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.
You're certainly right about farming. I've lived and worked on a couple of small farms myself. That is indeed a significant piece of the puzzle and I don't see the problem being solved anytime soon. In the meantime, however, these towns will have to develop their non-agricultural economies in order to survive.
Yes. Do the bolded, and the problem will solve itself. Contraception has bugger-all to do with it.
If the families had had more children, the children, along with the sacrifices, may have had the opposite effect you are suggesting. More stressors on a family, and the expense of children is a stressor, can cause the dissolution of a family, or cause the family to move to an urban area where the family has a better chance of meeting its financial needs. Your proposal could possibly lead to even greater erosion of rural populations.
I really think the economy and outsourcing has a lot to do with declining birth rates. Who wants to have children they can't afford to feed? Oh wait...welfare recipients. Everyone else is using contraception.
There are not "plenty", 2mares, else rural America wouldn't be steadily losing population. The fact that rural areas must rely on illegal immigration to sustain their economies only disguises the magnitude of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
I'll put it this way: rural America is being contracepted into oblivion. If you live in a small town or rural area, and if by "choice" you are refusing to have more than the standard 1.9 children per couple, you're a big part of the problem.
I live in rural america. Yes, there are plenty. The local populations are being replaced by illegal immigrants and retirees. I dont believe the undocumented show up in the statistics. Family farms are being replaced with large expensive developments and gated communities. There is not much money to be made in small family farming, but developers will pay inflated prices for rural land. Factories, like Tyson, hire mostly alien immigrants or use temp services. Construction and ag. jobs are being replaced by alien immigrants not because we are being contracepted into oblivion but because they can/will work at starvation wages with no benefits. Many of the local youth cant afford to stay and raise families.
What you have is increased competition for decreased jobs. A large part of small town employees sending their money over the boarder. Money that is not spent in the community. Increased home and land prices due to developers inflating prices.
You cant really have the majority of local children stay in the rural area they were born. Soon it would no longer be rural but would probably be inbred. My town’s population of~2,500 has remained roughly the same over the past 30 yrs. The diversity and economic base have changed tho.
I really think the economy and outsourcing has a lot to do with declining birth rates. Who wants to have children they can't afford to feed? Oh wait...welfare recipients. Everyone else is using contraception.
I believe there are over 15K kids in Texas alone, needing foster/adoptive care. About 6K of them are ready to find home. These people against "contraception" should stop whining and consider adopting rather than displaying desire to procreate like cats.
I believe there are over 15K kids in Texas alone, needing foster/adoptive care. About 6K of them are ready to find home. These people against "contraception" should stop whining and consider adopting rather than displaying desire to procreate like cats.
There are better ways. How about public policies that reward marriage and discourage conceiving children out of wedlock? It would help if our schools weren't totally amoral cesspools. Back in the day many states had laws against fornication. Maybe we ought to take a second look at these ...
There are better ways. How about public policies that reward marriage and discourage conceiving children out of wedlock? It would help if our schools weren't totally amoral cesspools. Back in the day many states had laws against fornication. Maybe we ought to take a second look at these ...
Poor assumption on your part that these kids are out of wedlock. Stop making excuses. If these kids can't find home, why promote the idea for more kids? Do these kids not deserve home?
Poor assumption on your part that these kids are out of wedlock. Stop making excuses.
Uh, no. I tried looking up stats and couldn't find anything recent. The latest was 1975 in which 73% of foster children were from single parent households. I'm sure it's much worse today. This information appears to be deliberately suppressed. My guess is that it's now somewhere in the 85%-90% range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
If these kids can't find home, why promote the idea for more kids? Do these kids not deserve home?
Yes, they deserve a home. And that's what foster parents are doing: giving them a home. Many would adopt if they could, and indeed I know several loving families who have adopted out of foster care.
But your thinking is completely wrong. If some children are born into bad situations, how does it follow that more children should not be born into good situations?
Uh, no. I tried looking up stats and couldn't find anything recent. The latest was 1975 in which 73% of foster children were from single parent households. I'm sure it's much worse today. This information appears to be deliberately suppressed. My guess is that it's now somewhere in the 85%-90% range.
Yes, they deserve a home. And that's what foster parents are doing: giving them a home. Many would adopt if they could, and indeed I know several loving families who have adopted out of foster care.
But your thinking is completely wrong. If some children are born into bad situations, how does it follow that more children should not be born into good situations?
Don't make arguments based on wildly biased guesswork. Foster care is not "home". Adopt before you whine about shortage of kids.
Poor assumption on your part that these kids are out of wedlock.
We can certainly make some inferences here. Children are removed from their homes and placed in foster care for a variety of reasons, one of them being abuse/neglect. Children living with an unmarried parent are at much higher risk for abuse. Consider the following:
" ... the NIS–4 classified children into six categories: living with two married biological parents, living with other married parents (e.g., step-parent, adoptive parent), living with two unmarried parents, living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the household, living with one parent who had no partner in the household, and living with no parent. The groups differed in rates of every maltreatment category and across both definitional standards. Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories. Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect."
We can certainly make some inferences here. Children are removed from their homes and placed in foster care for a variety of reasons, one of them being abuse/neglect. Children living with an unmarried parent are at much higher risk for abuse. Consider the following:
" ... the NIS–4 classified children into six categories: living with two married biological parents, living with other married parents (e.g., step-parent, adoptive parent), living with two unmarried parents, living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the household, living with one parent who had no partner in the household, and living with no parent. The groups differed in rates of every maltreatment category and across both definitional standards. Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories. Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect."
And I'm sure contraception is a problem for all this.
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.
Everyone else is using contraception.
