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.
there's a lot of people that believe in abstinence only or if they're married the pull-out method and no not just catholics i know a lot of protestants that feel that way and that's not even bringing up abortion which half the people are anti-abortion so yeah that's why it happens so often or at least part of it and a lot of schools now are only allowed to teach abstinence
But the baby-makers who can't afford their many children don't believe in abstinence --- so that argument is a fail.
If someone wants to be religious (I'm all for it) be religious the whole way and practice abstinence and not fornication. Or be a very good religious person, no sex until marriage and don't get married until you can afford a family. No religion is telling single women to become pregnant and start having babies with men who won't help support them and that they cannot support.
Choosing to have a child when one cannot afford to raise it is selfish and in my opinion, tantamount to child abuse.
But that's what your ancestors did for the past 70,000 years. It's hard to impossible to predict one's circumstances and luck in the forever uncertain world. Until the age of the American right wing social Darwinism (wrapped in religiosity), human race understood that it takes a village to raise a child in the uncertain world. Besides, the words "afford", "choosing", "raise" are rather philosophical concepts far from being set in stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
As far as wanting children, no one has any right to want something and expect others to pay for it.
But you expect healthy people to pay for your health care, don't you? You expect people who never wreck cars to pay for your accidents. You expect younger people to pay your SS and medicare benefits. And so on. How come?
Quote:
Delay the start of a family until you can afford them, wanting something doesn't mean everyone else must see their wages confiscated for your sake.
I would rather pay for a low income 20 something young mother to have a healthy child, it beats paying astronomical NICU bills ($10,000/day +), it beats spending enormous amount of $ on rehabilitation (if possible) and long term care of the permanently disabled children aging mothers tend to give birth to. Even if an aging mother of a premature child has a stable career and insurance, it doesn't make a dent in the social costs required for that child to overcome consequences of a premature birth. Aging, financially stable mothers don't save us any money as a collective.
But the baby-makers who can't afford their many children don't believe in abstinence --- so that argument is a fail.
If someone wants to be religious (I'm all for it) be religious the whole way and practice abstinence and not fornication. Or be a very good religious person, no sex until marriage and don't get married until you can afford a family. No religion is telling single women to become pregnant and start having babies with men who won't help support them and that they cannot support.
but that's what happens if you look at statistics the religious right states have way more unwed teen mothers than other places so it's a fail of religion and it's usually the religious right that you have things like this happening i'm not a liberal by any stretch but i do believe in statistics and living here seeing it in my face all my life we need to teach birth control because unless you're asexual it's normal to be sexual that young my paternal grandmother was married by the time she was 15 and that was normal back then so it's not something new and by 16 or 17 she'd started having babies of course this was the early 1900s but my point is for millennium it wasn't weird so why now
What is wrong with you? Are you dense? Choosing to have a child when one cannot afford to raise it is selfish and in my opinion, tantamount to child abuse.
Moreover, "deserve" is a Liberal weasel word, as it implies entitlement and something owed. Such individuals should have children when they can responsibly support the child, and only then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
But why would a couple decide to start a family if they are living on one income of $8 an hour?
It's almost like you have no knowledge of world history and/or world population..... It's like having children is some sort of biological instinct......
It's like your whole argument and ideology is based on people being perfect and making all the right choices...
It's like your clueless on birth rates in relation to things like socioeconomic status....
But the baby-makers who can't afford their many children don't believe in abstinence --- so that argument is a fail.
If someone wants to be religious (I'm all for it) be religious the whole way and practice abstinence and not fornication. Or be a very good religious person, no sex until marriage and don't get married until you can afford a family. No religion is telling single women to become pregnant and start having babies with men who won't help support them and that they cannot support.
The more religious the country..... the more babies! Look at Catholic and Islamic countries. Geeze.....
Seriously.... Some of y'all need a biology course or something...
It's almost like you have no knowledge of world history and/or world population..... It's like having children is some sort of biological instinct......
It's like your whole argument and ideology is based on people being perfect and making all the right choices...
It's like your clueless on birth rates in relation to things like socioeconomic status....
More parroting. Cite statistics and sources which contradict what I posted before. Anything less and what you stated above amounts to nothing more than sophomoric ad hominems.
More parroting. Cite statistics and sources which contradict what I posted before. Anything less and what you stated above amounts to nothing more than sophomoric ad hominems.
Cite statistics and sources for sex being a biological function?
Cite statistics and sources birth rates for different socioeconomic classes?
Do you think people with higher education and income have less sex than their counterparts?
I am simply calling out your silly "personal responsibility" ideology as silly and unrealistic.
Birthrates in US fall and rise with the economy. People will have babies regardless (albeit at a lower rate during harder economic times), difference being we in a time where jobs are scarce and wages flat. If you want to take the position of punishing for carrying out biological functions that history proves will go on regardless of war, poverty, calamity, etc., then by all means take that position. Some people believe it is worth the cost to society to education and provide contraceptives to prevent pregnancies and aid when the child is born.
Cite statistics and sources for sex being a biological function?
Cite statistics and sources birth rates for different socioeconomic classes?
Do you think people with higher education and income have less sex than their counterparts?
I am simply calling out your silly "personal responsibility" ideology as silly and unrealistic.
Birthrates in US fall and rise with the economy. People will have babies regardless (albeit at a lower rate during harder economic times), difference being we in a time where jobs are scarce and wages flat. If you want to take the position of punishing for carrying out biological functions that history proves will go on regardless of war, poverty, calamity, etc., then by all means take that position. Some people believe it is worth the cost to society to education and provide contraceptives to prevent pregnancies and aid when the child is born.
Expecting individuals to take personal responsibility for their actions is not silly. If you really believe that it is, you have a screw loose.
Expecting individuals to take personal responsibility for their actions is not silly. If you really believe that it is, you have a screw loose.
The concept of personal responsibility needs to be elaborated, especially the cases when it's applied to the folks up the food chain. The concept is not as obvious as it sounds. Boil it down and what's left - slavish acceptance of the social conditions imposed on the lower classes by the guys up the food chain who take no responsibility for anything, no matter the screw ups. Lower classes are invited to escape their class by the power of the individual rat race, it's all it takes to capitalize on ever-present opportunity. Collective action of any kind to improve the lot of people as a whole is an abomination, and it's a crime against personal responsibility.
The concept of personal responsibility needs to be elaborated, especially the cases when it's applied to the folks up the food chain.
This thread is about the economic impact of the end of SNAP ("Food Stamps"). Any deviation is a red herring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee
The concept is not as obvious as it sounds. Boil it down and what's left - slavish acceptance of the social conditions imposed on the lower classes by the guys up the food chain who take no responsibility for anything, no matter the screw ups.
Indulging this absurd assertion for a moment, the "slavish acceptance of imposed social conditions" does not have to include making one's lot worse. Indeed, based on that assertion, engaging in life-changing activities without sufficiently planning for, or mitigating their potential consequences would risk further enslavement. Making a choice to engage in activities that risk having unwanted children is an example.
The assertion also implies that those who are in lower socioeconomic classes are somehow helpless and dumb, and therefore individuals in higher socioeconomic class are somehow "responsible" for the choices made by those in a lower socioeconomic class. The mere suggestion of this is absurd, and disingenuous to the intelligence and potential of those who happen to be in a lower socioeconomic class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee
Lower classes are invited to escape their class by the power of the individual rat race, it's all it takes to capitalize on ever-present opportunity. Collective action of any kind to improve the lot of people as a whole is an abomination, and it's a crime against personal responsibility.
Collective action(s) of any kind to improve the lot of people as a whole is only an abomination, and it's only a crime against personal responsibility if it is undertaken or implemented such that it removes individual accountability for one's actions, or encourages indefinite dependency on such collective action(s).
Individuals can still receive collective action(s) to improve their lot, and still take personal responsibility and accept accountability for their actions. People everyday finally pay off their student loans.
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.
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.
