Having children while below the poverty line

[rootX]

Should people below the poverty line, who can't feed themselves, have children?

 

[Unknot]

No, they shouldn't. But clearly they should be allowed to.

 

[cristo]

I don't think they should be encouraged to have children whilst under the poverty line, but we can't stop them, or tell them what they should or shouldn't do!

 

[rootX]

Yes, I am using "should", not recommending making it a law.

I will add my reply later (cur. @ work) but was thinking about family, having a complete family, ways to sustain it, and its dependency on money.

 

[arildno2]

Well, if they are not able to feed their children properly, they may be divested of the right to be the children's primary carers. The children, after all, have the right to live and have the chance to prosper. If their biological parents have serious difficulties in preserving that right for their own children, others are entitled to secure that right for those children. Whether the parents object or not.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think there is a problem with the word "should".

Should society pass a law against it? That is a much different issue than if I were impoverished, should I?

It may well be that the right to have children becomes rationed in the future by scarce resources, but it is a difficult proposition to subscribe to legislative imposition, as opposed to expect that voluntarily choices will achieve the same end. The idea of limiting the most basic drive of life - reproduction - creates difficult to handle corollaries, if the decision is not made solely by the individual, like who decides and on what basis. So far it's been left to Darwin. Choosing Congress to take it on would undoubtedly make a fine mess of things. (Can Birth Credit Swaps be far away if that happens?)

 

[Astronuc]

Should people below the poverty line, who can't feed themselves, have children?

They should not, but if the society supports 'freedom', then society cannot be consistent and infringe upon the freedom.

Parallel question - "Do people have to right to be irresponsible?". If not, what sanctions should be applied to those who are irresponsible? For example, what sanctions should be applied to a woman or couple who have children but not the means to support those children? - or "What sanctions should be applied to a man who fathers many children with multiple wives, but choses not to support any of them (there was a case locally of a guy who fathered 9 or so children with several women who were on welfare)? - or "What should be the sanctions for people who buy a house or real estate on credit, but then cannot repay the debt or interest according to the schedule?"

 

[Unknot]

Only thing we can hope for is through our education system people will become acceptably responsible.

Outliers will always exist, and my personal conclusion is that we can't do anything about them. Rather have some irresponsible people than make (unreasonable) rules, laws, regulations to fix it.

 

[Lisa!]

What do you about that 13 year old dad and 15 year old mother?

 

[arildno]

They should not, but if the society supports 'freedom', then society cannot be consistent and infringe upon the freedom.

Parallel question - "Do people have to right to be irresponsible?". If not, what sanctions should be applied to those who are irresponsible? For example, what sanctions should be applied to a woman or couple who have children but not the means to support those children? - or "What sanctions should be applied to a man who fathers many children with multiple wives, but choses not to support any of them (there was a case locally of a guy who fathered 9 or so children with several women who were on welfare)? - or "What should be the sanctions for people who buy a house or real estate on credit, but then cannot repay the debt or interest according to the schedule?"

Well, people have the right to be irresponsible for themselves, but that does not give them the right to act irresponsibly towards others dependent upon them. I.e, it is not against the principle of the freedom of the individual to deprive irresponsible parents of the right to raise their children. (rather, it may be our duty to do so, in the best interest of the child.)

 

[Astronuc]

Well, people have the right to be irresponsible for themselves, but that does not give them the right to act irresponsibly towards others dependent upon them. I.e, it is not against the principle of the freedom of the individual to deprive irresponsible parents of the right to raise their children. (rather, it may be our duty to do so, in the best interest of the child.)

I agree with your statements.

 

[LowlyPion]

"What should be the sanctions for people who buy a house or real estate on credit, but then cannot repay the debt or interest according to the schedule?"

Throw them in debtors prison and send them to a prison colony like say Australia?

 

[TVP45]

Well, if they are not able to feed their children properly, they may be divested of the right to be the children's primary carers. The children, after all, have the right to live and have the chance to prosper. If their biological parents have serious difficulties in preserving that right for their own children, others are entitled to secure that right for those children. Whether the parents object or not.

Good luck on that. I volunteer for an adoption agency and I see the notebooks full of children who need a foster or adoptive home. A poor, semi-hungry, dilapidated home beats the heck out of the foster care system every day of the week.

 

[Proton Soup]

the higher people are above the poverty line, the less likely they are to have children. so it's perfectly reasonable to expect that poor people take on the responsibility of having children and wealthy people take on the responsibility of paying for it.

 

[TVP45]

Throw them in debtors prison and send them to a prison colony like say Australia?

Can we do the same for congressmen who pass spending bills and then cannot raise taxes to cover that deficit? And why Australia? What's wrong with Mississippi?

 

[Unknot]

Throw them in debtors prison and send them to a prison colony like say Australia?

Can we do the same for congressmen who pass spending bills and then cannot raise taxes to cover that deficit? And why Australia? What's wrong with Mississippi?

I vote for Greenland.

 

[Astronuc]

Throw them in debtors prison and send them to a prison colony like say Australia?

That used to be the solution.

And why Australia?

I'm Australian.

 

[JasonRox]

Back in the day, families couldn't survive without having children. Maybe for those who live under the poverty line also can not survive without children.

Children who can help contribute to the family.

 

[LowlyPion]

Children who can help contribute to the family.

I think that is more true in agrarian economies, where farm units are self sustaining as far as resources and food production and economies of scale, supported by cheap family labor, contributing to overall well being.

My family heritage shows quite a number of generations sporting 6 - 8 children through the 19th century. Indeed I rather suspect that it was more than just a lack of condoms or simply the love of children.

But I think as we enter an age of more precious resources and a higher educational threshold to enter the productive sphere, there is a longer lag from the womb until children can contribute to their collective family's well being - if they ever do before they become overtaken in needing to care for their own.

 

[montoyas7940]

What's wrong with Mississippi?

It would be cruel and unusual.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I voted yes. If they have children, then they can feed themselves.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I voted yes. If they have children, then they can feed themselves.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting they eat the kids here? The line of logic seems less than ideal

 

[rootX]

Parallel question - "Do people have to right to be irresponsible?"

One more: Should people stop having children in tough times?
Taking Holocaust as recent event, I wonder if Jews stopped reproducing for those years.
or
Would we have been here if our ancestors stop reproducing when they ran out of ways to sustain themselves?

I was thinking about the third world countries:

It seems that parents think children (boys) would be able to get a job and sustain the whole family. But this doesn't work all the times and also unlike developed countries poor stay poor (very few opportunities for them to rise).

Also assume that parents go without having any children. By the time, they reach 50-60, they wouldn't be able to do any work (assuming that they do reach 50-60), would they die out of starvation?
And, if they get sick during that age who is going to take care of them?
They definitely need(want) someone to take their care during those times.

 

[Chi Meson]

To be clear, my "no" vote means, "If you are living in poverty conditions then you ought to not have children since it would be a bad idea in the current economic situation; and furthermore, did you actually think it through? I mean, were you planning to have a kid, or was it just what happened? Either way, you weren't thinking it through. I don't know if you know what it takes to raise a child, these days, even with two parents together, one working full time and the other staying at home, it is so much work to raise one kid, never mind two or three. Yes, I do know. I am right there. If you think you are going to get through it easily because 'Grandma lives close by' or 'I'm pretty sure I'm going to get a raise pretty soon' you just don't have your finger on the pulse of reality. It is exhausting, frustrating and terrifying during those first three months. No one can be prepared for it even if they do have plenty of money. But then again, there should be no law against having kids when you can't afford it, nor any other form of stupidity." That's all.

I just watched three episodes of "House." I might be influenced.

 

[NeoDevin]

Should people below the poverty line, who can't feed themselves, have children?

What about people who are below the poverty line, but can still feed themselves? Or those above the poverty line, but due to poor money management or an addiction can't afford to feed themselves?

 

[OmCheeto]

One more: Should people stop having children in tough times?
Taking Holocaust as recent event, I wonder if Jews stopped reproducing for those years.
or
Would we have been here if our ancestors stop reproducing when they ran out of ways to sustain themselves?

I was thinking about the third world countries:

It seems that parents think children (boys) would be able to get a job and sustain the whole family. But this doesn't work all the times and also unlike developed countries poor stay poor (very few opportunities for them to rise).

Also assume that parents go without having any children. By the time, they reach 50-60, they wouldn't be able to do any work (assuming that they do reach 50-60), would they die out of starvation?
And, if they get sick during that age who is going to take care of them?
They definitely need(want) someone to take their care during those times.

Where on Earth are you from?! I'm 50. I still work. I'm not starving. And I plan on working until I'm 60. I've never had any kids because I've almost always been under the poverty line.

When the time comes that someone needs to take care of feeding me or wiping my butt, I plan on jumping under a bus, or finding some hungry polar bear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jiMA_o5wY1E&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jiMA_o5wY1E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Scene of polar bear eating toothless grandmother is apparently unavailable on youtube.
If you would like to witness the scene, please consider renting or purchasing "The Savage Innocents"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mPbO_9XwSDo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mPbO_9XwSDo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ooops. Sorry. Saw you mentioned third world scenario. Never mind.

But you should rent the movie anyways. I've not seen it since I was 10. Interesting plot.
And the cinematography is indicative of the beauty of our planet, without the help of computer graphics.

Almost makes you want to buy a kayak and move to Canada.

 

[maze]

Should people below the poverty line, who can't feed themselves, have children?

Sure go for it. Such is life.

When you start saying "no you shouldn't", "it's irresponsible", etc, you are walking into an philosophical minefield - supposing hypotheticals about the nature of existence, suffering, the future, etc etc. For example, ask yourself right now: "would I rather be poor or would I rather not exist".

Add to that the fact that life was, as they say, "nasty brutish and short" for the majority of all human history. Were all the humans who lived then wrong in having children? If you could go back and convince your poor serf great-great-great-...-great-grandfather to not have kids, would you do it?

 

[BobG]

If people below the poverty line quit having children, it would go a long way towards controlling overpopulation. 32.6% of the world's population lives below the poverty line (stats compiled from CIA World Fact Book).

Liberia, Gaza Strip, Haiti, Zimbabwe, and Chad would be particularly sparse, as 80% of their population lives below the poverty line.

I guess if they stopped having children, it would be less messy than out and out genocide.

Perhaps you only meant people living below the poverty line in rich countries shouldn't have kids. Rich people shouldn't have to see people living in poverty.

Actually, the way the original post was worded, the issue is moot anyway. They'll die of starvation before the baby is ever born. I think the question may have been too lacking to get any kind of sensible answer.

 

[LowlyPion]

32.6% of the world's population lives below the poverty line

The poverty line has a life of its own. If you got rid of everyone below it, you think it wouldn't rearrange itself like charge on a conducting surface and define another group to be defined below the poverty line?

 

[WhoWee]

I think it is wrong to tell someone they shouldn't reproduce because they are poor. On the other hand, they should want to make sure they are self-sufficient and can properly provide and care for their children.

However, as OctoMom has recently emphasized, some people think it's the governments responsibility to care for their offspring.

In spite of this observation, on a personal note and as a father of 4, I can tell you with the addition of each member of our family I found additional motivation to work harder and further improve our standard of living and future security.

The American dream is never to be bound by the shackles of poverty...everyone is free to make their own way in the world...unless you throw the towel in and decide to live on the government "nipple"...the sky is the limit.

 

[BobG]

The poverty line has a life of its own. If you got rid of everyone below it, you think it wouldn't rearrange itself like charge on a conducting surface and define another group to be defined below the poverty line?

I don't think living below the poverty line in the US is quite as tough as living below the poverty line in the Gaza Strip.

And, yes, a floating poverty line does add to the absurdity of the idea that people living below it shouldn't have kids.

 

[rootX]

The poverty line has a life of its own. If you got rid of everyone below it, you think it wouldn't rearrange itself like charge on a conducting surface and define another group to be defined below the poverty line?

It can be defined economically independent to the poorest people in a nation.

That's why I think there aren't any (or very few) below poverty line in the developed nations and I was thinking more about the third world (mentioned it in the earlier post):

I was thinking about the third world countries:

 

[rootX]

If people below the poverty line quit having children, it would go a long way towards controlling overpopulation. 32.6% of the world's population lives below the poverty line (stats compiled from CIA World Fact Book).

Liberia, Gaza Strip, Haiti, Zimbabwe, and Chad would be particularly sparse, as 80% of their population lives below the poverty line.

I guess if they stopped having children, it would be less messy than out and out genocide.

But they also have high mortality rate.. and many people suffer from diseases like HIV
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=51959

I also wonder how many of those people have awareness about STDs and abortions.

 

[Evo]

Throwing in a twist.

If people know they have a very great chance of passing a debilitating and incurable disease onto their children, one that would make them incapable of of earning a living and requiring constant expensive medical care, costs that are quite likely to be footed by the public, should they have children?

 

[WhoWee]

Throwing in a twist.

If people know they have a very great chance of passing a debilitating and incurable disease onto their children, one that would make them incapable of of earning a living and requiring constant expensive medical care, costs that are quite likely to be footed by the public, should they have children?

I agree with you Evo, but other than requiring counseling, what can be done?

Again, overlay your template on top of the OctoMom information. She had 6 children, at least 1 autistic and 2 (?) on disability (I can't recall if she is on disability as well)...then she underwent a fertility procedure to have 6 (?) more babies...the potential for birth defects must be astronomical...can someone please compute?

 

[Evo]

I guess another question would be, why would people want to pass these diseases onto their children?

 

[BobG]

I agree with you Evo, but other than requiring counseling, what can be done?

Again, overlay your template on top of the OctoMom information. She had 6 children, at least 1 autistic and 2 (?) on disability (I can't recall if she is on disability as well)...then she underwent a fertility procedure to have 6 (?) more babies...the potential for birth defects must be astronomical...can someone please compute?

What are you agreeing with? That's she's throwing in a twist? She asked a question.

On the other hand, agreeing with someone as beautiful as Evo is always a good answer to anything she asks.

I think it depends on what's meant by a very great chance. I think somewhere around 10%, or maybe even lower, it would be wiser to start looking at adoption.

At what age should Medicaid/Medicare decide an expensive medical procedure isn't worth the money even if it's the only procedure that would save an older person's life? Is there some formula where you divide the cost by the person's expected remaining life time, so that a procedure for a 40 year old is approved, but the same procedure for a 50 year old is disapproved? Or a procedure for a 50 year old is approved, but not for a 60 year old? And by time a person is 75, the only approved procedure is "take two aspirin and call me in two weeks"?

 

[lisab]

Throwing in a twist.

If people know they have a very great chance of passing a debilitating and incurable disease onto their children, one that would make them incapable of of earning a living and requiring constant expensive medical care, costs that are quite likely to be footed by the public, should they have children?

I think it's very selfish to pass on a debilitating disease to your offspring, knowingly. Adoption is the best option for people who are sadly in this situation.

I'm not adopted (I think!), my daughter isn't adopted (I'm positive), and I don't have any adopted children (really, really positive). But I know enough about raising children to know that I would feel just as bonded to an adopted child, as I do toward my biological daughter. Children worm their way into your heart; there is no need for shared DNA to have an incredible bond with your child.

 

[WhoWee]

What are you agreeing with? That's she's throwing in a twist? She asked a question.

Fair enough...I thought it was a good question...I agreed with the spirit of the question.

 

[Evo]

On the other hand, agreeing with someone as beautiful as Evo is always a good answer to anything she asks.

Will you mary me Bob?

I think it depends on what's meant by a very great chance. I think somewhere around 10%, or maybe even lower, it would be wiser to start looking at adoption.

I was watching a program recently and these parents were all about themselves (we are willing to make the sacrifice to have a terminally ill child that will suffer painfully until they die). What? It made me think of some perverse form of Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, these people seemed to want to be applauded and looked up to for causing suffering.

At what age should Medicaid/Medicare decide an expensive medical procedure isn't worth the money even if it's the only procedure that would save an older person's life? Is there some formula where you divide the cost by the person's expected remaining life time, so that a procedure for a 40 year old is approved, but the same procedure for a 50 year old is disapproved? Or a procedure for a 50 year old is approved, but not for a 60 year old? And by time a person is 75, the only approved procedure is "take two aspirin and call me in two weeks"?

Another excellent subject. Perhaps I should split my off topic post into a new thread. What shall we call it?

 

[BobG]

Will you mary me Bob?

Only if you learn to spill.

 

[lisab]

Only if you learn to spill.

As in, take a spill?

 

[Evo]

Only if you learn to spill.

I'm choking.

 

[Integral]

The real question being asked here is what factors should be considered when having childern. Is economic status really a meaningful selector for who should or should not have babies? Then the real question is who makes the decision? Is this a decision our goverenment can make? Should they make it?

Maybe we should REQUIRE wealthy, educated people to have children. I know several (eg Ivan,Tsu) couples who have plenty of disposable income, good educations and a comfortable life style who choose NOT to have children. If the only the poor and ignorant are having kids what is the future going to look like?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The real question being asked here is what factors should be considered when having childern. Is economic status really a meaningful selector for who should or should not have babies? Then the real question is who makes the decision? Is this a decision our goverenment can make? Should they make it?

Maybe we should REQUIRE wealthy, educated people to have children. I know several (eg Ivan,Tsu) couples who have plenty of disposable income, good educations and a comfortable life style who choose NOT to have children. If the only the poor and ignorant are having kids what is the future going to look like?

Most people that I know have asked me not to reproduce.

With education comes the realization that the single greatest threat to resources is population growth.

Unfortunately, it is also true that the single greatest threat to the economy is a static population or negative growth.

 

[WhoWee]

I was watching a program recently and these parents were all about themselves (we are willing to make the sacrifice to have a terminally ill child that will suffer painfully until they die). What? It made me think of some perverse form of Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, these people seemed to want to be applauded and looked up to for causing suffering.

Another excellent subject. Perhaps I should split my off topic post into a new thread. What shall we call it?

How about something like..."Would a nationalized health care system allow parents to make irresponsible choices?"

 

[rootX]

Maybe we should REQUIRE wealthy, educated people to have children. I know several (eg Ivan,Tsu) couples who have plenty of disposable income, good educations and a comfortable life style who choose NOT to have children. If the only the poor and ignorant are having kids what is the future going to look like?

With few exceptions, poor countries population growth rate is higher than rich countries. And, countries like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan" are facing aging problems.
Most of the green-yellow countries don't provide any opportunities to the poor.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8447/populationgrowthratewor.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Population_growth_rate_world.PNG
Annual population growth rate in percent, as listed in the CIA World Factbook (2006 estimate).


Interesting facts about world poverty:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

Number of children in the world
2.2 billion
Number in poverty
1 billion (every second child)
Shelter, safe water and health

For the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are:

* 640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3)
* 400 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5)
* 270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)

Children out of education worldwide
121 million
Survival for children

Worldwide,

* 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)
* 1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation

Health of children

Worldwide,

* 2.2 million children die each year because they are not immunized
* 15 million children orphaned due to HIV/AIDS (similar to the total children population in Germany or United Kingdom)

 

[LowlyPion]

With few exceptions, poor countries population growth rate is higher than rich countries.

Well then, that looks to be self regulating, not without a great deal of suffering though I should be quick to note.

 

[Zantra]

While it's difficult to restrict someone's freedom to reproduce (China anyone?) I do agree there should be minimum requirements that should be met in order to qualify. Someone with a major mental defect such as Schizophrenia isn't deemed as a suitable parent, so is it really a stretch to say you need to be able to prove you can provide a minimum standard of living for your child?

People who are poor often have children for all the wrong reasons (built in baby-sitter, household maid/resource or other provider) or sometimes simply because they feel it will make their lives better. After all, misery loves company, right? Does the child get a say in this? Is it fair to bring another life into the world so they can die slowly of malnutrition or disease because the parent was selfish and/or stupid? Existence is one thing, suffering is another.
You need a license to own a gun because used improperly it can harm another person. Giving life is the same way. Living in California, I'm used to people posessing things they can't really afford because "they have to have it" but we're talking about human beings, not posessions.

And then there's the social systems to think of. Because when Mary can't feed Bobby because she's poor, who pays to feed Bobby? Not Mary-just ask "OCTOMOM". Millions of women below the poverty level behave irresponsibly for no other reason then the fact they know the state (and you and I) will foot the bill. If the country said "let Bobby starve" I bet that would end low income births overnight. No more free hand-outs, you're on your own. or better yet, if you can't prove you can provide for the child they are taken away from you. Bye bye welfare moms.

Just some food for thought...

 

[Huckleberry]

I'm not sure if you're suggesting they eat the kids here? The line of logic seems less than ideal

Mr. Jonathan Swift might disagree with you. Eating children is the ideal solution to promote economic growth.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html"

What happens when we eat all the poor people? Does the price of resources stay the same? Who is going to do all that cheap labor that nobody wants to do? Nobody should have to clean public telephones for a living. That's a disgraceful waste of human potential. Let's send them to another planet.

Poor people are expert survivors. Life isn't fair and they are very aware of it. They don't want to be disgraced any more than you do. Yes, they suffer. Yes, they can be irresponsible and uneducated. The only way to stop them from having children would be to disgrace them even further by removing their ability to do so. It's much better just to make use of their useless children by eating them. Why bother saving the poor children from suffering and disgracing the poor adults who suffer? Lazy, burden, irresponsible and uneducated are a nice combination for stupid, we all know the terms attributed to them and give them the full share of that responsibility. They are proudly living up to our expectations. Waste of time to put an end to any of that if you ask me. Let poverty serve it's purpose, to feed the wealthy. Who would the Eloi be without their Morlocks?