is not capable of caring for their young children. In colonial times in the US there was little adoption taking place, though the term was known. It was not a legal situation, but then around the 1780s there were laws made about adoption, but these laws were usually to make illegitimate children legitimate and heirs or part heirs of family estates. But these laws were not specific only to illegitimate children, but also to any one they chose. THe process of adoption was also as easy as signing a paper. This process slowly became more intricate and detailed, involving court proceedings. Before the well being of the child was practically ignored and adoption was for heir purposes, but they shifted focus to child well being and thus made the process more difficult and intricate. This then evolved to the adoption process of today. But overall the purpose of adoption was for a family to have a bloodline to inherit their estate.
According to Hays, conservatives have a negative view on welfare because they view the recipients as "lazy, promiscuous, and pathologically dependent," and that the system only perpetuates this behavior because it condones it by provide aid to them instead of forcing them to change. They in turn also believe that the welfare system promotes poverty and also increases it. The Liberals argued that the poor had negative quatlities because of their condition of being poor, and so if they are given aid through welfare they can help themselves. Hays is sure to state taht the liberals did agree that there were problems with the old welfare system. The original welfare system was based on the idea of an ideal American Family with a husband that provided financial stabiilty and a wife who stayed home to care for the kids, and those women whom their husbands were not present were provided with aid from the government in order to be able to stay home with their children. It was also common that women who were not considered "virtuous" were denied aid, so only those women whom the government deemed "good" were eligible for aid. There were some reforms prior to 1996, that made welfare more attainable for all women, and less discrimination. it also implemented many reform programs to help families and single parents, but there were alot of "loopholes". Hays says that with the reform of 1996, the state changed its mind on the idea that mothers and children deserve any special privileges. WIth the reform there was less differentiation among different types of women, because all women were forced to be active participants in the work force. Hays describes the contradiction within the welfare system as the dual emphasis on individualism and family values. One focus of the reform of 1996 was to have all women be actively participating in the working world, which in turn takes time away from raising their children, thus placing family life on the back burner, but at the same time heralding the woman as an equal participant in supporting her family as the traditional male role. The Personal Responsibility Act also makes it clear that the purpose of the welfare system was to uphold the idea of family, but how can this be done when the women are being forced to spend less time with their children and more time in the working sphere. This is essentially the embodiment of both the liberal view and the conservative view within the same legislature, because the liberal believes that the individual should be able to provide for themself and their family and better their situation, but the conservate focuses on the importance of the family and the mother staying home. These contradictory principles held in the welfare laws shows the public's own indecision and controversy over the same issues the issues of family and individualism, of "paid work and caregiving, competetive self-interest and obligation to others, the value of work ethic and financial success versus the value of personal connection, familial bonding and community ties."
According to Block et al. Norway sees poverty as caused by economic and structural factors rather than moral defficiency on the part of the poor. In the United States there is that very strongly held idea that if you work hard enough you can achieve the American Dream. This leads to the dominating idea that people are poor because they are lazy and do not work hard enough to help themselves out of poverty. Because of this idea that the poor have low morals, the rules and regulations on welfare have become more strict to prevent fraud, but because all these assistance programs are so difficult to receive and the processes are so complicated, and then when you do receive them even in combination they do not supply sufficient help to live well. THis in turn causes people to actual become liars and commit fraud in order to save extra money, like not reporting all their income tax. According to Block et al. the reason the American Dream is so out of reach for the poor is because incresasingly their access to higher education, health care, childcare and housing has diminished becasue these services have become more and more expensive. In order to close the gap to the American Dream we need reforms that make these services more accessible to the poor.
Clawson's article criticizes the United States child care for being to accessible, and thus not attainable by all who want or need it, not quality care for the children, and the children do not receive that family care that is essential to raising a child. They propose to look to countries in Europe and make reforms basedo n their systems. They believe the new child care system should be publicly funded and universal, so that it is either free or very cheap so people can afford it. They also believe the actual program would be as long as an actual school day, and contain "wrap around" care before and after. The quality of the program would be great and so parents would not be scared to leave their children at child care, and those who perhaps had not initially wanted child care might even be tempted to use it becasue they know the quality is so good.