Having sex is a natural biological function...having children is a financial decision (or should be).
NOT!
This implies that only people who are financially stable should consider having children. Many rich people (at least the very rich) have demonstrated that they are terrible parents that their children are monsters. Just look at Ozzy's kids.
Are these children "better" or more valuable to our society? Agruably some of the greatest minds in history came from very poor and disadvantaged backgrounds.
Do you really want a world full of Kelly or Jack Osbournes? Finace shoud be a consideration in anything you do....but people should not be made second class citizens because they find themselves with children and debt...
Birth isn't a biological function but sex is???? That is the twisted thinking that leaves us with so many single mothers...
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- Guest
RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them
Flygirlhels: When your life consists of more than "oh my gawd, I love to dance dance dance with my girlfriends!" then maybe your opinions will be taken seriously.
Completely uncalled for and I find your view that my entire life must be similar to and based upon limited leisure activities on sparse occasions incredibily ignorant and childish....
I completely understand the social system and am against it... part of the reason I no longer live in the United Kingdom as their system is much more socialist than that of the United States....
While I am sure my degree in economics is nothing but trivial knowledge and obviously allows me no intelligence due to my partaking in leisure activities, as you have said, my view that I should not have to subsidize people to produce what is to many of them little more than a new toy of the moment is one founded in thought. I do not wish to fund occurances that I do not agree with and wish that all would have the proper education and means to not have to rely on abusing the system to stumble through life. I believe it to be irresponsible to bring a child into the world if one cannot afford to provide for it. However, that is a problem of the family, not the taxpayer. Darwinism is good.
Completely uncalled for and I find your view that my entire life must be similar to and based upon limited leisure activities on sparse occasions incredibily ignorant and childish....
I completely understand the social system and am against it... part of the reason I no longer live in the United Kingdom as their system is much more socialist than that of the United States....
While I am sure my degree in economics is nothing but trivial knowledge and obviously allows me no intelligence due to my partaking in leisure activities, as you have said, my view that I should not have to subsidize people to produce what is to many of them little more than a new toy of the moment is one founded in thought. I do not wish to fund occurances that I do not agree with and wish that all would have the proper education and means to not have to rely on abusing the system to stumble through life. I believe it to be irresponsible to bring a child into the world if one cannot afford to provide for it. However, that is a problem of the family, not the taxpayer. Darwinism is good.
RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them
I do not wish to fund occurances that I do not agree with and wish that all would have the proper education and means to not have to rely on abusing the system to stumble through life. I believe it to be irresponsible to bring a child into the world if one cannot afford to provide for it. However, that is a problem of the family, not the taxpayer. Darwinism is good.
Well it would be nice if everyone had the "proper education" -- but it's good to know there are people out there willing to help those who stumble instead of sterilize them.
As long as we're creating a master race, why don't we make them bright, bouncy, blonde flight attendants....(Ok, you might be onto something flygirlhes!)
Well it would be nice if everyone had the "proper education" -- but it's good to know there are people out there willing to help those who stumble instead of sterilize them.
As long as we're creating a master race, why don't we make them bright, bouncy, blonde flight attendants....(Ok, you might be onto something flygirlhes!)
Snap, Krackle, and Pop are thinly veiled emblems for the Trilateral Commission.
RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them
This implies that only people who are financially stable should consider having children.
That's absolutely correct. You don't buy a house or a car unless you can afford to make the payments do you? Raising a child is the greatest responsibility a person can have, and I think that it is entirely reasonable to ask one's self, "Am I mentally and physically ready to deal with this responsibility for the next 20 years?", and "Will my expected income over that period allow me to raise him/her properly?".
Having children is a natural biological function.
We are human beings, and supposedly the difference between humans and other animals is that we are capable of reasoned thought. Any reasonable person should and would ask themselves those 2 questions I listed. But if society rewards (or at least provides compensation for) irrational behavior, such as having children when the answer to one or both of the above questions is "No", then we have a major problem of society actively encouraging people to act irrationally. If it was not for the existence of welfare benefits for children, you can be certain that many or perhaps even most of those parents (especially single mothers) would take more steps to ensure that they do not have kids until they are ready for them.
Do you really want a world full of Kelly or Jack Osbournes?
LOL!!! There is no question that those two are not very likely to be standing up on a stage one day saying, "I would like to thank the Nobel Academy...". But you have to admit that that is a VERY, VERY unusual family. It's Ozzy, for chrissakes!!! Those genes have gone through a chemical cocktail that, if the Iraq WMD search team took a look, they could report, "We have found out where all of Saddam's chem/bio materials have gone. Ozzy smoked it all."
But I think they are more the exception than the rule. I would propose to you that the kids who grow up in "Welfare homes" and who end up making a decent career for themselves, finishing university, and/or starting their own business, is likewise the exception rather than the rule.
Well it would be nice if everyone had the "proper education" -- but it's good to know there are people out there willing to help those who stumble instead of sterilize them.
First of all who said anything about sterilization? That would imply that their condition of poverty is permanent and that there is nothing that they could ever do to get out of it.
Which brings me to your second point. We are not talking about people who "stumble". Just about everyone has stumbled, including me. You loose your job and have to tighten the belt for a little while. You look for another job and eventually you get back on your feet.
What we are talking about are not those who stumble, but those who have never stood up on their own (a pre-requisite for stumbling), and who have no serious intention of even getting out of the chair. Perhaps the threat of never being able to raise a kid in such a condition might wake them up to the fact that they need to go out and get (and then keep) a job, since there is of course that natural urge to reproduce.
Charles
[Edited 2004-01-24 12:35:41]
That's absolutely correct. You don't buy a house or a car unless you can afford to make the payments do you? Raising a child is the greatest responsibility a person can have, and I think that it is entirely reasonable to ask one's self, "Am I mentally and physically ready to deal with this responsibility for the next 20 years?", and "Will my expected income over that period allow me to raise him/her properly?".
Having children is a natural biological function.
We are human beings, and supposedly the difference between humans and other animals is that we are capable of reasoned thought. Any reasonable person should and would ask themselves those 2 questions I listed. But if society rewards (or at least provides compensation for) irrational behavior, such as having children when the answer to one or both of the above questions is "No", then we have a major problem of society actively encouraging people to act irrationally. If it was not for the existence of welfare benefits for children, you can be certain that many or perhaps even most of those parents (especially single mothers) would take more steps to ensure that they do not have kids until they are ready for them.
Do you really want a world full of Kelly or Jack Osbournes?
LOL!!! There is no question that those two are not very likely to be standing up on a stage one day saying, "I would like to thank the Nobel Academy...". But you have to admit that that is a VERY, VERY unusual family. It's Ozzy, for chrissakes!!! Those genes have gone through a chemical cocktail that, if the Iraq WMD search team took a look, they could report, "We have found out where all of Saddam's chem/bio materials have gone. Ozzy smoked it all."
But I think they are more the exception than the rule. I would propose to you that the kids who grow up in "Welfare homes" and who end up making a decent career for themselves, finishing university, and/or starting their own business, is likewise the exception rather than the rule.
Well it would be nice if everyone had the "proper education" -- but it's good to know there are people out there willing to help those who stumble instead of sterilize them.
First of all who said anything about sterilization? That would imply that their condition of poverty is permanent and that there is nothing that they could ever do to get out of it.
Which brings me to your second point. We are not talking about people who "stumble". Just about everyone has stumbled, including me. You loose your job and have to tighten the belt for a little while. You look for another job and eventually you get back on your feet.
What we are talking about are not those who stumble, but those who have never stood up on their own (a pre-requisite for stumbling), and who have no serious intention of even getting out of the chair. Perhaps the threat of never being able to raise a kid in such a condition might wake them up to the fact that they need to go out and get (and then keep) a job, since there is of course that natural urge to reproduce.
Charles
[Edited 2004-01-24 12:35:41]
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them
The fact that we intelligent segment of society sit around agonizing over the economics of having children while the less informed segment (stupid and/or poor people) go ahead and reproduce, may be the reason that (as our extreme right friend YYZ717 says) the "white" race isn't replacing itself at a reasonable rate...
Human reproduction isn't a process that was developed in a board room. It is a process that has been perfected over eons of evolution. Just as it was a billion years ago, the fittest survive and pass their genes on.
Now...who's genes would you rather return to the gene pool? Kelly and Jack's or Einstein's? And what process would you like to use to control evolution? Natural selection or economics?
I think Darwin is spinning in his grave...
Human reproduction isn't a process that was developed in a board room. It is a process that has been perfected over eons of evolution. Just as it was a billion years ago, the fittest survive and pass their genes on.
Now...who's genes would you rather return to the gene pool? Kelly and Jack's or Einstein's? And what process would you like to use to control evolution? Natural selection or economics?
I think Darwin is spinning in his grave...
RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them
But what does natural selection mean for the human race, a race without any natural enemies (except itself, arguably)?
It means what it has meant for eons, as you say. The natural course of human nature will have each woman give birth to a far greater number of children than is necessary for strict replacement of the population. The result is an exhausting of resources.
For example, in many parts of the world there are still large numbers of deer, but man has driven away or killed most of their natural enemies, like wolves. As a result, the deer population explodes, and when winter comes in, there is not enough food to feed all of the deer throughout the winter, and very few survive. So hunting licences are granted in the fall to cull off the excess population (maybe 5-15%) so that the remaining ones have enough food for the winter.
In the case of deer, it is man that spoiled the natural flow, by killing off the predators. In the case of mankind, it is again man itself which has upset the balance of nature. Medical advances now make sure that not only do people live a lit longer, but children that would have been naturally culled out of the population by diseases such as polio, malaria, or smallpox, or plague now survive to reproduce (the weaker links, perhaps, genetically speaking). As a result, the diseases that used to keep the population growth to reasonable rates no longer serve that function. Result, population explosion - particlularly among the poorest classes, which have always had a lot of children in order to have them help out on the farm etc, and who traditionally had access to no health care at all.
In addition, the world no longer has wars like it used to. There used to be a big war every few years that would wipe out large percentages of the population, thus also keeping the population in check. Now that nuclear weapons exist, nations are afraid to allow a war to happen, so for the past 50 years, we have had a few minor conflicts, but no massive ones that take out 20% of a continent.
So it is the ultimate irony that mankind's advances in medicine and the institutionalization of regular diplomatic channels to be used instead of war will eventually result in mankind exceeding the capacity of the plannet to provide for it. Unless something is doe, in the next 100 years or so we will ses mass famins of a sort undrempt up of today. We are talking about billions of deaths from hunger.
Now...who's genes would you rather return to the gene pool? Kelly and Jack's or Einstein's? And what process would you like to use to control evolution? Natural selection or economics?
Did Eistein's parents depend on welfare? No? Then there is hardly a reason to bring him up. Clearly his parents were capable of handling the job.
As far as Kelly and Jack, they are bad examples. They are freaks, which is why they are on TV and the rest of us are not.
Charles
It means what it has meant for eons, as you say. The natural course of human nature will have each woman give birth to a far greater number of children than is necessary for strict replacement of the population. The result is an exhausting of resources.
For example, in many parts of the world there are still large numbers of deer, but man has driven away or killed most of their natural enemies, like wolves. As a result, the deer population explodes, and when winter comes in, there is not enough food to feed all of the deer throughout the winter, and very few survive. So hunting licences are granted in the fall to cull off the excess population (maybe 5-15%) so that the remaining ones have enough food for the winter.
In the case of deer, it is man that spoiled the natural flow, by killing off the predators. In the case of mankind, it is again man itself which has upset the balance of nature. Medical advances now make sure that not only do people live a lit longer, but children that would have been naturally culled out of the population by diseases such as polio, malaria, or smallpox, or plague now survive to reproduce (the weaker links, perhaps, genetically speaking). As a result, the diseases that used to keep the population growth to reasonable rates no longer serve that function. Result, population explosion - particlularly among the poorest classes, which have always had a lot of children in order to have them help out on the farm etc, and who traditionally had access to no health care at all.
In addition, the world no longer has wars like it used to. There used to be a big war every few years that would wipe out large percentages of the population, thus also keeping the population in check. Now that nuclear weapons exist, nations are afraid to allow a war to happen, so for the past 50 years, we have had a few minor conflicts, but no massive ones that take out 20% of a continent.
So it is the ultimate irony that mankind's advances in medicine and the institutionalization of regular diplomatic channels to be used instead of war will eventually result in mankind exceeding the capacity of the plannet to provide for it. Unless something is doe, in the next 100 years or so we will ses mass famins of a sort undrempt up of today. We are talking about billions of deaths from hunger.
Now...who's genes would you rather return to the gene pool? Kelly and Jack's or Einstein's? And what process would you like to use to control evolution? Natural selection or economics?
Did Eistein's parents depend on welfare? No? Then there is hardly a reason to bring him up. Clearly his parents were capable of handling the job.
As far as Kelly and Jack, they are bad examples. They are freaks, which is why they are on TV and the rest of us are not.
Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
RE: Can't Afford Kids? Don't Have Them
Did Eistein's parents depend on welfare? No? Then there is hardly a reason to bring him up. Clearly his parents were capable of handling the job.
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Jamie_Weed/page%201.htm
It appears his parents couldn't quite afford children as they were not economically stable. That is why I feel Einstein is relevant. Do you think his parents were irresponsible having children even though his father's business was often on the "verge of bankruptcy"?
Many very significant historical figures were raised in poverty. And..many notorious figures were born into quite affluent families. Neither path guarantees sucessful upbrining....
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Jamie_Weed/page%201.htm
It appears his parents couldn't quite afford children as they were not economically stable. That is why I feel Einstein is relevant. Do you think his parents were irresponsible having children even though his father's business was often on the "verge of bankruptcy"?
Many very significant historical figures were raised in poverty. And..many notorious figures were born into quite affluent families. Neither path guarantees sucessful upbrining....
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: cjg225 and 65 guests