Welfare bonanza: 72 births per 1,000 single women in poverty compared to 15 per 1,000 single women at 400% plus poverty

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by bpollen

Middle class women have sex in non-committed, casual relationships that aren't love. That's not the purpose of this thread...just to trash on women for doing what nature does.

Contraceptives are not free. Planned Parenthood used to be more helpful in this area, but with funding cuts, not to the extent it used to be. The contraceptives cost money. Poor women have to have the money to buy contraceptives regularly & consistently. For those who work, companies are allowed to opt out of providing birth control coverage, for religious reasons. Medicaid, the health care for those in poverty, provides some sort of assistance for certain types....it seems to vary. THAT WAS MY POINT. Poor people have much more difficulty regularly & consistently being able to get birth control, compared to people with money.

Also, as I mentioned, there are mental issues involved. Some people are poor because they have emotional or mental issues, as their parents did. They aren't equipped to handle life's challenges in the same way as well adjusted people. For instance, a neglected child growing up is more apt to want a child subconsciously. Someone to love her unconditionally. This is a big factor, IMO, because I've run across it. So birth control isn't the issue with her.

There is more drug use among the poor. Drug use affects other types of behavior, of course. Birth control isn't the issue in these cases, either.

When you're talking about out of wedlock births or abortion among the poor, you might as well talk about alcoholism, drug use, crime, emotional and mental issues, etc. Since they are all connected.

But I, for one, don't condemn anyone for having sex, since that is part of nature, and most people do.

Women have been getting pregnant since the beginning of humans, and will continue to do so. Try as we might to fight nature, most can't fight it 100% of the time. Because it's part of our nature. The world is overpopulated, and climate change is upon us. We still continue to add more people to the world, a world that increasingly can't sustain the humans in it. But that's what humans do, I guess.

There are exceptions to every rule but in general many poor people are having kids they can't afford to feed. If you can't feed em then don't breed em. Stop making excuses for irrational behavior just because of sexual urges. I do condemn people for having unprotected sex if they can't afford a pregnancy, birth and the ensuing costs of raising a child. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

We can change things by not granting welfare to the poor, those who have mental problems, drug users etc. who keep having more and more kids. If they can afford drugs then why can't they afford birth control? If it takes sterilization to do so then so be it. Seems harsh but what else can we do?

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

It is your assumption they have too many babies in purpose.

The question is how to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Some countries have had way more success then US, and we would do well to learn from their approach. Unfortunately, the trend in US is to make the situation even worse by closing down family planning clinics. It's almost as if people insist on making things worse so they'd have something to complain about.

People complain when women choose to not have a baby and abort it, and they complain even louder when the woman chooses to have the baby, and then they close down family planning clinics so women have less contraceptives and more babies.

Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control. Birth control should happen prior to sex.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

At least they are having (future tax payers) babies ... as opposed to those who decided they could not afford them. The government should be pleased ... Honestly if money is the reason to have a baby ... just stop.

Baby Boom to Baby Bust – The Crisis in Socialism

"There is a real crisis in the fertility rate which has fallen to such a low level that all the socialism going forward will simply collapse. What used to be the Baby Boom is now being called the “Baby Bust,” which means that in all first-world countries there is a real crisis for they have insufficient children to maintain their population size. This has been one excuse for allowing the refugees into Europe. As the population dwindles, all the social programs are collapsing for they were NEVER designed properly from the outset. They are based on a Ponzi scheme where they rely on taxing a growing younger population to service the benefits of the older generation. This was the entire scheme behind Obamacare. Force the youth to buy insurance they do not need to reduce the cost for the elderly."

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

^^^^^^^^^ This!

Success, in nature, is defined in turns of reproduction numbers. Often time a species needs to reproduce often when life expectancy is short, to ensure the propagation of the species/bloodline. Hence, biologically there is a tendency to reproduce more the greater the threat of low life expectancy. It seems counter intuitive, but no more so than charging people who have trouble paying their bills higher interest rates. Would not the higher monthly cost, due to the higher interest rate, make them even more likely not to be able to pay it? Ergo, if adults are having trouble surviving, would not more mouths to feed make it even less likely that people survive?

Nature knows best, even though we think we know better. Propagation of the species/bloodline is the prime directive. Whatever the existential threat is, nature seems to believe that if you produce enough offspring that one of those offspring will have a mutation that allows the bloodline/species to adapt and overcome the threat. The truth is, it really makes sense, biologically, for the poor to have more children than the rich because the life expectancy of the poor is usually lower than that of the rich. Any species that has a really long life expectancy tends to have a low birth rate and species that have low life expectancy have high birth rates.

I think the fertility rate of the poor is not alarming, biologically. I think the WARNING are with those groups and demographics where the fertility rate has fallen below the replacement rate of 2.1 births. Groups that have fallen below replacement are "Sick" biologically. Something is out of order. Extinction will be the result of the trend if it continues. Hence, its not the behavior of the poor that we need to be looking at for correction.....but rather, the behavior of the demographics that have been below the replacement rate for sometime.

I like the nature approach to this, because let's face it, we are all animals in the animal kingdom with man being of the highest in the chain, as man has 'enhanced' reasoning abilities, the other animals do not. Could be the lower vs higher birth rate boils down to primal instincts. And you do make an impelling argument.

I've been on c-d for like forever and I recall a thread that, well basically is the one that researching (first time ever, about 10 years back) out to make a counter argument threw me into looking at birth rate data. (been following it since) I came back to that thread and said like you've done here 'extinction' possible one any way ... and they were all like 'are you kidding me?, people are not going extinct ... ever.' Anyway one article I came across used the word phenomenon in it and said CDC will be looking into falling births. Now that was years back ... I kept looking for an a-ha report of the CDC, well that never happened.

Basically what I find; they're take on it is developing countries vs undeveloped (poor vs rich) choices in their culture, lifestyles, values and principles. I have yet to find anyone address our primal instincts to survive by the numbers. Until now.




Face it, we don't call them ancient civilizations, because they still exist in modern day. Just a thought ...