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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.