Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-07-2013, 05:42 PM
 
2,085 posts, read 2,140,507 times
Reputation: 3498

Advertisements

They not only get pregnant by lowlife men, they actually choose to give birth to the children of lowlife men also, despite a myriad of post-conception alternatives. This is a conscious decision that cant simply be blamed on being lost in the heat of the moment, and nor can the fact that they made the decision to actually bear a child that they, nor the man they selected can entirely care for be blamed on that man...Its her body, and her choice to actually bear a child.. Which crosses territory into negligence if you ask me, if she fails to make a decision that would prevent the child from being financially underserved, both before and after the pregnancy is known. I believe both parties should be held equally responsible for A) not selecting a suitable mother/father for their potential offspring B) Not taking precautions to avoid pregnancy [whether that be contraception, condoms, IUD's/nuvaring, or sterilization for whichever partner doesnt want the responsibility of a child.]. However once both parties have failed to do each of those things, the woman is the only one who can prevent bearing the child of a lowlife [this may include the mother herself or only the father - and sometimes both] that wont be taken care of sufficiently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2013, 07:03 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,260,372 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945 View Post
Why is it always the female who has to carry the responsibility of population control. I suggest that reversible vasectomies be perfected and simplified. Then mandate that ALL boys have one that is turned to OFF at puberty. It doesn't get turned back to ON until he can prove that he is capable of supporting a child.

A woman can produce one child per year. A man can father dozens. It only makes sense to mandate birth control for the gender that can do the most damage.
Vasectomies aren't really reversible though. While some can be reversed a significant chunk won't be successful. RISUG is the male BC in development right now, but that isn't going to be a magic bullet either. Even if you had 100% participation rate from teenage men it just takes 1 guy to not participate and he can get 100's of women pregnant. Conversely if you can get 100% of women to participate then you might have 1 get pregnant. 1 pregnancy vs 100 pregnancies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2013, 07:19 PM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
20,126 posts, read 16,153,979 times
Reputation: 28335
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick2dascript View Post
The amount of women staring in a mirror taking pictures on a iPhone is crazy.
Yeah, and I've got to say, I do not get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2013, 07:21 PM
 
24,488 posts, read 41,134,517 times
Reputation: 12920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
Yeah, and I've got to say, I do not get it.
It's typical for an old hag and a younger individual to not understand each-other's social behavior. There's many factors that come into play.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2013, 07:22 PM
 
24,488 posts, read 41,134,517 times
Reputation: 12920
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Well maybe we need to wait for them to graduate HS and maybe get a job ?
Allowance doesn't go very far these days.
Are you suggesting that teenage pregnancy is the problem?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2013, 07:46 PM
 
Location: USA
5,738 posts, read 5,442,133 times
Reputation: 3669
"I would submit that marriage would solve virtually every economic issue facing this country."

Marriage as an economic driver? I couldn't go on after this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2013, 07:48 PM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
20,126 posts, read 16,153,979 times
Reputation: 28335
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
Are you suggesting that teenage pregnancy is the problem?
Ya' think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2013, 07:50 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,464,288 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
Are you suggesting that teenage pregnancy is the problem?
They can still be in HS at 20 my friend. We're not talking about the smartest nails in the box here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2013, 08:24 PM
 
1,880 posts, read 2,308,561 times
Reputation: 1480
Junkland: 8 Myths About "Welfare Queens", Debunked
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2013, 08:36 PM
 
Location: Flippin AR
5,513 posts, read 5,239,859 times
Reputation: 6243
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
"I would submit that marriage would solve virtually every economic issue facing this country."

Marriage as an economic driver? I couldn't go on after this.
Unfortunately, marriage does not solve the problem of children born to those who cannot support them (either one or two people). We really have to get off this ridiculous idea that every woman has to have kids.

Children are no longer an asset or an investment--we don't live in an agricultural economy that needs endless workers helping on the family farm. We live in an economy in decline due to fundamental causes (loss of manufacturing, oversupply of labor), and nothing is going to change. Consequently, children are not going to do even as well as their parents--and for the vast number of children born today, their parents are not doing well at all.

We cannot simply continue to subsidize poor mothers with tax dollars. They already have a large incentive to have children, since they have little money with which to enjoy life, and think that a baby will give them love and a purpose in life. Adding a financial incentive to have children is insane.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:37 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top