Do poor women have a right to have children

a reply to: JAGStorm

We require more of pet owners than actual humans and that is sad!

This makes me think that you don't have kids. I guarantee you that "we" require more of parents that of pet owners.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The problem is how to enforce the rule once you determine someone is financially unfit to have children.

How about we just start with if the public is feeding your Family now, no more kids until you can support the ones you have and another?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JAGStorm

We require more of pet owners than actual humans and that is sad!

This makes me think that you don't have kids. I guarantee you that "we" require more of parents that of pet owners.

Now days most "pet owners" say their animals are Family and they love them as much as the Family.
In most places you can't just have a pet, you have to do certain things to make sure the animal is cared for and one is not letting them breed and produce unwanted offspring.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: SeaWorthy

On the other hand people like Epstein who was mega rich are the real danger to children!

And where did they say he gets those kids? They said they chose kids in need, kids who had so little it was easy offering money. Kids from countries where their parents sell them because they had kids they don't want.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Now days most "pet owners" say their animals are Family and they love them as much as the Family

That's always been the case. It's not a modern phenomenon.

In most places you can't just have a pet

There are also a lot of places that don't allow children.

you have to do certain things to make sure the animal is cared for and one is not letting them breed and produce unwanted offspring.

You have to do certain things to make sure you child is cared for too, doctors visits, shots and checkups just to get into school, which you have to get them into. Then, as a parent you have a lot more to do to satisfy your parental/student obligations. You don't have to send your animal to school.

You don't have to buy clothes for your pets, but you do for your kids, and books, paper, pens, glue, computers....

a reply to: Sookiechacha
So you think it is ok for drug addicted crackheads , alcoholics and perverts who let the public or someone else care for their kids to just be allowed to continue bringing suffering babies into the world.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Jump the shark much?

How did we get from "sounds like you don't have kids", to, it's ok for drug addicted crackheads , alcoholics and perverts who let the public or someone else care for their kids to just be allowed to continue bringing suffering babies into the world"?

ETA: If you don't do the things that I listed above, you'll lose your kids.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JAGStorm

We require more of pet owners than actual humans and that is sad!

This makes me think that you don't have kids. I guarantee you that "we" require more of parents that of pet owners.

I have kids, and I have pets. I 100% made sure I was able to take care of them before I had them.

I've seen people, many people have kids that live worse than pets!

a reply to: JAGStorm

I've seen people, many people have kids that live worse than pets!

Maybe, but nobody is forcing pet owners to pamper them. The law requires parents to provide more care for their children than for their children's pets.

Im not sure that resources can determine whether or not someone will be a capable parent.

It certainly does address some low-hanging fruit issues of raising a child in our current age, but I feel like we may be missing some important aspects by doing so.

I think we are in a strange, in-between period. Not too long ago, and in some places still, whether or not one had currency simply determined how the parents would gather the resources need to raise a child.

Now though, its currency or bust in so many ways. Its not particularly feasible for parents living in an urban environment to provide much of anything, even to themselves, without currency. In many cases, there are even laws against doing so.

However, I believe (well.. hope) we are working towards a return to this paradigm using technology. If/when that happens, its going to completely change a lot of conversations, including this one.

All that said, if we are going to determine who can reproduce.. a better determining factor than currency may be parents that will raise a child that will be a boon to our civilization beyond the possible costs of society supporting parents that dont have much currency. The obvious trouble there is making a determination with any accuracy, but I do think we could probably figure out ways to meaningfully increase those chances.

By the time we actually figure out who gets to breed, and get people to accept it, we are probably going to be in such a different place technologically that it might render any discussions we have on it today entirely moot.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I think we are in a strange, in-between period. Not too long ago, and in some places still, whether or not one had currency simply determined how the parents would gather the resources need to raise a child.

I think my bluntness hurt some feelings on this thread and that wasn't the point. I think you got my deeper meaning better than anyone. It was more about that shift than anything. Something has to be done. It is getting crazy.

a reply to: JAGStorm

You were just complaining that around 73% percent of kids in school can't afford school lunches!!
Are you suggesting that 75% of the parents...
mothers AND FATHERS are just sitting on their butts at home not working?

a reply to: JAGStorm

Something has to be done. It is getting crazy.

How about we stop trying to make abortions harder to get? How about we stop trying to make birth control harder to get?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: JAGStorm

You were just complaining that around 73% percent of kids in school can't afford school lunches!!
Are you suggesting that 75% of the parents...
mothers AND FATHERS are just sitting on their butts at home not working?

I don't know what they are doing but one thing is for certain, they are incapable of providing a lunch for their child.. 73%
That is one of the major responsibilities of having a child... feeding them. If you don't see the problem in that...

a reply to: JAGStorm

I have no problem helping out with feeding and clothing the kids because it isn't the kids' fault.

There will always be people who let their desires override their responsibility and sadly kids get the worst of it.

I do get irritated though when the lists contain outrageously expensive or excessive things that most middle class families don't even buy for their own kids.

I do wish there was an easier way to show people they can escape poverty. I just hope that by feeding the children nutritional food and providing them with school supplies and warm, clean clothing it will help them escape poverty even if their parents never do.

originally posted by: Identified
a reply to: JAGStorm

I have no problem helping out with feeding and clothing the kids because it isn't the kids' fault.

There will always be people who let their desires override their responsibility and sadly kids get the worst of it.

I do get irritated though when the lists contain outrageously expensive or excessive things that most middle class families don't even buy for their own kids.

I do wish there was an easier way to show people they can escape poverty. I just hope that by feeding the children nutritional food and providing them with school supplies and warm, clean clothing it will help them escape poverty even if their parents never do.

I absolutely believe education is part of the solution.

Feeding the kids does not help them escape poverty. I've read a couple of studies, and seen charts. It is only getting worse. That Florida school went from 50% on free lunch to over 70% in a matter of years

a reply to: JAGStorm

And its getting batsh!t on so many levels, isnt it?

I think we are on the cusp of seeing more change to our civilization than seen since the Neolithic Revolution, or perhaps ever. I say that a lot, but I firmly believe its important to at least ponder!

Right here and now (well maybe not in this specific thread, but you know what I mean), we have the opportunity to start building the concepts that will define "tomorrow." We can take some of the best things from "yesterday," catalyze it with technology, and achieve amazing things.

But.. I feel like this would be disruptive to the paradigm that some folks have spent generations maintaining. Even if they would benefit from such a massive shift as much as anyone else, Im not sure they are capable of doing anything other than what they have done for hundreds and hundreds of years. They are as stuck in their own games as the folks they see as "pawns."

The biggest difference now is that the very technology we could use to truly start to achieve greatness as a species.. is instead being used as a lever to move and manipulate social groups like always.

The problem with that is the nature of our technology amplifies those efforts exponentially. It is a very, very serious problem in my opinion.

I mean, on this topic, I think it just makes it "easier" to determine such things with currency. Our Cultural Story has yet to even add a footnote about how to compare actual Value. So, things either get compared like-for-like (poor parents=government money=BAD VALUE!) or.. just outright absurdities. The like-for-like makes sense. I feel its lacking a huge amount of pertinent data that ends up being detrimental, but I understand the conclusion.

Yet.. lots of absurdities running about nowadays. Im convinced we are witnessing rampant folie a plusieurs that are only created, perpetuated, and sustained due to the *conflict* between our Cultural Story and our Technology.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: TGunner
a reply to: JAGStorm

I don't know about poor people, but Idiots definitely shouldn't breed.

A person that doesn't have the means to support a child yet has one, is both poor and an idiot.

Actually, I know two women who trusted their doctors who told them they couldn't get pregnant because of health issues.

They both became pregnant. One couple could barely afford a child, and the other one couldn't. I don't see this as their fault at all. None were okay with abortion because they were in committed relationships. As far as I'm concerned, the physicians should have paid or be paying child support for their incompetent advice.

perhaps ignorance and laziness creates poverty,
but i don't care.
people have more value than their utility.

a reply to: JAGStorm

The US school lunch program is a racket, but if a child isn't getting proper nutrition their brain won't develop properly.

We absolutely need education. We don't even teach home economics anymore. This should be a class starting in 1st grade with just basic understanding of a can of beans cost and feeds X vs a bag of dried beans costs and feeds Y. Then move up to more complicated lessons each grade. Kids don't even know how to make spaghetti anymore much less what compound interest is.

Schools should have Community vegetable gardens as well.