(This topic isn't exactly about abortion but it is about reproductive rights, which very often discussed here so I thought the Abortion section was the best place to have this discussion) Does income entitle one to a child? I often read comments like "Don't have a baby if you can't afford it". I'm of the opinion that having no income shouldn't necessarily mean a couple is not entitled to any children, and neither should being the richest person in the world entitle you to sire a hundred offspring. But, could there be some degree of truth to this? Maybe poor couples should stick to no more than two or three children, at least theoretically. The natural preceding question is how this could be enforced. There's abortion, and then there's sterilization. Forced abortion seems too violative to human rights (much more so than sterilization or forced gestation). Some might debate this, but the way I see this is that a forced abortion is far more terrible for a woman than it is for another woman who is not able to abort. There would be a lot less poverty in the world if poor women didn't have children, or at least if it wasn't for the poor women who have lots of offspring. That doesn't necessarily mean it justifies abortion though. (Are we eradicating poverty or just eradicating the poor?) I know of one case where a judge ordered a man to get a vasectomy because he couldn't pay child support. It was kind of an extreme case, where the man had knocked up seven women and had twelve children that were related to him. This is the original comment that got me thinking on this topic:
You: "" The natural preceding question is how this could be enforced"" It can't be. Unless you take away women's rights...which could happen if abortion is banned, that opens the door to other "body control" and women may be forced to have abortions....
Forget income and instead think of responsibility. If you're not capable of sheltering, nourishing and teaching your child to the 'proper' ways of life then bringing a child into the world is irresponsible. Most often the lack of money/income has a large negative influence on the above.
Agreed. Unfortunately, women have babies to secure a source of income or to secure a male. The more babies they have, the less responsibility they have to take on.
SOME women might but NOT all women.... ...and it would be quite stupid to think that having kids is a way to duck responsibility, that the more kids you have the less responsibility you take on ......who do you think takes care of them?
I never sail ALL women, but for those in the low income category, more babies equal more money from the state. Sometimes they get lucky and get a good baby daddy.
You're talking about a VERY tiny percentage of women.... with NO point whatsoever...except to denigrate poor women...and that's not a point...that's a failing
When Western countries are generally experiencing a 'demographic timebomb' and increasingly reliant on immigration, there's an irony that anti-immigrants will often moan about poor people having children. The problem of poverty is dominated by demand-led, rather than supply-side, factors. Ensure a fairer economy and stop moaning about women!
The thread is about income and having children. I don't care what you consider a "tiny percentage", its enough to warn men that these sneaky women will try to get pregnant to secure a man and/or an income. If you feel they represent all poor women, that just shows how you feel about the poor.
Amazing that male dominance still exists, with continued female discrimination, when we have all these sneaky women!
Based on right-wing logic, women who are pregnant should have no right to any personal decisions that negatively affect the unborn child. If a woman is pregnant, her rights should be suspended until the child is born. Diet, exercise, lifestyle, doctors visits, sleep cycles, should all be mandated by the government, to protect the baby. If she doesn't obey, lock her up. After all, the baby is more important, right?
So if a woman is well on her way to having a crack baby, the state should just stand by and do nothing?
Crack is already illegal. What about booze? Clearly that should be illegal for pregnant women. And what if she is eating too much salt; not getting enough exercise, not getting the proper supplements? Dare we allow her to risk the future of that child? Every decision that affects the health of the unborn child should be regulated, following rw logic.
My late brother's wife had another child when theirs were getting close to the age where she'd be cut off welfare. Yes, it does happen. To what extent, I don't know. Men need to protect themselves. Use a condom and flush it after use so that she cannot inseminate herself after the guy leaves - yes, it has happened and the man has been on the hook for child support.
I'm quoting from another thread because I believe it's more appropriate to discuss this in this thread (since I already made mention to the subject in the OP) Whether you consider that true or not, doesn't mean forcing birth is as bad as forced abortion. That should be pretty obvious (I would think), however much you want to draw an analogy between the two.
FoxHastings said: ā You could have addressed THIS comment from one of the few who posted : """Forcing abortion is just as primitive as forcing women to give birth.""""""" NO, taking away the right of women to their own bodies is wrong...FORCE either way is wrong...
that's what abortion is...FORCE...using violence to get what we want. You stated in another thread you wanted abortion at 23 weeks. And 16 weeks. You want freedom? Freedom to do WHAT ? It's no more of a medical procedure than what Josef Mengele did.
FoxHastings said: ā NO, taking away the right of women to their own bodies is wrong...FORCE either way is wrong... Baloney! No one is forced to do anything in abortion anymore than someone is "forced" in any other medical procedure. YOU are just trying really hard to justify YOUR USE OF FORCE. Where is "force" in a heart operation? No I did not. I said 23 weeks was the legal cut off. But of course you got that wrong. DUHHH, how can it be both..???? EXPLAIN how it can be both????? What stupid questions...... I take it YOU don't want freedom? That is VERY weirdly ODD.... No, it is quite different........Mengele? Isn't he that guy who FORCED people to do things just like Anti-Choicers want to FORCE women to do thing?? They have so much in common!!!
Oh yes, welfare is real big bucks? (Sarcasm alert) The more babies you have the deeper you go into to poverty. Yes we calculating women get pregnant go through nine months of discomfort, go through the pain of childbirth and raising a child for 18 years just so we can trap a man. What contempt for women
I did not paint all women with a broad stroke as you claim; I simply pointed out that it happens often enough that there is a term for it. We should teach our sons to protect themselves. Would you want your son becoming a "baby daddy"? Jumping to the unreasonable conclusion that knowing that fact means I have contempt for women is either dishonest or ignorant. I was raised by a single mother. I have been married to a very successful woman for 20+ years and we have 2 very successful daughters. If you want to know something about me or my position, just ask me and I will tell you.
