6 ms·

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 i

by 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.
    - clarkm 13y ago
      Why is calling something a "human right" and pointing to some UN declaration any different than calling something a "God-given right" and pointing to the Bible?
      - msellout 13y ago
        International law.
      - s_kilk 13y ago
        It's different in that the UN demonstrably exists.
        waps 13y ago
        That the UN exists does not explain the reason behind the policies. That's like saying the bible is true because the printer exists, or the church, which is of course trivially true. That some organisation is behind a document does not make it true or false. And keep in mind that the League of nations (the creators of the UN) came forth from the Red cross, which was a division of the army that guards of the pope.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - tomjen3 13y ago
      No, it is not a human right. If we can just point to websites as undisputed facts, then the earth is flat.
wolfgke 13y ago
> That's right, pathologically selfish and dangerously anti-social "libertarians" who think that only the richest of the rich should even consider having children in the first place. Libertarians would never come up with the idea that only the richest should be allowed since this would be a deprivation of freedom (which libertarians appreciate). I didn't they that only the richest people should have children. I only claim that it is irresponsible to produce children if you don't have enough financial security: both for the expenses and for the fact that the child will suffer from the poverty.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Sorry dude, but you very specifically said that parents need to be "100% certain" that they can provide for their kids until their kids can provide for themselves. In America, that standard means one thing and one thing only: the richest of the rich. Also, it doesn't take much education to become aware of this country's long and unbroken history of race-based brutality (slavery, Jim Crow, and the War on Drugs to say nothing of the outright genocide inflicted on Native Americans). Nor do you have to be exceptionally thoughtful to recognize the resulting correlations between race and poverty that persist today. And given how deeply engrained these problems have become, saying "poor people simply shouldn't reproduce" is tantamount to insisting that entire races suddenly give up on themselves in a sweeping acts of self-destruction. Which, yeah, right. Maybe go fuck yourself? There's another, far more decent response to systematically denigrated people who struggle mightily to raise their kids: you help them.

by alexqgb 13y ago

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.
  - clarkm 13y ago
    Why is calling something a "human right" and pointing to some UN declaration any different than calling something a "God-given right" and pointing to the Bible?
    - msellout 13y ago
      International law.
    - s_kilk 13y ago
      It's different in that the UN demonstrably exists.
      - waps 13y ago
        That the UN exists does not explain the reason behind the policies. That's like saying the bible is true because the printer exists, or the church, which is of course trivially true. That some organisation is behind a document does not make it true or false. And keep in mind that the League of nations (the creators of the UN) came forth from the Red cross, which was a division of the army that guards of the pope.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    No, it is not a human right. If we can just point to websites as undisputed facts, then the earth is flat.

wolfgke 13y ago

> That's right, pathologically selfish and dangerously anti-social "libertarians" who think that only the richest of the rich should even consider having children in the first place. Libertarians would never come up with the idea that only the richest should be allowed since this would be a deprivation of freedom (which libertarians appreciate). I didn't they that only the richest people should have children. I only claim that it is irresponsible to produce children if you don't have enough financial security: both for the expenses and for the fact that the child will suffer from the poverty.

alexqgb 13y ago
Sorry dude, but you very specifically said that parents need to be "100% certain" that they can provide for their kids until their kids can provide for themselves. In America, that standard means one thing and one thing only: the richest of the rich. Also, it doesn't take much education to become aware of this country's long and unbroken history of race-based brutality (slavery, Jim Crow, and the War on Drugs to say nothing of the outright genocide inflicted on Native Americans). Nor do you have to be exceptionally thoughtful to recognize the resulting correlations between race and poverty that persist today. And given how deeply engrained these problems have become, saying "poor people simply shouldn't reproduce" is tantamount to insisting that entire races suddenly give up on themselves in a sweeping acts of self-destruction. Which, yeah, right. Maybe go fuck yourself? There's another, far more decent response to systematically denigrated people who struggle mightily to raise their kids: you help them.