Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
I've taken the liberty of creating a new topic [I split off the thread a bit earlier - Barry], rather than continuing on a thread that some of us have taken far beyond the initial post about how great CM food bar is, to information about where to find the best prices on certain items, and comparisons between CM and WF and statements about the choice between organics and chemo. This led to an observation about how organic, healthy food is unaffordable for many low income families with several children. A case was presented about the "rights" of people to have children who can't afford them. So, this is my typically long winded reply.
Great post, Sandy (#17 in this thread), and I share your empathy for the poor, partly because I'm one of them! I must point out one thing, though...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Many don't have cars, so they walk to do grocery shopping, packing stuff into a stroller next to a baby or toddler.
What's wrong with this picture: someone is so poor they're having trouble keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table, and may be getting taxpayer support through "food stamps" or whatever--and they choose to have more babies??? That's the height of irresponsibility.
Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people.
ooo. ouch. I have thought about this a lot over the years, the question of whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people.
Here is an interesting article, I mean really thought-provoking, and maybe this should be a new thread. It looks at what wealth really is, and how impossible it is to measure the wealth of that poor woman wheeling her stroller kid against the wealth of, say, Bill Gates... or no, forget him, even against one of us living in SoCo.
https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...-dark-skinned/
It is a more complex question than most of us who want simple rules would want.
I know what you said, Dixon, and you're right, to a point... that if you can't afford to feed a kid, don't have one. But maybe the poor who are too poor to reproduce were just born in the wrong economy at the wrong time.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Great post, Sandy (#17 in this thread), and I share your empathy for the poor, partly because I'm one of them! I must point out one thing, though...
What's wrong with this picture: someone is so poor they're having trouble keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table, and may be getting taxpayer support through "food stamps" or whatever--and they choose to have more babies??? That's the height of irresponsibility.
Re: Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people.
Hi, Chris!
I read the blog you linked to, and I'll just say two things about it: 1) The writer didn't mount a good argument in support of his position (that the poor don't have more kids than the rich on average), and 2) Even if he had made his point, it'd be irrelevant to my position that people don't have a right to give birth to kids they can't support without hitting up the taxpayers for a handout.
I do feel that society should be much more equitable so that poverty is stamped out or nearly so, which would render the issue pretty much moot. Also, lest people think I'm against poor folks (and again, I am one) and a shill for the rich, let me also point out that I don't think anyone, no matter how rich, has a right to create children at any more than the replacement rate (1 child per parent). Human overpopulation is a main driver of so many of the huge crises we face (pollution, resource depletion, resource wars, global climate change, traffic problems, urban sprawl, desertification, etc.). The time when it was reasonable to assert that people have a right to reproduce without restraint is long past.
I took personal responsibility for the problem by getting a vasectomy at age 30; I'm nearly certain I've never sired a child. It'd be wonderful if at least a billion others followed suit!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Chris Dec:
ooo. ouch. I have thought about this a lot over the years, the question of whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people. ...
Re: Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Great post, Sandy (#17 in this thread), and I share your empathy for the poor, partly because I'm one of them! I must point out one thing, though...
What's wrong with this picture: someone is so poor they're having trouble keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table, and may be getting taxpayer support through "food stamps" or whatever--and they choose to have more babies??? That's the height of irresponsibility.
Our culture has grown into a population of people who don't take "responsibility". Nearly every conversation or post is pointing the finger at someone. Blame is the prevelant game. Excuses have become a way of life. When I see huge lawsuits from people who were clearly not taking responsible action, and are looking to "blame" someone, I know that the concept of personal responsibility has gone by the wayside.
Values are passed down through families, along with belief systems (religion) I was born into a family of bigots, so as a child I heard a lot of prejudice. I was only 20, when I heard myself parroting my father's words; I became aware that it wasn't my personal belief. I recalled that as a child I was taken under the wing of large, friendly, (very) black woman, when she saw that my mother was gone. She took me to her church service, and I was the only white person there, in the midst of all those joyful sounds of singing and dancing. I remember how I felt so loved by her, and asked myself "how could this be wrong?"
I remember this as a turning point in taking "responsibility" for my own thoughts and feelings, rather than just mimicking what had been passed on to me. It may be that many people who come from families with traditions of large families, don't really give it much thought. There may also be an unspoken expectation from their family of origin.
A few years ago, I met a Latino man who had a mobile dent repair service. He traveled with his sons, and was teaching them the business. There were 3 boys and two girls, all home schooled. They were barely making ends meet, and both parents had severe physical ailments, with no health insurance. The last time I saw the mother, she was so excited because both of her daughters were pregnant! I could barely keep my mouth shut. What was going on here? This excitement seemed so irrational to me. The next time I saw them, one of the babies had been born. What could I do except give a gift of baby clothes?
The question of "rights" is more complex than it seems. And, it appears that "rights" aren't really absolute, or we wouldn't have different laws governing people's rights, among the various 50 states, and of course, throughout the world.
We only have to look at the laws which control our "rights" to use cannabis, or to marry someone of our same gender, or the rights of police to use their rights to defend themselves with deadly force, if they believe their lives are in danger.
Most countries don't have child bearing restrictions, which might be a beneficial concept to consider. There's the possibility of financially rewarding people who take steps to limit births. Some laws go so far as to demand that female babies be eliminated, which is cruel and inhumane.
We all know that impregnation can happen with only one occurrence of sexual intercourse. Sex is the single most driving force for many people, actually about 90% of men. It's an act that's very seldom well thought out, as with a planned activity, like a picnic, concert, movie, or other forms of entertainment. But it's the one activity that can have serious, life altering consequences.
If a person is religious, particularly a member of the Catholic church, and sincerely wanting to limit pregnancies, only one form of birth control is allowed. Catholics have been given the "rights" to use this method. And "rhythm" doesn't always work. My second child was a result of using the "rhythm method", only 14 months after my first baby. That led to my decision to use a more reliable method, and live in a "state of sin", according to my religion.
At the young age of 22, with two babies in diapers, I decided to let go of a religion that no longer served me. I've always been thankful for my ability to see what my future might hold, if I continued to have babies. It wasn't a pretty picture.
There are other decisions I've made, which have led to serious consequences, and those risks changed my life, and could have even had life threatening consequences, but for some unknown reason I was spared, and have been allowed to be here and share personal insights with you.
We know that education can make a big difference in having more informed choices. Sex education is seen by many, as evil or the work of the Devil. So, it's been a difficult process to give our children the information they need to spare themselves the burden of unwanted pregnancies. I'm not up to date on the legal "rights" of parents regarding teen birth control, but many parents have used these rights to prevent their children from getting birth control information. They believe that it's best not to expose them to this information, for fear that it will encourage them to have sex. The result has been children having children. And young adults having sex, in the heat of the moment (can anyone relate?) with no regard for the consequences.
(A little personal history insert here) When my 2 boys were 11 and 12, I talked with them about birth control. What I told them was that they shouldn't depend on a girl to take care of this. I gave them a handful of condoms, and said "Please make sure to have one in your wallet when you go to parties, or events which could lead to you being intimate with a girl."
My youngest replied "Oh Mom, we're not even thinking about sex. We're too young!" Maybe this was a little premature, but at least I'd provided them with some protection, and a sense of personal responsibility. Whenever the topic of sex came up, my husband would say "Talk to your mother". He was still a traditional Catholic, and knew that our beliefs on this issue weren't the same anymore. He was mortified that I was encouraging them to use birth control, rather than "abstinence", but at least it got him off the hook from having to deal with it. They never got a girl pregnant as teens, and never even married until they were in their 30's.
Once the pregnancy occurs, (and I'd venture to say that most pregnancies aren't actually planned) new options for choices must be made. Religion again may play into these decisions. Other factors may involve a woman who believes that having a baby will somehow "complete her", or provide a human being who will give her the love she never had. The reasons why people have babies are too numerous to even go into. And then there's the "Right to Life" and "Pro-Choice positions. Then, it becomes the question of "who's rights?".
I've heard many friends whine about how they're emotionally messed up because they "weren't wanted". Really? How many people do you know who actually planned their parenthood? My second baby obviously wasn't wanted, and his conception occurred during the time when I was diligently trying to prevent it. (Abortion wasn't a consideration for me, at that time. But I was very certain that if I somehow got pregnant a third time, I would have made that decision.)
When I realized that I was pregnant for the second time, I became depressed, and felt badly, realizing the added burden this would mean for my husband, who had already given up going to college in order to support his new "unplanned" family. This convinced me that my allegiance had to be aligned with the highest good for my family, without regard for how it would affect my standing in the church.
Many low income people, who are also low educated, and hooked on a religion that doesn't encourage interference with procreation, except by an ineffective method, continue to have too many babies. Not just that they can't support financially, but that they're ill equipped to deal with emotionally/mentally.
I can imagine that in most of these families, the women are burdened with the family care, while the men are struggling to hold on to a low paying job, to provide for their growing family. These same (sexually driven) men, are not above the belief that they have sexual "rights" with their wives. Many drink to relax from the daily stress they face, and alcohol can be a sexual stimulant. Isn't that part of the "pick up" bar scene? So, women may submit or be forced) to have sex with a drunk man, to keep him happy for a few minutes, and later they both face the facts of that act in sober moments when the damage is done.
Many of the low educated women in these scenarios, feel trapped by financial dependence, controlling religious beliefs, and maybe even a feeling that their worthiness is tied to motherhood. I just saw this recently:
"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice."
Well, I'd have to say "yes and no". But that's a discussion for another time.
RE: Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people
Maybe a more encompassing statement regardless of "rights" and "economic means"...
would be..
In the context of America, regardless of the Christian Faith and its many perspectives, people of all socioeconomic income levels have the propensity to be emotionaly unstable and mentally fragmented by their perceived reality. Many people of all backgrounds and econimic status make bad decisions regardless of education level...yet the idea that it takes money to raise a healthy well balanced child is a fallacy, many people understand that poverty (in this case) is a mental and physical state...many men come home and drink, as do some women. Many men like sex and so do women.
yet your experience has jaded your thought process by focusing on the "percieved rights to have children" due to economic status...and your opinion of lower income people is just and only that...
I dont beleive you have gone to the local neighborhoods and completed a survey of women; their thinking, their attitude or mentall states, or their chosen faith of christianity....
you have no numbers/statistics that show how many men actually come home and drink, or have the inability to be emotionaly stable or have good morals...your conjecture on people is based on faulty premises without regards to the larger contsructs of society, the outcomes of capitalism on people of color, and the racism that was ingrained into the system....all of which play into the dynamics of lower class...even if your of european decent...
You assume and in a round about way that people of lower socioeconomic status are inclined ot act like you say when in fact you have not given any proof ...just your "wordly opinion"...which verges on stereotypes of a specific group of people...because for every person you can point out that has/or lives in the conditions you describe, I can point out just as smany succes stories....
then if those whom have the economic means to have children doesnt make them stable mentaly or emotionaly. I can find the scientific facts thats state most of the phsycological/mental therapy drugs are being taken by the middle class and upper middle class...
and these same people are just as prone to the sex driven, alcohol induced sex, both men and women come home and drink...and both are horney, yes men are more so than women...
and regadless of class all women will probably feel the same way, a great responsibilty to care for their own....
whats lacking is the fair and equal acces to services..that people with money "have the right to"
Re: Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people
I was having computer problems yesterday, and didn't see a copy of my post in my email, so I didn't think it went through. This morning, I realized that the thread topic had been changed, and moved to WaccoTalk, so that may be the best place to continue this. But I'll respond to your post here:
Of course, you're right, about people on all socio-economic levels with emotional and mental instability. I've worked for several very wealthy parents who had those exact characteristics. Their children were examples of having lots of stuff, and very little affection. One 4 year old asked his mom "Why did you have children?" Out of the mouths of babies....
You're also right that I didn't site statistics. But you could....as a means of providing logical/rational explanations for your views. I think sharing "success stories" can really help to inspire and educate. Are those stories indicative of a majority? Please share some with us.
And, you're also right about people with economic advantages having access to drugs, along with everything else that money can buy. People of low income may have need for therapy or medications, but may not have insurance that enable them to get what they may need, even if it might be a consideration.
Although you repeatedly state that you can provide statistics/scientific facts, you fail to do so. This would really increase the credibility of your perspectives.
Unfortunately, all women don't "feel the same way,.... a great responsibilty to care for their own". Women who are mentally/emotionally fragmented aren't usually able to give the love and care their children need. How can they give what they don't have? It may be one of the reasons, some new mothers give up their babies. They know that having a baby doesn't bring with it, the capacity for care, whether mental, emotional, or physical, and many times....all three.
As for access to available services, this can be challenging, since it may involve dragging along a brood of small children. But it seems that we do have more services here, than in our nearby neighboring Marin County. Sometimes, ego may prevent a family from getting these services, because it's perceived as an attack on a man's ability to provide.
I recently heard Tony Robbins, who came from a very large, poor family, speak about a Thanksgiving when they had nothing to eat, and there was a knock on the door. The stranger held a large package containing food. His father turned them away, replying "My family doesn't need charity!"
This isn't an isolated incident. I, myself had a father who refused to accept charity, even on holidays, when we had nothing to eat. He finally relented when we arrived in L.A. from San Francisco, and he only had 50 cents to feed my baby brother and me. I remember waiting in the welfare office for what seemed like hours before they gave him some emergency funds to buy bread and baloney. He didn't eat anything, and because I was aware of this, I didn't eat either, but instead, stuffed my bread and baloney in my pocket.
Things gradually got a little better, but his mental illness, rage, and alcoholism, drove me to leave home at 12, for "unknown territory". I survived, and thrived....away from my European family of origin.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by andrew espinoza:
Maybe a more encompassing statement regardless of "rights" and "economic means"...
would be..
Re: Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people
The only stats I said I could find were about mental/behavioral drug use...I could find many more but this is a start and i dont like posting papes or info I have not read...
"we have an available sample of 10,416 Caucasian, 1,089 African American and 1,539 Hispanic antidepressant drug users aged 18 to 64 years."
"Caucasians have the highest antidepressant drug expenditures and utilization. African-Americans have the lowest drug expenditures and Hispanics have the lowest drug utilization"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19096090
"the problem with rich kids"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/arti...blem-rich-kids
yes I agree that money and healthcare access will affect whom takes what, yet the largest portion of the american population is of caucasian decent, therefore I extrapolate from that statistic and that a majority of the middle class is of european-americans decent...thats my reasoning..
do people of lower class need the same amount of drugs...I dont know....
Re: Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people
Fair enough on the women..you said
"Unfortunately, all women don't "feel the same way,.... a great responsibilty to care for their own". Women who are mentally/emotionally fragmented aren't usually able to give the love and care their children need. How can they give what they don't have? It may be one of the reasons, some new mothers give up their babies. They know that having a baby doesn't bring with it, the capacity for care, whether mental, emotional, or physical, and many times....all three."
The point I was trying to make was that being of lower class does not equate to your original post, that what you say above does affect all women of all classes and they can all be incapaciteded to the point of not being able to give their child/ren what they need? or deserve? its doesnt matter what class you come from....the right to life or bare life...is a human quality not a privilage of our society
Re: Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people
I respect your personal story and glad you have found freedom...
Re: Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people
Sandy, thanks for your thoughtful post. Just a couple of thoughts from me:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Our culture has grown into a population of people who don't take "responsibility". Nearly every conversation or post is pointing the finger at someone. Blame is the prevelant game. Excuses have become a way of life. When I see huge lawsuits from people who were clearly not taking responsible action, and are looking to "blame" someone, I know that the concept of personal responsibility has gone by the wayside.
There's an important distinction I don't see you making here: inappropriate versus appropriate blame. The starry-eyed New Age demonization of blame is not well thought out (I'm not saying that's necessarily your position). I'm wondering how many of the Waccoids who've been screaming about the killing of Andy Lopez feel we should refrain from blaming the cop who shot him. Being responsible means we take the blame for things that are truly our fault, and we assign blame to others when appropriate, while always giving others the benefit of the doubt. Appropriate assigning of blame is often an essential part of solving a problem. If we really eschewed all blame, we'd have to let all the rapists and murderers out of prison. You really, really don't want most of those guys (and gals) walking the streets.
Quote:
The question of "rights" is more complex than it seems. And, it appears that "rights" aren't really absolute, or we wouldn't have different laws governing people's rights, among the various 50 states, and of course, throughout the world.
You may not see a difference between legalities and rights, but I sure do. I believe everyone has certain basic rights regardless of what the laws or religious teachings say in any particular time and place. This is actually a corollary of the Golden Rule. One of these months I'll make my case for this in an installment of my Wacco column The Gospel According to Dixon.
And Sandy, thanks for reminding me yet again what a good choice it was for me to leave religion far behind!
Re: Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people.
BTW, I just noticed that someone entitled this thread "Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people." It would be more accurate to call it "Whether anyone has the right to bear children they know others will have to support, and whether anyone, no matter how rich, has the right to contribute to overpopulation the ecosystem cannot afford."
Okay, I admit that's quite long!
Re: Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people
From a logical perspective, if the largest portion of the American poplulation is caucasian (and I've read that gap is closing) then that population might account for the largest number for many activities, for example: buying cars/homes/high tech gadgets,starting businesses/graduating from college/high school, taking vacations, starting non-profits, contributing to causes, and volunteering....just to name a few. But my reasoning in this may be way off base. I'm sure I'll be corrected on these assumptions. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/e/35F
I'm just guessing here, but when a particular study uses a larger number of caucasians, than blacks or hispanics, I'd expect the number of caucasian drug users to equate with the sample number, although my thinking may be fuzzy on this, and the study may have had a way to determine statistics in an equitable way, that I'm not familiar with. Dixon would my "go to" guy for this.
The study you sited:
"investigates factors associated with the racial and ethnic disparities in antidepressant drug use. We seek to determine the extent to which disparities reflect differences in observable population characteristics versus heterogeneity across racial and ethnic groups. Among the population characteristics, we are interested in identifying which factors are most important in accounting for racial and ethnic disparities in antidepressant drug use.
Differences in health insurance and education levels are particularly important factors in explaining disparities. In contrast, differences in drug utilization largely reflect unobserved heterogeneity across these population groups.
Differences in total utilization are not well-explained by observable characteristics, and may reflect unobserved heterogeneity such as unobserved physician-patient relationships, mistrust, and cultural factors.
I do believe that having a family, even if extremely poor, can make a huge difference in how children feel about themselves, growing up. The larger the family, the more likely a child will find a sibling or other relative to relate to. Still, I believe that population control is vital. Just because a child at puberty can have sex, doesn't mean they should, and just because we have the "right" to have babies, doesn't mean we should. It's a serious decision that many take lightly.
I've heard unmarried women say "I want to have 6 kids". I never understood how they came up with this number. I wonder where that fantasy came from.
I think one of the most helpful things for teens is to have the experience of caring for a "pretend" baby, which could be a doll or a sack of flour. But it's their responsibility to care for it 24/7. This is a great reality check, and might even influence their decision about having real babies.
I do appreciate having the information you provided, and don't even need to read the Psychology Today article on "Rich kids..." I already know about this, and it makes perfect sense. The focus on materialism is a convoluted value system, and it's taking it's toll....on all of us, and our planet.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by andrew espinoza:
The only stats I said I could find were about mental/behavioral drug use...I could find many more but this is a start and i dont like posting papes or info I have not read...
"
we have an available sample of 10,416 Caucasian, 1,089 African American and 1,539 Hispanic antidepressant drug users aged 18 to 64 years."
"Caucasians have the highest antidepressant drug expenditures and utilization. African-Americans have the lowest drug expenditures and Hispanics have the lowest drug utilization"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19096090
"the problem with rich kids"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/arti...blem-rich-kids
yes I agree that money and healthcare access will affect whom takes what, yet the largest portion of the american population is of caucasian decent, therefore I extrapolate from that statistic and that a majority of the middle class is of european-americans decent...thats my reasoning..
do people of lower class need the same amount of drugs...I dont know....
Re: Whether poor people have the right to reproduce as much as wealthier people
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by andrew espinoza:
I respect your personal story and glad you have found freedom...
Thanks Andrew,
Mostly I share stories as a way to inspire people to know that it's possible to move beyond our beginnings, and even our middles, to a place of better endings.
