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.
As I said before, the phenomenon of poor women having more kids than rich women goes back centuries, if not millennia.
Centuries and millennia ago, there was no welfare or any other kind of public assistance. Yet, poor women still had more babies than rich women.
I don't believe that's true. Wealthy people use to have large families in the past too. People of all classes use to have more children on average, but the important thing is they had support their own.
As I said before, the phenomenon of poor women having more kids than rich women goes back centuries, if not millennia.
Centuries and millennia ago, there was no welfare or any other kind of public assistance. Yet, poor women still had more babies than rich women.
Agree. And again, all discussion has been aimed at poor women, never at poor men who are equally responsible for their behavior and should be held equally accountable for the outcome.
I don't believe that's true. Wealthy people use to have large families in the past too. People of all classes use to have more children on average, but the important thing is they had support their own.
Yes, wealthy people in the past often did have lots of kids. But so too do wealthy people now (see link above). And yes, everybody had more kids back then. But poor people still averaged more.
Both poor men and poor women have had many children long before public assistance and will continue to do so without it.
In the past children earned their keep from a very young age. It's a whole different dynamic today, where children are just an expense without welfare, and irresponsible women on welfare improve their economic condition through having children.
Yes, wealthy people in the past often did have lots of kids. But so too do wealthy people now (see link above). And yes, everybody had more kids back then. But poor people still averaged more.
What I'm saying is often the best people, the middle class, responsible and intelligent aren't having kids who would turn out to be more like the parents, but the stay at home welfare moms are because they're being subsidized.
Both poor men and poor women have had many children long before public assistance and will continue to do so without it.
Yet people who dont qualify for assistance put off having children due to the expense, plan and save before conceiving. I bet many would go ahead and conceive if they knew they didnt have to pay for it. Some couples put off marriage so the state can pay the cost of medical care throughout the pregnancy and hospital bills for the birth.
Long before public assistance it didn't cost $10,000 to get a child from the womb to born. Many women had midwives and home births especially in rural areas and prenatal services were often non existant. And once upon a time people with little means made payments on their medical bills.
What I'm saying is often the best people, the middle class, responsible and intelligent aren't having kids who would turn out to be more like the parents, but the stay at home welfare moms are because they're being subsidized.
We just pointed out that they aren't having more kids because they're being subsidized, because poor people were having more kids even before the concept of pubic subsidies of the poor existed. Poor people tend to have more kids because they're poor. It's just what poor people do, going back centuries or even millennia.
Agree. And again, all discussion has been aimed at poor women, never at poor men who are equally responsible for their behavior and should be held equally accountable for the outcome.
How do you propose a man be held accountable for the woman's medical expenses? He is held financially accountable once a child is born and paternity is established.
We just pointed out that they aren't having more kids because they're being subsidized, because poor people were having more kids even before the concept of pubic subsidies of the poor existed. Poor people tend to have more kids because they're poor. It's just what poor people do, going back centuries or even millennia.
And we just pointed out how you're wrong.
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.
