7 ms·

Having read these articles, there's one thing that I don't appreciate: in these articles kids of poor people are mentioned. Why in the hell are these people "pr

• pharrington 13y ago
  Are you sure you thought this post through?
  • lod 13y ago
    "These people", "producing children". He doesn't see that these are humans. This is a result of a combination of logical, and irrational situations.
• murtali 13y ago
  lack of access to contraceptives or family planning services?
  • Raphmedia 13y ago
    The answer is "love", you robots.
    • wolfgke 13y ago
      Does it really show love towards your partner, if you give him/her a big future financial burden? Also: does it show love towards the prospective child to give him birth into a family where it will suffer of the poverty?
      • Aloha 13y ago
        People dont produce children, Humans have sex, make babies. We've been doing it for as long as humans have existed.
      • Raphmedia 13y ago
        That's implying that you "give" a child as a "surprise" when you are living with a partner. Accidents being the exception, having a child is a huge decision. Especially if you are quite poor. I have no idea what your personal experience of life is, nor your background. But you seem to have some skewed vision of life if you believe that "these people" shouldn't "produce children" as if the poor were not even humans. Poor people have children for the same reasons rich people do. The only exception being that there are less gifts at christmas.
    • derleth 13y ago
      > The answer is "love", you robots. Because "love" totally makes condoms not work.
      • Retric 13y ago
        When you are poor condoms are fucking expencive and don't work long term. There is a reason people sell cheap 2l soda despite the fact a 2l bottle coke is 'Realy Cheap' to 95+% of HN posters.
        • derleth 13y ago
          I thought planned parenthood type places gave condoms away.
          • Raphmedia 13y ago
            If you love cheap condoms, sure. Great for a one night, but not something you would want to use daily...
          • dgabriel 13y ago
            There are fewer of those very day.
          • deleted 13y ago
            [deleted]
    • jlgreco 13y ago
      How is that comment suppose to make somebody who is waiting for a better time to having a kid feel? Are they robots for practicing family planning? Do they not familiar with "love"?
      • edyoung 13y ago
        Nobody is criticizing people who practice family planning. A lot of comments do seem to be debating the merits of having children without acknowledging or seemingly comprehending that there is a huge emotional, non-rational component to that decision, regardless of the parents' annual income.
    • Raphmedia 13y ago
      This is an answer to "Why in the hell are these people "producing" children, if they aren't 100% certain that they'll be able to support them for the years until they are old enough to stand on their own feet?" No, lack of contraception is not the issue here either. What, do you think that because you have low monetary gain you are perpetually unhappy and would not want to have children? That all procreation coming the poorest are mistakes and accidents? That's quite a nice bubble there. Sorry to burst it. If two people love each other enough, they might want to have a child. Yes, even if the future is unclear. Yes, even if it means selling the car, taking the public transportation and working over time and having multiple jobs. Whether the situation is permanent or temporary is not even an issue here.
      • waps 13y ago
        +1 Plus. Having a marriage and children, and getting all financial assistance needed to achieve that is a human right. The US has signed the treaty enshrining that principle into law ... case closed.
• alexqgb 13y ago
  You don't have to be terribly intelligent to realize that the percentage of people who can be "100% certain" that their finances will not implode at any point in a quarter-century span is vanishingly small. Seriously, think about what you're saying here. Also, be aware that severe poverty is actually the best reason to have children. If some manage to survive, they're your best chance for care in old age. Indeed, that's why birthrates tend to be the highest in the most desperate places on Earth. And that's why there's no surer way to reduce the birthrate than to develop social insurance structures that are strong enough and equitable enough for people to feel that they don't need to have lots of children for one or two to survive, and that they won't be utterly dependent on those they do have for care in their dotage.
  • chrismonsanto 13y ago
    - The GP did not say anything about the richest of the rich only having children, nor did they say that they were libertarian. - Calling the GP an asshole and implying that they aren't "terribly intelligent" can only serve to detract from your argument. EDIT: At least you took out the asshole comment
    • alexqgb 13y ago
      He specifically said people should be "100% certain" that they can support their children until their children can support themselves. Given that this normally entails a span of ~25 years (assuming two kids through college), that group is both certainly and obviously limited to the richest of the rich.
      • waps 13y ago
        Having kids is a human right. That should be the end of the discussion. Anyone, rich or poor, is * entitled to have children [1] * entitled to financial and other aid to raise those children safely and securely [2] [1] UDHR, Article 16, paragraph (1) http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#a16 [2] UDHR, Article 25, paragraph (2) http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#a25 Since the US has signed these treaties, and unless it intends to back out, there can be no government policy that does not follow these articles.
• discostrings 13y ago
  Responsibility is a luxury reserved for those who can afford it.
  • wolfgke 13y ago
    Because of the costs for the child there's even an incentive for the poor not to produce children. In other cases (for example ecological awareness etc.) there is - unluckily - a chance that you are right.
  • hosh 13y ago
    That sounds really profound, except it isn't. That assertion is another way of justifying or rationalizing learned helplessness. It is true that there are a lot of things that suck, that few people with access to resources really empathize with those in scarcity trap. Thing is, people are not as helpless as they like to think they are.
    • discostrings 13y ago
      I'm noting my observation of a social and economic phenomenon, not justifying that approach or expounding a principle we should live by. There are many incentives to being irresponsible today, and learning about being responsible with resources involves having some non-volatile resources with which to be responsible to start. When you grow up surrounded by scarcity and a general attitude of helplessness and irresponsibility, it's really hard to develop a responsible approach to life. As a culture, I think we tend to encourage continued irresponsibility. It seems to me that in the world we've created, just a little responsibility doesn't pay--to get off to a viable start, one really needs a critical mass of responsibility, which is difficult to acquire on your own with no resources. People are not as helpless as they think they are, but they have little way of knowing it without the benefit of having already had the experience of having resources and responsibility.
      • hosh 13y ago
        Responsibility is usually a concept that is emotionally tied with blame and punishment. That's how most people talk about responsibility. However, if you are reacting to past associations with rewards and punishments, you are not being response-able. Being responsible doesn't mean, "I am going to be a responsible adult," as in, "I am fulfilling this socially-conditioned image of an 'adult'." Responsibility means being able to make choices (whether they are informed, or not, wise or foolish, it does not matter; there is no such thing as a "responsible choice"), then accepting all the consequences of each choice. It's only when you accept what is, is, are you able to respond with more choices and actions. People tend to want to make choices, yet avoid accepting the unexpected or undesirable outcomes of those choice. By avoiding or deluding themselves into thinking the undesirable did not happen, they compound avoidance with more avoidance until they are paralyzed, unable to act. They are unable to respond. Sometimes, to avoid a trap, you have to let things go. You let go of what seems to be urgent, accept the consequence of letting go of the urgent, in order to make room to climb out of the trap. Or to use a more concrete metaphor: if your foot is caught in a bear trap, and the bear is coming after you, and you don't want to be eaten, then chop off your foot. (That or just sit down and die with dignity). Yes. It sucks. Yes, it will hurt. Yes, you might still die of infections, bleeding out, or get chased down by the bear. Or maybe the bear gets distracted by the newly chopped-off foot and you're able to hobble away. What is, is. You choose, you accept. So most people who think of themselves as responsible adults are not actually responsible. They are simply re-enacting behaviors and emotional patterns of a child with a parent; the parental figure often being society and other authority figures. This re-enactment happens whether someone grows up in an environment of scarcity or abundance. In face of situations that really suck, these folk regress into the helpless child, hoping someone else will make the hard choices for them or magically make things better. Or lament that, they've done all the right things, it's not fair that things suck. People who think of "responsibility" this way tends to use paternalistic language -- something, I think, that your word usage suggests.
• angersock 13y ago
  Well, once you can't afford cable or 'net access, your recreational activities are limited. More seriously, you never 'know' that you'll be perfectly economically steady and care-free for the 18+ years required to raise a child to middle-class American standards until that time has passed--at which point you probably shouldn't be reproducing anyways due to age-related defects. Unless you are talking about "Hey, I'm in a homeless shelter, lemme get knocked up/knock up because why not", you paint in too broad strokes.
• protomyth 13y ago
  Dad and Mom were making good coin with a secure future when they had myself and my brother. The world doesn't respect secure. You'll also find that you need children when your poor in many places to have a shot at a future. I still think fish is poor people's food and won't eat it again.
• poppysan 13y ago
  You should let us know exactly who has the right to reproduce. Poor people don't?
  • tsotha 13y ago
    Sure they do. But do they have a right to use the fact that they have kids to sponge off the rest of us?
    • eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      They're not sponging off you. You're exploiting them.
      • tsotha 13y ago
        I have no idea how anyone could arrive at that conclusion. By going to work every day and paying taxes I'm exploiting people who're staying home having kids they can't afford? I can't wait to hear how you connect those dots.
• superuser2 13y ago
  The prevalence of pro-early marriage, pro-birth, anti-condom social and religious values probably has something to do with this, as well as the fact that it's an evolutionary given that everyone wants to have children (or at least sex). Hard to argue with biology.
  • waps 13y ago
    Do you think those values are wrong ? Look at the fertility numbers : if the rich were made responsible for producing the nation's offspring ... well there wouldn't be a future for America. Furthermore, there is nothing that increases happiness half as much as having a child.
    • superuser2 13y ago
      Yes, I do, because they give people a moral argument that outweighs the ethical problems of creating a human being capable of suffering from hunger when you know you probably can't feed her (well).
      • waps 13y ago
        If that is true, then Americans are violating eachother's human rights, and laws should be changed until that stops being a valid concern, because the US has signed the human rights treaty. It's that simple. The same goes for other concerns that stand in the way of poor people having children. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#a16 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#a16 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#a25 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#a25 And if the problem is food, then I would say the US is violating far more than just those 2 rules.
        • superuser2 13y ago
          Ah, but now you are talking about expanding government (which can't do anything right) and taking from people what they've rightfully earned by being superior people and "working harder." And if you believe in supply-side economics, preventing growth which would trickle down into food for those children. Some people consider that a violation of their human rights too. I don't. I think a little socialism is healthy. But I defy you to solve this without screwing over at least one large group of voters. If that were possible, it probably would have been done already.
• enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>Why in the hell are these people "producing" children, if they aren't 100% certain that they'll be able to support them for the years until they are old enough to stand on their own feet? A variety of factors, primarily two: 1. Poor people tend to have poor education, and are rarely if ever taught about things like birth control. 2. Poor people also tend to be very religious, and in America at least the main religion is anti-birth control.
  • hnal943 13y ago
    Yes that's the problem in the inner city: too much religion. Ridiculous.
• zouhair 13y ago
  Because having kids is a joy of life that doesn't need huge money put upfront. Only the ones with enough money can afford to wait to have kids to enjoy life a little more and be more ready for said kids. The poor do not have that luxury.
• lutusp 13y ago
  > Why in the hell are these people "producing" children, if they aren't 100% certain that they'll be able to support them for the years until they are old enough to stand on their own feet? Because childbearing is not a rational choice -- it's a visceral response to the most basic of biological drives, drives that won't brook interference from something as peripheral as intelligence.
• tsotha 13y ago
  As others have pointed out there's no such thing as 100% certainty. But I agree with the thrust of your post - having children when you can't provide for them is irresponsible.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• fckthensa2 13y ago
  Poor people are "producing" children because they actually want to have children and love them just like anyone else. Not having children will be seen as just another inequality imposed on them.
  • lutusp 13y ago
    There's some truth to that, but it's also true that children are an economic factor in the lives of the poor, especially those involved in agriculture.