Having children while below the poverty line

[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?

 

[quantumdude]

"If you can't feed em, don't breed em!"

I voted "No".

 

[rootX]

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

I thought he was serious

 

[Huckleberry]

He was serious. He just wasn't being literal.