Having large families when you can't afford them

The BBQ Pit
101

This is where I chime in to say that, if there is an assumption that babies are being born through a whole lot of fucking around, male contraception is going to have less impact than female, unless there’s a 100% uptake on one side or the other. Get contraception to 50% of females, and the birth-rate drops by 50%; get it to 50% of men, and the remaining men pick up the slack with barely a pause. Or from the point of view of any one woman, she can either be satisfied that she’s taken care of herself, or trust every man she sleeps with to have it covered (as 'twere).

Sampiro, point taken, but I don’t think we’re talking about decreasing the surplus population here, or of denying food to babies… only discouraging the feckless from breeding. (“Feckless”. Heh.)

102

Like fine wine, you are getting better as you age. Plonk just becomes vinegar.

Education–for children & adults–should be the first priority. And health care–including contraceptive advice & help. (Of course, some would prefer “their tax dollar” be spent on more prisons, rather than social programs.)

The OP is hacked off about “foreigners”–most of them from a place where large families make more sense. Let’s hope their children learn to expect more out of life.

103

Again, you assume education works for the group of people who tend to have a lot of kids and be on welfare. I don’t think that’s a safe assumption.

Anecdotally, where I went to school pretty much every high schooler was having sex. Sex education was prevalent, and even if it wasn’t, everyone knew about condoms and whatnot. We’d been hit with a barrage of information about them for years from school and media. The kids who used birth control were kids from middle class type homes. The ones who did not were from welfare-type homes.

You can educate a person all you want. That person must be receptive towards that education for it to work, though. Many of these irresponsible people are not receptive. They’ve heard the correct things to do, but they prefer to disregard it for whatever reason.

104

catsix, and pizzabrat, did you bother to read the paragraph after that line you quoted?

Simply because I believe someone has a responsibility doesn’t mean that I also believe that the general case always lives up to that responsibility.

Or, to put it another way, you seem to be saying that since the economics put the larger costs for pregnancy on women, men don’t need to worry about contraception.

Fuck that.

105

I’m not reading you. If you get effective birth control to 50% of women, births drop by 50%. If you get effective birth control to 50% of men, births drop by 50%. If, on the other hand, men get something that only kills 50% of sperm–what you have isn’t birth control. I don’t frankly know what it would be. A side effect of a medication that had better be doing something else, I guess.

It takes two to tango. Or are you assuming that only women sleep around, and men are monogamous?

106

When mr.stretch worked in child support enforcement, he also did outreach at the schools and juvenile detection facilities.

This outreach was usually to 9th grade kids as part of one of their classes–mr.stretch and his partner would go in as guest speakers and explain to kids how much it costs to have children. They would do a budget–they’d even let the kids pick a reasonable amount of money–$10 an hour or so. As soon as you add a kid, you are lucky if you can afford a Pinto, you get to eliminate all your recreation money, no more cable, etc.

And then they’d explain how the state comes after you if you don’t live up to your obligation–you split up with your SO or your kid goes to foster care. Of course, there’s always the smart ass: What if I go to jail? You won’t be able to do anything to me there! And mr.stretch would calmly explain how he would come after the guy’s money that was on him when he was arrested and any money he made or was given while in jail, including his toilet paper money.

They made quite an impression on some of the kids.

107

Actually, I think it was more along the lines of “A baby is a bigger responsibility for the woman than the man, so the woman needs to be more careful because it can fuck up her life bigger”.

How many baby daddies are out there raising their kids compared to the baby mommas raising theirs?

The women are more likely to get screwed in a sexual situation, so they need to be more careful.

-Joe

108

Wow, what a great OP! I wish I could put across a point that well. There’s nothing ignoble about poverty. And it befalls some people despite all attempts to stop it. Maybe someday we’ll all be rich and live in happy shiny homes with material need a thing of the past. But meanwhile, today, while there are still ghettos, please don’t rationalize populating them with kids. Life is tough enough for a kid. He’s the one who has to put up with all the shit while adults argue about rights and fairness.

109

If only we could cut them all loose, they’d all rise on their own and become rich and successful.

Yes! Go liberaltarianism!

-Joe

110

Right…it’s a lot more motivating (or should be) to do the right thing because it will directly benefit you, vs. just because it’s the right thing. As a female type, I would never count on the latter to be motivating enough for a man. :slight_smile:

111

And this obviates any obligation on the part of the man involved, how?

Where the Blazes do I say that women shouldn’t be responsible for birth control, Joe? Hmm?

If you care at all about the woman you’re about to fuck don’t you think there should be some little time, effort, and thought put to making sure that she’s not going to end up with consequences beyond what she’s expecting? And if you don’t care for the woman, why the fuck are you sticking any part of your anatomy into her?

112

If I respond to your bizarre non sequitur, I — as opposed to you — will be tagged for hijacking. So instead, I’ll just reiterate the point I actually made. Don’t make kids the victim of your own irresponsibility and dreams of fantasy future worlds. Unfair? Yes. But better unfairness for you than for children.

113

Sounds pretty close to it to my ears,[

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8312607#post8312607)

CMC fnord!

114

What are you asking for, a biology lesson? The sperm goes from the man, into the woman, and into the egg. In 100% of the cases where the baby will be carried to full term, the woman will be doing the carrying, destroying any doubt of her responsibility for it. The man, meanwhile, can physically never, ever see the child in his life if he chooses not to, nor worry about it in any way.

Sure, but if you don’t, it’s likely that you won’t.

Because having sex with her will feel good.

115

That was obviously in reference to adults (or young adults). How could you threaten a child with homelessness or starvation? They aren’t even allowed to work.

116

You have a hundred women and a hundred men. Fifty percent of the women take birth control. Therefore, the maximum births per nine month period for this group is fifty (of course, this is simplified and ignores multiple births among other things)

Take the same group and give birth control to fifty percent of the men. The birth rate could still reach a full hundred because every one of the hundred wombs is still viable. It’s just that the fifty percent of fertile men have to make up for the others by sleeping with more women.

Of course, it’s a simplified hypothetical without much concern for reality as it makes the most sense to make sure both sexes are covered. It’s interesting, however, because it highlights the differences in the reproductive systems - males have a rapid-reload ‘broadcast’ system, whereas females are knocked out of the running for quite some time while their womb with a view is rented out by someone that doesn’t like sharing. Without any real effort save some luck, I could father hundreds of kids a year. You :: points at random female :: would be lucky to move beyond a binary digit.

117

No, it was obviously in reference to ““certain groups” like the mentally challenged”,
you know, the words you wrote.

Oh, I don’t know, how 'bout cutting their parents off of governmental assistance,
you know, what the thread’s about.

CMC fnord!

118

Whoops - now I have the feeling that everyone misinterpreted me that way. I was actually saying that people should stop treating “certain groups” meaning oft patronized subcultures, such as poor blacks in the US’s case and Tongans in the OP’s, as if they were developmentally challenged by putting foam in the gutters of their lanes in life’s bowling alley.

I thought it went without saying that, as usual, the children would be taken away and be cared for by the state.

119

I say it’s pretty fair, considering that the laws give the woman essentially full control of the reproductive process. She can decide whether to keep or abort, and with power comes responsibility.

120

Just give Angelina Jolie a call, she likes to snatch up underprivileged kids.

Well, lets look at this from the point of view of the impoverished.

For reference: I think the most agreed upon way on this board of raising a child is to get certain things in order first. A stable income that allows you the money to have a kid, and a nice place to live. Then it doesn’t matter how many kids you have as long as you can afford it.

Is it a right to have kids if you can’t support them? I don’t know the answer to that question. Maybe it’s a problem in the system that people with little education can’t make enough money to support their kids. And in most places, most welfare systems have a monetary benefit for having more kids. But doesn’t it have to end somewhere? I think this is okay, but there needs to be some point where you say, “okay, you have 3 kids and you can’t afford one. You need to get your shit together.” But then the problem is that the kids are innocent in the whole matter. Growing up in a shit neighborhood is really just a training ground for future criminals.

Generally I think that people with futures will be responsible about things. Living in poverty sucks, I’ve done it way too many times, and it really clouds your thinking and self-esteem. People always say, “look at that bum, why the hell doesn’t he help himself.” The problem is that at some point he probably did try, and gave up. Once you do that it’s a long damn road back to society. It’s hard to take the constant punishment of society. If you grew up as a girl in a bad neighborhood, you’re going to face this attitude your entire life, and never actually imagine that you’d get to a place where you can find the strength to recover. Drugs ease the pain, which in turn only compounds the poverty. The reason I mention this is that it’s entirely probable to me that someone could simply give up with taking responsibility for their family and kids. It’s not a good thing, but I can certainly understand the feeling of desperation.

It’s certainly NOT for a lack of education in a place like NZ. Maybe Africa, but not NZ.

What about implanting an IUD into women who go past their limit? Obviously offer free birth control to those who cannot afford it. Maybe it would be a good thing to offer cash incentives for being infertile on the dole? That way it’s a matter of free will. The gist of it could be like this, If you allow us to implant an IUD, then we will pay you more each month? It’s reversible and would cost less in the end, because you have less children to take care of. If every woman did this, sure you’d end up paying a good bit more each month, but then you’d save much more money on a twenty to forty year basis. The unfortunate thing is that you simply can’t cut off payments because they are children after all. But the simple fact is that bad parenting has a high degree of correlation with bad adults.

Does anyone see a problem with that? But then maybe some women wouldn’t care enough, but I seriously think it’d be loads better to have infertile women sitting on the dole their entire lives than fertile exploding families. The only problem is that this sounds too similar to the near-genocide activity of the slovaks sterilizing gypsy women. It would be politically incorrect, for sure. What you’re doing is paying to get rid of poor people over time. But that’s not the goal, the goal is simply to delay it until someone gets to a point to where they can manage it. Maybe a 15 year period? (starting at 15). After that a woman can’t have many babies anyway.

Unfortunately it’s too hard to paint it as a racist thing. It would be less of a problem if they were all productive members of society.

I don’t know how to solve it in a quick way though, but the only way is to somehow get these people integrated into society, and it’s a vicious cycle that gets them down to where they are.