Do poor women have a right to have children

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ADUB77

But the mitochondrial DNA comes only from the mother and a defect in that can cause a whole mess of problems also..

Definitely, I believe the women is more important and in a chicken or egg question the XX came before the Y allele seperated

That alone shows you the manipulative control of weak men through religion saying god made women from man when it is the opposite

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

a reply to: ADUB77

The bible also says that the man would leave his father and mother and go to his new wife's home.. which, there are a few stories in the bible that describes that type of arrangement, I believe lot might have been one?
And then you have more maternal societies like some of the native American tribes where which clan you belonged to depended on who your mom was and you couldn't marry anyone of the same clan.
Makes me wonder if having a partner with the same maternal roots might have more adverse effects and maybe we should have been paying more attention to the maternal lineage than the paternal.

Having children is not a right.... humans like to think it is.

If nature decided to make you a barren shell, then so be it. If you honestly think that not having children is something awful let me tell you, the grass is not greener....

Also, there seem to be a tendency amongst poorer people to have more kids than average. Especially in development countries.
Its a runaway train. The world is growing too fast and there is such a thing as too many.

Maintaining balance on Earth is more important than the self proclaimed rights of the individual. If we move one extremity further away, the opposite pole will also go further away.
We should in fact be maintaining the balance more close to the middle without those extremes.....

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ADUB77

The bible also says that the man would leave his father and mother and go to his new wife's home.. which, there are a few stories in the bible that describes that type of arrangement, I believe lot might have been one?
And then you have more maternal societies like some of the native American tribes where which clan you belonged to depended on who your mom was and you couldn't marry anyone of the same clan.
Makes me wonder if having a partner with the same maternal roots might have more adverse effects and maybe we should have been paying more attention to the maternal lineage than the paternal.

The bible also says that the man would leave his father and mother and go to his new wife's home
NO
Ephesians 5:31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Matthew 19:5
and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
Mark 10:7
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
Mark 10:7,8
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; …

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Balls to what the bible says you religious brainwashed nut jobs

What a disgustingly offensive idea you put forward here. A window into the soul....

what gives you the right to say someone cannot have a child? I know your desire to impose your will on others, cast judgement and damnation overrides your other senses and you take no responsibility for them. I'm not sure what sort of authoritarian fascist society you dream of, but keep it the hell away from the rest of us.

It is sad some have such small understandings of the world.
a reply to: JAGStorm

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: JAGStorm

Do poor women have a right to have children

Two of the three families are expecting a baby in addition to many other children. They have zero money, zero anything.
How on earth is this ok?

Should we regulate who can have children or how many?

Sorta the impression I got. Need more laws, more regulation, hell maybe even a whole government agency to monitor unsanctioned pregnancy!

Sounds Chinese..

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist
a reply to: JAGStorm

If hard times meant you shouldn't have children, then we wouldn't exist as a species today. Even if a family had to live in a tent in the woods and forage for food it is our inherent responsibility to procreate.

There's nothing wrong from seeking handouts from willing persons. As long as charity is not government mandated and people can freely choose whether to provide handouts, then it's fine.

Think of all the successful people who would never have had a chance if their parents felt it was irresponsible to have children while impoverished during the great depression. I myself might never have been born.

That might be true for the past, but i'm pretty sure our population will be fine now, there would probably be a lot of benefit if people that can't take care of their kids stopped having them now.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I would be more worried about the parents who cannot control their kids.

Or the ones that think they are all ""special"" and feel the need to advertise so on the likes of bumper stickers.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I'm sure that it would be beneficial if companies and employers went back to feeling a little social responsibility and responsibility towards their employees.
If you look past your I'm tired of feeding your kids, you might discover that what you are doing is subsidizing a company's labor force while the company pockets bigger and bigger profits while freeing companies from market restraints that would force them to make modifications to their business models in order to keep from pricing out too much of their customer base.
I mean Ford would have probably failed if he didnt pay his workers enough or priced his cars so high that his employees had no hope of ever being able to buy one.

a reply to: JAGStorm

If we take the emotion out of this question....

Should poor women have a right to a car?

Zero money, zero credit should she get a car. Everyone would say no. Should she have 3, 4, 8 cars Of course not!
It would be insane. How could she afford the payment, the insurance. Why would she even want 8 cars?
She needs to get her stuff together before even thinking about a big purchase like that. Nobody would argue with this.

Now replace that with a baby and all of a sudden is is OK, but it isn't it is much much worse.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Lr103
It's not the kid's fault.

Exactly.

It's more the kids fault than any of ours. Why should the least at fault (me) have to be on the hook for these useless kids that will turn in to even more useless adults?
I am completely FOR eugenics. Below a 90 IQ...right this way. On welfare your whole life? C-ya. Committed more than one Felony? Dead.

Many people serve zero purpose than just using resources and giving nothing in return besides the attitude that they deserve what's yours. Line em up and show em to the Zyclon B showers. Would any of you truly care? Unless you're useless like them, the answer is NOPE.

I'm so sick of my money being used to feed stupid people here in the US as well as the continent of Africa and other countries worldwide. Because I did the right thing with my life, I deserve to NOT have to help anyone that didn't or couldn't. I truly don't understand why any of you care one bit about people that are literally wastes of life looking to exploit you.

And spare me your, " but it's a slippery slope and maybe some day you'll be considered useless blah, blah, blah" crap.
Eugenics would instantly eliminate crime, poverty, and San Fransisco. Let's get this Utopia started already!!

a reply to: MrBuddy

All that is what the Nazi’s thought about the Jews.

How would you screen psychopaths and sociopaths that often end up rich? Or are they ok because they are rich?

What about the genetic screw ups that inherit lots of wealth but blow it anyway?

You do realise the only reason there is any social security and benefits system is because the super rich don’t want a revolution to happen like what happened in France back in the day? Also many people favour it because they have a degree of empathy and you clearly have none.

What you suffer from is a superiority complex and I look forward to the day when your ass is handed to you by someone by someone with a greater IQ I’m thinking about 110 would do it.

a reply to: JAGStorm

But, how would she get to her minimum job burger flipping, bagging, or order taking without car?
Maybe you ain't into burgers, maybe you would prefer Mexican or Chinese. Or maybe you would prefer to eat home..it doesnt really matter, our armed service members, school bus drivers, office workers, store clerks.. where ever you look, you are gonna find parents that are relying on the govt in some way. Businesses depending on the govt to fill in the shortfall between the pay the are willing to pay there workers and what those workers actually need to support their families.
And, quite frankly, you are just as dependent on this charade of an economy continuing as any one else.

I'm tempted to put this into the perspective of which of JAG's immediate relatives/ancestors didn't deserve to have kids/exist.

You're Asian, at least partially, right JAG? Korean I believe you've said? Immigrant parent(s) or grandparents here? And how old?

Because if we're looking through the lens of the Korean War, that left a pretty destitute population in it's wake on both sides. If yours were born after it into that piss-poor poverty that lead to making weed soups to survive, maybe you should hold your tongue a bit and think twice about who deserves what.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Since psychopathics tend to gravitate higher up the economic chain. Then your thinking would end up with these elites doing all the breading. This would in turn breed out empathetic tenancies leading to a world of heartless being..

Heck it looks like we are going that way anyway.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: Nyiah

hat'll be a jarring crash back to Earth, but they'll need some sweet, sweet Medicaid or Medicare help (depending on their ages) And maybe charity & government help to meet other expenses that can't be met because medical black holes adore wallets and government help alike.

You do realize you have compared choice to circumstance?

I doubt anyone wants aid to people in need dropped and we pay for the programs as an insurance you are speaking of.
those are not welfare.

Ah, the joys of reading backward through a thread.

Circumstance schmurcumstance. When it starts costing the public their taxes, who cares, right? If you're a drain, you're a drain, nobody needs to pay for your ill ass. Well, nobody but YOU. Much like the people harping on the poor & the costs of kids, if you can't live frugally enough to entirely pay for catastrophic health issues, you don't deserve anyone else's help to pay to stay alive, now do you?

Take it a step further. We pay taxes for a safety net to fall back on. In insurance, we all buy access into a gigantic pool of money to count on being able to draw from. In THAT light, if I were a prick, I'd be tempted to say I don't think I care about or want to pay for someone else's cancer treatment with my monthly cover charge. Not my genes going haywire, bruh, pay for it yourself.

Any way you cut it, the illness circumstance and tax-funded social nets are the same. They exist to make life a little easier & more affordable on all of us able to use them, and SOMEONE is always paying for them. Think about that one the next time you make an insurance payment to the collective pot.

originally posted by: Nyiah
I'm tempted to put this into the perspective of which of JAG's immediate relatives/ancestors didn't deserve to have kids/exist.

You're Asian, at least partially, right JAG? Korean I believe you've said? Immigrant parent(s) or grandparents here? And how old?

Because if we're looking through the lens of the Korean War, that left a pretty destitute population in it's wake on both sides. If yours were born after it into that piss-poor poverty that lead to making weed soups to survive, maybe you should hold your tongue a bit and think twice about who deserves what.

Nice example but different time different world. Back then if you were poor there was a good chance you'd starve, and die.
It was survival of the fittest in the most literal sense. Many of those poor that did survive grew into the strongest most resilient people. We say the same thing about people that went through our depression. There was zero government handout. There surely wasn't anyone taking money from those doing ok to give to the poor. If people did give to the poor it was their own freedom to do so.

Also since we are taking the way back time machine I remember my mother telling me that in the old days you were allowed as many wives as you wanted AS long as you could afford it, and subsequently the children that would ensue. Even back them they seemed to get this.

We are also not talking about war and natural disaster, that is not choice, there is a huge difference.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: Nyiah
I'm tempted to put this into the perspective of which of JAG's immediate relatives/ancestors didn't deserve to have kids/exist.

You're Asian, at least partially, right JAG? Korean I believe you've said? Immigrant parent(s) or grandparents here? And how old?

Because if we're looking through the lens of the Korean War, that left a pretty destitute population in it's wake on both sides. If yours were born after it into that piss-poor poverty that lead to making weed soups to survive, maybe you should hold your tongue a bit and think twice about who deserves what.

Nice example but different time different world. Back then if you were poor there was a good chance you'd starve, and die.
It was survival of the fittest in the most literal sense. Many of those poor that did survive grew into the strongest most resilient people. We say the same thing about people that went through our depression. There was zero government handout. There surely wasn't anyone taking money from those doing ok to give to the poor. If people did give to the poor it was their own freedom to do so.

Also since we are taking the way back time machine I remember my mother telling me that in the old days you were allowed as many wives as you wanted AS long as you could afford it, and subsequently the children that would ensue. Even back them they seemed to get this.

We are also not talking about war and natural disaster, that is not choice, there is a huge difference.

There really isn't a difference, though. If you're in the aftermath of a war that wiped out everything and leaves you resorting to eating weed soup to survive, maybe you shouldn't be having children and bringing them into that, too. Seems a little, oh, I don't know. Cruel and short-sighted, doesn't it? Talk about being a greedy breeder back then -- nothing to eat of substance, yet churning out the kids anyway. I'd say the post-war babies in conflict areas are a whole lot sadder than a kid getting a reduced lunch with my tax money. At least THAT kid can EAT SOMETHING.