Question 4

[starrkers]

Being poor isn't an automatic descriptor for poor parent.

There are many wealthy folk that shouldn't have children. So wrapped up in their own importance that they forget children aren't accessories to show just how perfect their own lives are.

 

[Elianna]

One thing I would like to point out is that poverty seems to perpetuate itself. Poor uneducated people who have lots of babies seem to have children who continually perpetuate the pattern. Parental behavior is shadowed by children. Teen mothers often end up having children that become teen mothers. The people who rise above seem to be the exception.

As an educator I find the most difficult population of parents to work with regarding all aspects of their child's education are those who are living in poverty. These parents tend to be more uninvolved. Their children have more behavioral problems and no matter what state your educational system is in children in poverty score significantly lower on all national and state assessments.

I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, because there are. However, the data is very clear; poverty perpetuates poverty, despite opportunities.

Therefore, would we like to limit births to people who can't support themselves? It seems logical but I don't think that you can force people to take birth control, have abortions, or impose sterilization. What can we do, though?

Set up supports and consequences. Then stick to them. Make people accountable.

How to make a law like that... I suppose that's what others went to school for, but not me. I'm only aware of a proplem that is perpetuated.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

the faster we fill this place up, the greater the impetus will be for branching out to other worlds.

 

[Munachi]

well yeah, as i said, i guess people from a poor and uneducated background often have many children because that's what they know (and i agree - being poor doesn't automatically make you a bad parent). i just think, the only way to break that pattern is to offer more opportunities. as i said before, richer people often have more reasons not to have children, or to have children later on, because they want to have careers, they want to travel, they want to try out lots of things (i would guess they often also don't commit themselves into a relationship as quickly? at least in western cultural backgrounds...) so i think by giving poor children these opportunities, and teaching them what else there is in the world, except for marrying and having children of their own, might have the best effect if you want to lower the number of children they have. of course it won't work for all, or right away, but might in the long run.

if on the other hand, you punish people for having many children, by taking their money away, forcing the parents to work all day etc., then the daughters will grow up raising their siblings, so that's what they will know to do, will do even worse in school (i guess the bad school grades of poorer children have a lot to do with there often being less mental stimulation at home, and that certainly won't grow if the family is even poorer, the parents are gone all day, and everything is too expensive), but it won't stop them of having children of their own at a young age again.

 

[impressive]

Posts 38 & 39, this thread, Deezire & Impressive, both, were they possessed of the power, would control your reproductive rights by the use of force.

I take that seriously, so should you. These two individual represent the Fascist, Dictatorial mindset that heralds the welfare of the state as a whole over the rights of the individual.

Dangerous people, they are indeed, not worthy of even being permitted to discuss such atrocities in a civil gathering.

They should be hung and quartered in a public square as an example to others, violate an individuals rights, this is how you end up.

Thank you.



\Amicus...

Sweetheart, I said no such thing.

 

[impressive]

~~~

A pity you can't make a point without getting nasty.

Hrm. Are you saying that calling for my quartering wasn't getting nasty? C'mon, Ami. Surely you can see your own hypocrisy there.

 

[Shwenn]

The contradiction is in your mind, not in my writing, although the drawn and quartered was a bit flamboyent, I do like to tickle the reader now and then.

The contradiction was there. If you want to backpeddle and admit that what you wrote about killing those posters was far from what you actually believe that is fine. Then the condradiction is not in your morals but in your words which contradict your actual thoughts.

It's still a condradiction.

But, I must disagree, suggesting a poster here should die a terrible death goes far beyond flamboyant and deep into the land of douchebaggery.

Of course a woman has reproductive rights, to choose when she shares her body and risks a pregnancy.

Except if she is raped in which case she doesn't take the risk nor does she have those rights. Or were you being 'flamboyant' when you said rape was no excuse?

See, now we have no way of knowing what you mean and don't mean.

We still do, in some aspects, as example when a pregnant woman is murdered the perpetrator is charged with two counts of murder.

Go figure that one?

Pro-lifers enacted some back door legislation to get the fetus legally defined as a person with rights. It's not a tricky concept.

But if you want to join the herd, avoid the discussion and state your belief's fine, at least you were offered a rational reply.

Amicus...

What herd? What are you talking about?

If you wanted a rational discussion, you shouldn't have made a death threat. If you want to "tickle the reader" and do everything in your power to make them emotional, DO NOT complain that you want rational thought and not emotion.

See, always with the contradictions from you. Do you want to incite emotion or do you want rational discussion?

Pick ONE.

 

[amicus]

"Hell hath no fury like a woman...." faced with facts that destory her belief's.

This abortion issue seems to bring out the worst and the most vituperative commentary of any subject I know, even the Jesus freaks are forgiving, but not the baby killers and their advocates.

Thank you for correcting my spelling...I even retract the, 'flamboyant' comment I made and I will state it in terms that even you can understand.

I believe the crime of killing a child in the womb ought be punished with methods equal to those D&C procedures excercised on the fetus.

I advocate that every woman who permitted her child to be killed in the womb should suffer the maximum penalty under the law, up to and including the death penalty.

Like so many, you play the 'rape' card and you do so indignantly, as do most, failing to realize that your rape is not the issue, the life of the child created, regardless of the circumstances, is the fundamental premise.

My advice...don't get raped.

And others here deny they wish to control the population by abrogating individual rights by forced sterilization or limiting children to selected couples, quite like some Utopian novels that control the population my any means necessary, individual choice be damned.

It is that, 'communal' mindset that seems to infect many on this forum, where in any thing goes in the name of the 'greater good'. You determine that fewer people, fewer births are a good thing and you act to impose that by force.

Killing a child in the womb is a reprehensible act, an heinous crime, a crime that strikes at the very heart of the moral concept of modern man, a crime comparable to the gas chambers of the Nazi's and the Gulags of the Soviets.

Your problem is you are used to hearing arguments from the religious right that claim life is created by God and thus sacrosanct. When faced with a logical, rational, scientific argument, showing beyond doubt that abortion is murder, you get all hissy fitted and emotional.

Of course, you still won't understand, that when you threaten one innocent life, you threaten all life and the very concept of the actual right to life a person has innately.

While I do adhere to the concept within the constitution that all men are created equal, it becomes clear that the author's of that phrase meant just what they said, 'men'. To be blunt, it appears at this late date, to be beyond a shadow of a doubt that one of the greatest blunders of mankind was to permit women to participate in the political process at all.

Your hissing and snarling makes that point even more clear.

There is an old song..and since I am on a roll this morning..."It was the only thing I could do half right and it's turnin' out all wrong ma, look what they've done to my song...."

Having babies was about the only thing women could do half right and, guess what...they can't even do that anymore.

Such a deal, eh?



the always lovable amicus...

 

[Selena_Kitt]

If I take my foot off your neck, ya know, the one holding you down...that can hardly be considered an incentive.

To tax is to use force...try not paying it and see the barrel of a gun and prison bars.

All your fine rhetoric about 'social programs' to educate the dummies, requires force and you just don't want to admit it.

I have to agree with this.

I also wouldn't want to live in the type of world most of the folks in this thread seem to want to manufacture.

:x

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=starrkers;28463787]Depends very much on the individual. I have three. That is definitely enough for me - some days more than enough

Some adults can't look after themselves, let alone a child. Others could look after many children.

But I think there needs to be more thought than just "can I give these children a good upbringing?" - there needs to be a back up plan if something goes pear shaped.

I know of a family with a lot of kids. The eldest is about 17, the youngest are still in nappies. Dad works full time, mum is home with the kids and renovating the house. Last year she was diagnosed with breast cancer, long term prognosis not good.

Should the worst happen, how will the remaining parent cope?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Hello, down under staarkers....we don't agree on much but your concluding thought was one that prompted me to comment.

There is a film, "Pontiac Moon", I think it is called, that in part, portrays a woman with a phobia of going outside and kept herself locked up in her house for years.

"Should the worst happen..." is not a sense of life that is benficial to even getting out of bed in the mornwiling and very un Australian-like, from the Ossies I have been acquainted with.

There are no guarantee's in life, none at all, and I see your statement as just another false reason not to live life to its fullest.

I am truly distressed at these foolish, foolish people who have limited their children on the false premise that the world is over populated and that they should not morally contribute more living human beings.

What a sad and tragic philosophy that has infected the western world...and...to a point where white women don't even make enough babies to keep the population stable, let alone growing.

Neither you nor I will live long enough to see the results of this disaster, but your three and my eight and their progeny will.

Just a thought in passing....

Ami...

 

[rgraham666]

I wouldn't want to live in ami's world. A world where every one is your enemy? Where weapons must be kept close to hand at all times?

The question isn't if force should be used, Selena, it's when.

Is it better to use force, albeit force of the law, to educate kids whether their parents want it or not?

Or shall we wait until those kids grow up with no way to make a mark in the world save with unethical actions, at which time we use force of arms to stop them?

 

[impressive]

To tax is to use force...

No, ami. To tax without representation is to use force. With representation, it's called democracy. And, if you don't like it, you have a choice: live elsewhere.

 

[Shwenn]

Like so many, you play the 'rape' card and you do so indignantly, as do most, failing to realize that your rape is not the issue, the life of the child created, regardless of the circumstances, is the fundamental premise.

Dude, you brought up rape. You put the topic of rape on the table. Then you got a bug in your panties about the topic being on the table.

I can't imagine a more annoying person. Honestly. It's getting ridiculous.

Abortion has nothing to do with me. I'm completely infertile. My biggest issue with the abortion debate is that I think politicians use it to get people to vote against their own interests. That's my biggest issue with it.

I just like a good fight.

And trust me, I'm not getting one.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

To tax without representation is to use force. With representation, it's called democracy.

Back when the founding father's came up with the idea, maybe. Today? I have serious doubts that our votes ever count, or that we are truly represented. Maybe I'll be proven wrong in the next election. But I doubt it.

Is it better to use force, albeit force of the law, to educate kids whether their parents want it or not?

Well I have very little trust in public education or the force of law... both are corrupt, overbloated, dying bureaucracies that exist for very little else than the feeding of themselves...

 

[rgraham666]

Well I have very little trust in public education or the force of law... both are corrupt, overbloated, dying bureaucracies that exist for very little else than the feeding of themselves...

Having been betrayed by the system completely, I know its limitations.

However, like democracy, it may not work all that well but it's better than any other system we've come up with yet.

 

[amicus]

No, ami. To tax without representation is to use force. With representation, it's called democracy. And, if you don't like it, you have a choice: live elsewhere.

~~~

I suppose your snarky little rejoinder satisfies your monstrous ego that you are right again, eh?

The theory is fine, kiddo, the reality is not. The original colonists did indeed proclaim that which you quoted and went to war over it. They vowed, upon establishing independence, to never again allow government to run their lives...look what they've done to my song, ma....to repeat myself.

Only those ignorant of the true level of taxation and those who don't work and see a diminished paycheck each week due to taxes, have the audacity to feel free to tax and spend on the scale presently in order.

I will offer you two brief examples of the abuse of taxation as it is constitutionally created in the US.

If you invested the monies confiscated from you over your working life to pay for social security and medicare and invested it is private plans for your retirement and health care, you would be a millionaire, living off just the interest alone.

It doesn't take a lot of math to figure that out and I am not talking high risk investments either. The government, knowing a full half the people will not live until the age they would receive benefits from either program, taxes you nonetheless at full rate.

It is a pyramid game, a ponzi scheme, whereby government uses forces to confiscate a percentage of your income to do as it pleases.

For that, you get inferior public education, a failing medicare program and a pitiable amount of social security benefits to retire on.

This is the system you defend?

Silly child.

Amicus...

 

[impressive]

Back when the founding father's came up with the idea, maybe. Today? I have serious doubts that our votes ever count, or that we are truly represented. Maybe I'll be proven wrong in the next election. But I doubt it.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government. Laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most like to affect its safety and happiness.

To edit our founding fathers, I'd add "and responsibility" after the word "right."

IOW, it's OUR job to fix it -- not just to point fingers and place blame. I'm trying to do my part, no matter how small.



Ami, you woefully misguided old man, that was not snarky. That was fact. As to the "monstrous ego" comment... well, that's really kinda funny.

 

[amicus]

"...Is it better to use force, albeit force of the law, to educate kids whether their parents want it or not?..."

~~~!


I find it amazing still, even after it is repeated time and time again, that anyone has the nerve to use force against me, 'whether I want it or not.." and not expect to be held responsible.

You come to my house and demand money from me at the point of a gun, using force and I am, vby God, gonna shoot your silly ass!


The pussifiede wimps in Canada, Germany and Russia, rolled over and let the bloodsuckers win...we Americans will take only so much of that shit before we stuff it down your fucking throat.

That's right, you idiot. I am a man, an individual, I choose how I live my life and how I expend my energies and supporting you is not one of my choices.

Look south you shithead, there is a whole country of us, armed and ready.

But, since you don't read my posts, I guess you won't get the warning, eh?

Amicus...

 

[Selena_Kitt]

To edit our founding fathers, I'd add "and responsibility" after the word "right."

IOW, it's OUR job to fix it -- not just to point fingers and place blame. I'm trying to do my part, no matter how small.

I call a "do-over!"

 

[impressive]

I call a "do-over!"

M'kay. Write the time travel story -- and go back to square one.