How much should you have saved and how much should you earn before having sex?
how much what? self-respect? love?
regards,
pan
Guess it depends on whether you are going for a back alley hooker or a Park Avenue Escort.
I would go with a safe estimate of $1 Million. Mainly because if you have to ask a question like that, you should not be having sex for a very long time, if ever, which is my guess as to the time it will take you to get to $1 Million.
Jeffery
Some have said that the only 100% birth control is abstinance, and no one should have children they cannot support. Given those assumptions, how much should one have saved and be earning before one can responsibly have sex.
Condoms, when used correctly, are almost as fail-safe as Ivory is pure.
Condoms can be had for free at your local Planned Parenthood, among other places.
By the logic of the OP, a lot of married people with JOBS shouldn’t have kids just because they are cost prohibitive. :rolleyes:
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, three weeks, six days, 13 hours, 30 minutes and 32 seconds.
5982 cigarettes not smoked, saving $747.81.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 30 minutes.
Is this another “the poor shouldn’t be allowed to have children” argument?
I fail to see that condoms or the pill are sufficiently risky that a reasonable consequence of use would be a child. Even if it is, I think that even those suggesting that one should not have a child before one is able to support it would cede that the prospective parents in this case the parents are not really to blame.
How many children are there in the world due to leaky properly used condoms or a faulty pill?
I suppose the extent to which you are pro-choice plays a part as well.
regards,
pan
ps, £50,000 across all assets and £20,000 per year, or £30,000 per year 
oops - I see that my very first attempt to post without previewing has ended in a near-incomprehensible disaster. I know better next time.
pan
:: pressing ‘Preview Reply’ ::
::slaps forehead::
How did I not notice that this was the point?
Lee - either you do believe jmullaney’s synopsis, in which case I’ll argue against you vociferously, or you don’t and your OP is meant purely ironically, in which case I’m not really sure that a reply is appropriate.
Which is it?
pan
I’ll jump in to defend lee here. Every time we have a thread about abortion, several people insist that the woman’s irresponsibility is to blame- keep your legs crossed!
Every time we have a thread about the poor, welfare reform, taxes, charity, crime, child support, etc. etc. etc., someone jumps in with the opinion that people should not have kids they can’t support.
In theory, I agree with this. Ideally, people should refrain from having kids until they’re reasonably sure they can afford it. In practice, people sometimes (often) have sex without thinking too closely about the consequenses because sex is such a powerful drive that it tends to interfere with reason. Sure, it’s possible to remain celibate. It’s also possible to force yourself to refrain from ever, ever eating anything except bread and water even when your favorite foods are right in front of your nose.
In practice, birth control methods often fail. All three of my kids are birth control babies; I was blessed with the gift(?) of superfertility. I know of several people who have conceived after having tubal ligation.
Even when a person manages to stay childless until she has enough money to support a child, it’s not clear how much money is “enough”. Should you have saved enough money to weather predictable expenses (diapers, food, vaccines, child care, clothing) or should you have enough to pay for the unforeseen catastrophes that inevitably arise whenever you have kids? Say the kid has birth defects. Say he has juvenile diabetes, or he falls off his bike and gets a head injury. Or you lose your job, or your spouse kills himself and you can’t collect the life insurance.
If you must have enough money to cover any conceivable setback, absolutely no one could have kids. Nobody has enough to cover every awful possibility. So how much is enough to reasonably expect to provide for a child?
Afford what? A warm bucket of water and some towels?
Since humanity didn’t even have money for 99% of its history, none of us would now even be here.
One or two breasts usually get them through the first few months, IIRC.
In response to the OP- $200. At least, that’s what the girls on M street keep telling me.
At least enough for an abortion I suppose.
Marc
If you think the only expenses involved in giving birth are water and towels, you haven’t had any babies lately. Ideally, the mother should receive some sort of prenatal care. A normal birth in a hospital will run you a few thousand dollars. A c-section will cost quite a bit more. If you go the natural route and have the baby at home with a midwife, you still have to pay the midwife, and be ready to go to the hospital if complications arise.
Or are you suggesting that women (or maybe just poor women) should forego prenatal care and give birth alone in their bathtubs, and simply let mother and/or child die if complications occur? Before we had modern medicine, lots of women and babies died during childbirth, yet enough survived to ensure we’re here today.
Even a healthy baby will require diapers, unless you are a total slob. Poor moms can choose cloth diapers- much cheaper, but you still have to have access to vast quantities of water, soap, and a clothes line. Most daycare places won’t allow you to use cloth diapers because they’re so messy and because they require changing at least every hour or so. So, if you’re going to work (and most moms can’t afford not to work) you’ll have to spring for some disposables.
My son was born with severe birth defects. I assure you that although I was able to provide cloth diapers and one or two breasts, there was no way I could afford to take him to the doctor to have his legs casted every week, the four complicated surgeries he required that necessitated the services of a specialist, the truckloads of splints for his hands and legs, or the physical and occupational therapy he continues to need.
We have a decent income and insurance, but physical and occupational therapy are not covered. We also could not afford the wheelchair and other special equipment.
We are vastly grateful that the Scottish Rite children’s hospital has provided us with surgeries, therapy, braces, Jake’s custom-built shoes, crutches, and other necessities. (They can expect an enormous donation from us in the future.)
I know a woman whose son was born with many of his internal organs outside of his body. There is no place like the Scottish Rite to help her; Medicaid has picked up the tab for his extensive surgeries. Should a person anticipate that her child will have a defect that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat, and save accordingly? Or should such kids just be considered “out of luck”?
I told you a million times not to exaggerate. Humanity is generally considered to have been around for about 50,000 years. I’m pretty sure money has been around for more than 500 years.
PeeQueue
I guess the OP is a little broad. If the question is “how much should you have if you live in a first world country that doesn’t provide free emergency medical care for the poor?” then it is entirely theoretical – but I guess the answer is you do what people in most of the third world have been doing for the past million years.
Are you trying to insult 2/3rds of the world population?
See, things worked out OK. Why worry?
The reality for most of the world is such a child would be out of luck. Medical resources are artificially limited by medical schools charging a large amount of money for training which they can afford to do because the number of doctors are thus limited and can earn enough to pay back to schools. Partial government socialization drives up the costs. Even if our society had all the doctor it needed to make medical care affordabe, still, people die. Get used to it.
Hominids have been around for about a million years. Homo sapiens have been around for as long as 400,000 years. Am I missing something? I’m looking at the Britannica.
Sorry, didn’t mean to hijiack, it was just a nitpick.
Homo Sapiens has been around for about 400,000 years, but there were many incarnations of homo sapiens. Cro-Magnon man, which is what they call us modern humans haven’t been around nearly that long. Here’s a good article in Britannica that mentions some timeline (note the point about Cro-Magnon man co-existing with Neanderthal for a few thousand years, and the first appearance of CM in Europe just 35,000 years ago):
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,56504+1+55126,00.html
PeeQueue
Cro-magnons do bear a strong genetic semblance to some Swedes and some Canary Islanders, but, aside from us white guys, various other races have a lot less in common with this ancient European race if I’ve skimmed everything properly. But the whole thing is a murky hijack. Suffice it to say when I say human beings I mean any race of homo sapiens, white, black, neanderthal, canary islandish, asian, indian, etc. in this species that has been around for 400,000 years. Point taken I should say 98% not 99% though. If scientists decide to classify neanderthal as a species again instead of a race, let me know.
I should have clarified: Living in the USA, your baby requires diapers. If not, I’m fairly sure Child Protective Services will have a bone to pick with you. In our society, failure to provide diapers and clothing to your children is considered neglect.
Everything worked out all right if you consider relying on the charity of others to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care to my child is “OK”. I would prefer to meet these expenses on my own, but this is not possible. I am unable to independently meet my child’s needs. Without the surgeries, equipment, and therapy he has received, he would not have died. However, he would not be able to do such mundane but important tasks as feeding himself or moving around.
I worry because I cannot afford to give my son the intense physical and occupational therapy he needs. He is almost 7 years old, and he may very well never walk because I’m unable to afford several hours of therapy every day. As a parent, this is a source of great anguish to me.
Also, as I pointed out, my friend whose son was born with his organs outside of his body is not in a situation that is “OK”, since she does not have access to a place like the Scottish Rite to help her. I went to nursing school with her; she quit school just before graduation because if she graduated and got a job, she would have to give up the public assistance money (welfare and Medicaid) her son needed to stay alive. I suppose she could have done what any woman in a third world country would have to do- let the boy die- but she was unwilling to do so, even though sustaining his life meant staying on public assistance.
Many factors contribute to high health care costs.
I’m very familiar with death, thank you, and I don’t believe death is necessarily a bad thing. I can get used to the idea of death; it’s suffering that bothers me. Maybe I’m oversensitive.
Do you believe that parents have a moral responsibility to provide for their children?