Do poor women have a right to have children

How poor?

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
How poor?

Poor might be the wrong choice of wording, but titles can only be so long.

Should be people that are incapable of providing basic needs for their children.

No exact figures, this is more of a high level discussion on a growing social issue that isn't going away.

originally posted by: ManyMasks
Personally I think every female should be restricted to two children, until the global population is more sustainable... regardless of status
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Well, we can eat each other until the population is sustainable.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
How poor?

Poor might be the wrong choice of wording, but titles can only be so long.

She be people that are incapable of providing basic needs for their children.

No exact figures, this is more of a high level discussion on a growing social issue that isn't going away.

I have never been rich, but sometimes I have been better off than other times, rich to poor, poor to rich.

Are we talking about reproductive rights
or lunch for children ?

a reply to: JAGStorm

Should be people that are incapable of providing basic needs for their children.

Usually, legally, fingers crossed, people like that have their kids taken from them.

Not that that's any consolation for the kids or for society. But, we're kinda supposed to already be on the unfit parents thing.

But you can't judge people based on what might happen, unfortunately, as a society we have to let it happen first, and then swoop in like reluctant heroes.

OH, maybe the rich should breed less, and give more money to the poor.

There is really no need for poverty or hunger, TPTB just like it that way.

This is more complicated then just being poor.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Lol... no, they need to breed more, alot more, since the portion who can actually afford kids seems to be getting smaller and smaller. I was trying to track down the answer to a question I had but couldn't find it. But I did run into a different estimate as to the percentage of kids that participate in the school lunch program.... it gave 80% of kids that were using the program..
That's 80% of our kids that moms shouldn't have had them because they couldn't financially take care of them.
Lol.. that 20% that can, I think they need to make some adjustments to their lifestyles if we are gonna start preventing the 80% from having kids. Maybe move into bigger houses with more bedrooms or something. Get used to the idea of having 6 or so kids.. you know what they say. To much is given, much is required.. if the lower 80% cant have the kids because they cant afford them, then I guess it's up to the upper 20% to have enough to maintain a healthy population for a nation of our size.

a reply to: dawnstar

Never fear.

medium.com...

Historically, low-income women with lower levels of education have had more children than high income, highly educated women.

That trend is reversing as high income, highly educated women are having more children than ever before.

except the don't so the can feed the lunch to them selves.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
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?

Good answer. I would vote for that.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
How poor?

Bernie Sanders says as President, he will set an income floor. Women who fall below that floor will get mandatory abortions. For all others, abortions are encouraged. Bernie is serious about population control.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
How poor?

Bernie Sanders says as President, he will set an income floor. Women who fall below that floor will get mandatory abortions. For all others, abortions are encouraged. Bernie is serious about population control.

Do you have a thought of your own on this issue?

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
OH, maybe the rich should breed less, and give more money to the poor.

There is really no need for poverty or hunger, TPTB just like it that way.

This is more complicated then just being poor.

Oh my you socialist you...How dare you advocate money that the rich deserve and need be given to the needy and undeserving.

a reply to: JAGStorm

50 or 60 years back most families were poor, if poor women didn't have kid then most of us would never have been born.

Should poor families be discouraged from having large families, certainly. Their quality of life will be much better for it.

Should poor families be actively prevented from having large families, certainly not. That stinks of eugenics, and let's face it eugenics rarely ends well.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
How poor?

How about 25% below the regional living wage?

That puts them well bellow the breadline.

Sounds bad, but you asked for numbers.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: doobydoll
a reply to: JAGStorm

Most single mothers I know already work. Govt provides free childcare places so they are able to work, at taxpayers' expense. They have paying jobs but still need to claim working benefits and housing subsidies too, at taxpayers' expense.

Here's what I think. If bosses didn't pay themselves and their shareholders so much bonus and instead increase the wages of their low-paid workers, then everyone else wouldn't have to pay for the govt subsidies and benefits.

It's wealthy people's fault there are poor people. Their 'take more than you need' attitude is the problem. The more they take for just themselves, the less there is left for all the rest that also spend their time, energy, and life, contributing to the success.

That is very true, just look at the bailout money that went to CEO's.

The point is no one is talking about Mothers who became single or ran into life circumstances or are working and doing what they can, it is about ones in that position that decide to get pregnant again.

How many or you know someone with a bunch of kids with all different Fathers and on welfare?

Yes I personally know a few single mothers that have a couple kids to different 'men'. Those young women were in love when their babies were conceived and were devastated when the 'men' just up and left them with another baby to raise alone. Here in UK, it easy for a parent to just piss off and abandon their responsibilities and not financially support their child/ren, and it has created a lot of welfare-dependent single parents.

But everyone seems to only blame the mothers, never the irresponsible absent fathers. Some men go thru life leaving a trail of abandoned babies with different women without a care as to how they'll survive their life without him.

So, perhaps we should force the men to have chemicals implanted in their bodies to make them fire blanks until they can provide evidence they can/will support a child in their absence?

What d'ya think?

a reply to: doobydoll

I am a woman and I grew up in a single parent home, because my Father, who believe me had a ton of faults, died at the age of 40. He was a military man. He married my Mother when she was 17 and he was 20.

Theyvhad 8 children when he died, and my Mother raised us alone, but family, church, and neighbors, helped by provinding us with plain human kindness.

It was the country so something was always being harvested, and my neighbors shared all round according to the family's need.

I was raised by strong women that were able to function independently if necessary.

I think a woman is selling herself short and operating at a disadvantage if she puts her child conceiving and rearing, in the hands of a man.

I am not saying that the man is not an integral part of conception or child rearing. I am saying that if there is an oops, the one carrying the oops, is the one who will suffer the most. It would be foolhardy to trust your wellbeing to someone that will suffer the least of the consequences.

I did not have any children of my own, by "choice". I was caring for children from the age of eight, to my present age. I saw the results of women that trusted others with the charge of their bodies and their choices, and It rarely went well. I am the lucky one, that can learn vicariously.

In a perfect world equal responsibility would be the order of the day for both parents. Needless to say, this is not a perfect world, so why would any woman trust any one but herself with such an important decision.

For the record, I never conceived, again, by "choice", so the question of abortion was never an issue. If I had accidentally become pregnant, I know that I would have carried the child to term and raised it, because I was already raising so many other children, I believe it would have been the natural choice for me.

I am all for women being empowered. I think it should start at home, by taking resposibility of their own lives and their own their own bodies. That is just me talking.

a reply to: doobydoll
I like it... a lot.

Bernie Sanders was saying the other day that America needs to bring a dose of planned parent hood and massive contraception to 3rd world countries.

Many cultures especially from south America are known for having more children then they could ever possibly handle or what society could handle.

And that is a major attribute they are bringing with their immigration to the u.s..