Childbearing and Childrearing

1. According to Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, what are the reasons why some prefer to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife? What is your opinion about the best setting for giving birth?
Some mothers prefer to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife for a variety of reasons. First, they feel as though giving birth at home is just as safe as laboring in a hospital, and possibly even safer when comparing the infant and mortality rates of other countries who predominantly use midwifes in the home to the United States. Supporters believe that birthing in a hospital provides unnecessary medical attention and intervention, whereas a midwife offers mutual trust, education on birth and care of the newborn, prenatal and maternal screening, and a bond between the mother and midwife that is irreplacable. They offer mother's education and information about controlling their own body during pregnancy and birth. In addition, mothers may feel more comfortable and relaxed in their own familiar environment which would make the natural proceed with ease. Supporters "perceive birth as a normal, rather than abnormal, function of women's bodies, just as walking, aging, or any number of other functions are considered" (819). Complications that arise are a collaboration of the mother's mindset, emotions, body, beliefs, and environment and do not only depend on the phsyical.
As a nursing student, I understand the many complications of pregnancy, labor, birth, and after- birth and strongly agree with delivering in the hospital setting. I understand the evidence that supports higher mortality and morbidity rates among hospital births comparing to other Western countries but do believe that this evidence is scued. Although I do believe in the mind-body connection, which seems to be a major theme among midwifery, I believe that medication and science as just as powerful. Additionally, in a hospital setting there are state of the art and great technological advances that provide mother and child with unbeatable fetal heart monitoring and maternal monitoring. Located in a hospital are numerous staff members that provide each mother, child, and family with support and care that is essential in this state of life. Just because you are giving birth in the hospital does not mean that you have to necessarily use medication, after all, healthcare providers pride themselves with giving the patient the right to choose. Lastly, if you desire to use a midwife it is possible on the labor and delivery floor.

2. How did the legal ties between parents and children change over time? How did the adoption laws changed? Historically, what was the purpose of formal adoptions?
The legal ties between parents and children changed over time because originally parents had indefinite control over their children throughout their lives and now adults are free to make their own decisions and are not obligated by law to obey their parents. The government has replaced many aspects of taking care of elderly parents by instilling nursing homes and supporting the retired. In addition, children are recognized as individuals and can face punishment and consequences for their actions. Foster care homes provide shelter and support for children who have been taken from their homes and placed into better care. The state can also support children's rights against their parents as well.
Over time, adoption laws have changed as well. Originally, adoption laws were not recognized at all and children were relatives of blood and nothing else. However, historically in ancient Roman society formal adoptions were used to carry out the family name and was "recognized as a way to guarantee that a family with no blood children would not die out" (273). Adoption at a time was only granted to people that had no children. Adults could even be adopted to carry on family names. In most cases, the issues of adoption vary from country to country. In present day, there are numerous adoption laws stating that adoption does not have to involve blood relation.

3. According to Sharon Hays, what are the conservative and liberal views of welfare? What are the main differences between the requirements introduced by the welfare reform of 1996 and the earlier welfare policies? What are the two contradictory visions represented in the welfare reform? What does the welfare reform tell us about the values of our society?
Hays argues that the conversative views of welfare state that welfare promotes laziness and single parenting and actual encourages bad values. In their view, poverty is a result of their bad behavior and those on welfare take advantage of it, further promoting its' recipients. It "provides them with incentives for family dysfunction and nonwork" (12). On the other hand, liberals take a different approach. Despite the fact that both parties agree that there is a problem in the welfare system, liberlas believe that the root of the problem lies in the lack of support for the poor resulting in economic hardship. Liberals focus more on changing the welfare policy, while conservatives were more concerned with the lack of values and morals among the poor.
Earlier welfare reforms did essentially nothing to help manage employment, subsidize childcare, or to include poor fathers. The majority of welfare recipients were unsatisfied with the old system and promoted change in the new policy. The new system focuses on reforming support for the poor and improving their benefits. Reforms debate over self-sufficiency and family values as the main problem of welfare.
The welfare reform helps us realize that there is an unfair stigma of visions of commitment and values to work ethic. Our values of welfare are closely linked to our family values and place moral distinction on who deserves to be poor and who does not.
4. According to Block, Korteweg and Woodward, how do countries such as Norway understand poverty? And what is the prevailing theory of why poor people are poor in the United States? How does this theory operate as a self-fulfilling prophecy? According to the authors, what can we do to make American Dream more accessible to the poor?
People in other countries understand poverty by providing them with more assistance and provide them with more governmental support. As a result, "the probability of living in poverty is more than twice as high for a child born in the United States that for a child in Belgium, Germany, or the Netherlands" (17). The root of their support is in the belief that poverty is not a result of bad behavior but the result of economic and social structures. On the contrary, the United States encompasses the misconception that poverty is a result of personal misfortunes and failure, a state of living that can be avoided through working. Our country fails to account for the structural problems that cause poverty and focus more on producing acts and policies that criticize and monitor welfare rather than preventing poverty. In addition, this theory opperates as a self-fulling prophecy in the misconception that since the poor got themselves into the mess, they can get themselves out. This fails to account for the decrease hope for the poor to reach the attainable American Dream. In order to revive the American Dream among this population, Block, Korteweg, and Woodward propose that in order to issue a change the United States must be educated on poverty and how it undermines our values and compassion not to help or even worse to deny it. New policies are needed in addition to more universal healthcare, childcare, and a more substantial and higher quality education programs. We need to focus on helping the poverty rather than condemning them to their own unfortunate fate.

5. According to Clawson and Gerstel, how can we improve the child care system in the U.S.?
Clawson and Gerstel argue that the child care system within the United States can be improved drastically. Overall, the child care system is rated as either poor or mediocore and families low in funds desperately try to scrape together what little money they have in order to provide their child with more substantial care. In turn, this impedes their financial growth and often times puts the parents' jobs and well-being at stake. In order to turn the system into a high quality care entity, Clawson and Gerstel suggest that the programs be publicly funded and universal, thus, lowering the cost to minimal or free. Staff would be paid the same as public school teachers to entice workers to the system and care would cover the time of school and after-school programs would also be availabe for children of parents who work longer hours. All of these changes would increase the rate of participation and lower parents' "ambivalence" to the program because quality of care would be high.