poor people should not have children!

Hey, hey, Jai...Thats probably not true

 

It's not a crime as long as if you are able to work and support yuourself you are doing so. I have no problem supporting mentaly ill, physically ill or recently divorced mothers who cannot collect child support, but are working their asses off in college or trying to find a job.
I have a huge problem supporting people who just don't want to work or think they are too artistic or fragile to work. Get over it and join society. Stop making babies you can't support.

 

I know it's not 100 percent effective or as effective as the pill, but it has worked great for us. But, if we get pregnant, that is okay too. I gain a lot of weight on birth control and am allergic to latex and don't like the way non-latex condoms feel, so pulling out is a great option for us.quote=seamonster66;2523206]quote: Ever hear of the "withdrawal system"
pull cock out before u deposit sperm

I hope you are joking, that is not effective[/quote]

 

PROPS!
Perfect example of my point.
My mom left my dad because he was violent. At the time, the goverment would not help her get child support. We lived in low-income housing and were on welfare while she got her degree.
After my mom got her degree she got a great job, bought a nice house in San Diego and donates a lot of money and time to charity to 'pay back' what society gave her.
I agree that welfare is okay if it is an unintentional situation and you are using it as a hand-up, not a hand out.
I do know that I had abortions because I want to raise my kids in a two-parent emotionaly and financialy stable home. I want to be a stay at home mom for the first few years, want to give my kids organic food, nice clothes, live in a nice neighborhood, have a nice yard and home. I want them to go to a good pre-school and for us to have the funds for them to persue any hobbies they choose.
I had all of these things when I was a kid through my grandparents and because my mom used what little money we had to make sure I was educated and well-rounded. My kids deserve no less than every opportunity in the world.
It is selfish to just not try to work and pursue your own laziness or interests while your kids are living in poverty.
props to Mia for making her life happen and being a good role model to her kids while dealing with adversity.

 

that's their choice. Life deals everyone a shitty hand once in awhile. I have had some shit things happen to me, but refuse to let it affect me in anyway that other people have to pay for my choice to play the victim for life and furthermore bring kids into the world and teach them to share the same mentality and sense of entitlement.

 

People should have as much children as they can support.

 

How about as much as the Earth can support? Should've stopped a few billion ago.

 

If thats true, then many people are having children they can not support.

 

No offence, but that might be stating the bleedin' obvious.

 

I know
But If its that obvious, then why do people still do it?

 

:dupe: sounds like Paris Hilton talking ,,, I dont like her

 

Because in some countries they do not have, or can not use protection, due to religion or ignorance.
Also, it does seem no matter where you care to choose, there are people popping them out like rabbits.
With no realisation they will only be able to just manage to support them, with a healthy dose of state benefits.

 

my friend is in a family with seven children, her parents dont have high paying jobs and for a while her mum wasnt working, before that her dad... She got free meals from the school...

 

I think if you took away religion, ignorance, and gave them free protection but left them poor they will still have more children.

 

First off, why?
Persoanlly, I don't believe poverty is an overiding factor in the amount of kids people have.
I'd say first is ignorance, then religeon, then no access to protection.

 

Poverty in the mind or soul especially leads to more desire.
While material poverty (lack of money and belongings) could lead to ignorance or not with some people.
My point is, these people desire more money, better places to live, things to buy..but they cant reach it, the only thing they're capable of having is more children.. to love them, become something they are not, or help them in their underpaid jobs.

 

I'm not quite sure I understand this bit, well I sort of do, but it is a little bit of a catch all.:
"While material poverty (lack of money and belongings) could lead to ignorance or not with some people."


People do have large families to help the wider family, to support itself, and fundamentally they are poor, I'll give you that.
But, then the wider community helps support the community.
That is the ideal. But, very rarely occurs now.
That could also have something to do with religion.

I'd say the places where those in poverty can not achieve what they desire, so the "only thing they're capable of having is more children" - that is ignorance.
And quite possibly "poverty of the mind".
That occurs where there is a unhealthy compulsion, what we might say is the ogre of capitalism.
There is really no fundamental need for this to occur, but it does.
So, personally, I'd discount poverty and insert ignorance.

Poverty is a difficult issue in relation to this, as poverty occurs in countries that if you go 50 miles up the road, people are not in poverty.
Plus, religion interweaves the issues, far too much.
e.g A poor Catholic/Muslim family who live in a industrialised Indian city.

I hope that made atleast a little bit of sense.

 

An example would be a person with little or no money who is more knowledgeable and likes to learn more, than his friend who is also poor but blames his ignorance on the lack of money.

It might be ignorance in most people's eyes, but to me I think it has to do more with desire & voids and how to fill that void..cuz If these people were given free protection methods, I doubt it will stop them from having more kids.
That void might be filled with the desire to be something from nothing (whether they define the being something is having more money or not)
which some might interpret as leaving a legacy in this world in the form of having kids, or the need of love and attachment in result of all the hardships they face, or in many cases in the practical world is to have these kids support the household income and take over the family's farm one day or the traditional family skill.

I guess it hasn't much to do with poverty as much as it does with desire, and as far as ignorance, people since the dawn of their beginning know that sex results in kids, if their religion prevents them from using protection methods or they are totally ignorant about it...
Then I guess if they didnt want kids, they would be reluctant to have sex? or at least attempt to have sex without conceiving (as in anal)?

 

See I told you so.
:leaving:
Seriously.

I see.

If they are religious, do you seriously think they are going to indulge in anal sex? Plus, in many cases it is "the mans right" to have sex with his wife.
She has very little control over her own reproductivity.

To respond to your other points.
The problem is, if we apply both our trails of thought to specifics, we could well be both right.
The difficulty is, our cultures beliefs and standards of living are intermixed.
Even in the most poorest of areas on the globe, there is also tessellated some of the richest areas in the world.
Where there is ignorance there is the capacity to learn (self imposed ignorance).
We have not even taken into account different levels of poverty (abject / relative etc).
That is one of the reasons I have been vague by saying "they" "some" etc.
We would probably need to identify who we are actually talking about, rather than working in generalities.
But even if we are working in generalities, I do appreciate your point.

 

Cheers :cheers2:
I think this might be quite relevant.. Indian woman gives birth at 70