Poor People and Children

[alpharomeo]

It is well known that many poor people carry more children than richer people.

Don't they have a personal responsibility, at least partial, to the situation they're in and to their poverty?

Aren't they at least partially to blame, for carrying children they can't support thus sustaining their poverty and greatly reducing their chances and opportunities for escaping poverty?

What do socialists think of this?

[brigadista]

It is well known that many poor people carry more children than richer people.

Don't they have a personal responsibility, at least partial, to the situation they're in and to their poverty?

Aren't they at least partially to blame, for carrying children they can't support thus sustaining their poverty and greatly reducing their chances and opportunities for escaping poverty?

What do socialists think of this?

so only rich people should have children?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It is well known that many poor people carry more children than richer people.

Don't they have a personal responsibility, at least partial, to the situation they're in and to their poverty?

Aren't they at least partially to blame, for carrying children they can't support thus sustaining their poverty and greatly reducing their chances and opportunities for escaping poverty?

What do socialists think of this?

Is it well known? I know that rural communities tend to have more children and people in places with higher child mortality tend to have more children, but I'm not sure if poor people universally tend to have more children.

Is having children a cause of poverty? Absolutely not. Poverty in capitalism is due to the organization of the way work and production are done. If everyone lived a life of pure personal austerity like monks in their cells, there would necessarily be a tendency for capitalists to drive wages down further in order to create a pool of willing laborers. The high end of what workers make under capitalism depends on how much we have and are able to fight for a bigger share of the wealth we create, the low end is determined by what it takes to basically ensure that we can maintain ourselves and come back to work the next day with a reasonable level of productive energy - so if we all lived like monks, then we'd all have a vow of poverty forced on us.

In the bigger picture, population does not cause poverty in capitalism because there is a situation of abundance, again it's the way production and labor and power are organized. People starve as subsidies are given to farmers not to grow and as governments invest tons and tons of money into destructive capacity like weapons and armies - all this could be organized democratically by and for the people who make it all possible through their work, rather than organized by bureaucrats and major stock-holders etc in the interests of profit.

[Positivist]

Are the impoverished children responsible too? This is really an absurd question because;
A.) Poor people don't necessarily tend to have more children.
B.) Where they do, why do you think this is, they're just more stupid than the glorious rich? No. More children are had where planned parenthood programs and contraception aren't available, which is the case in many areas which are already impoverished.

[PhoenixAsh]

Historically speaking there is a correlation between poverty and higher childbirth because, simply put, more children are needed to sustain families and provide for them. This was actually an unconscious rational decision made in reaction to enforced poverty. This practice is offcourse highly influenced by several other factors already mentioned and the fact that locally, larger families carry more weight in the community.

Modern societies in the western world have gone through a demographic transition phase in which these other factors, like child mortality and accessibility to contraceptives, have gone through rapid changes as did the chance of upward mobility.

What OP claims is supported by several statistics....especially within the US...where women receiving some form of welfare or government support have birthrates three times higher than women who are not and higher birth rates than the national avarage.

But the concept of having or not having "responsibility" as being a factor is imo vile. We can debate about wether poverty stimulates childbirth or wether childbirth stimulates poverty but the fact of the matter is that research clearly shows when the economic chances of an area increase so does childbirth decrease. But responsibility or intelligenced does not factor in the equation.

I was reading an interesting study on socio-economic inequality in respect to teen pregnancies in the US which illustrates this. The findings of the study show that high income inequality in an area influences the amount of teenpregnancies by increasing them. Income equality however reduces them. As far as I have understood from the article income equality does not mean higher income rates. Relatively poor areas which are more homogenous in income fluctuations have a steady rate fo teen pregnancies akin to richer areas with a more homogonous income fluctuation like New Hampshire. While areas such as Washington where there is a very high income inequality actually sees higher teen pregnancies.

The explanation given was what the researchers called "culture of despair". It is not entirely clear on what they base this explanation but it goes as follows:
"when a poor young woman perceives that socioeconomic success is not achievable to her, she is more likely to embrace motherhood in her current position ... When there is relatively more hope of economic advancement, it is relatively more desirable to delay motherhood and invest in human or social capital."

The study also concluded that higher income teens are more likely to have a failed pregnancy (with which they mean they get an abortion and have better access to abortion facilities)....

The same conclusion was reached in a Harvard study spanning more than 30 years in Maniupur, punjab in India. Where contraceptive programs and education didn't work at all...but increasing economic chances suddenly caused a sharp and steady decline in childbirths.

Why? Because children ensure the future of the family by providing for that family, either directly by employment, or indirectly by providing manual labour within the family unit or providing higher social status and influence. When that is no longer needed for economic safety and advancement....childbirth declines.

[Positivist]

Interesting find hindsight.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is well known that many poor people carry more children than richer people.

Don't they have a personal responsibility, at least partial, to the situation they're in and to their poverty?

No, because we don't get to choose where and how we are born. Also there is no reason to believe that refraining from having children will necessarily drag one out of poverty.


Aren't they at least partially to blame, for carrying children they can't support thus sustaining their poverty and greatly reducing their chances and opportunities for escaping poverty?

Part of the problem is assuming that people are 100% rational actors who are never influenced by environmental factors. Another is the tendency to forget that people's economic circumstances are fluid - they may well have been in a good position financially when they first had kids, but macroeconomic changes can fuck people over and it's not like they can just dump their loved ones.

Also in certain circumstances having lots of children, even when poor, is the economically rational decision. Like when having more children means more pairs of hands to work the fields or go out begging.


What do socialists think of this?

I think taking an individual focus is completely the wrong response. The institution of property inheritance alone should be enough to demonstrate that wealth is not something gained through personal merit.

[Ostrinski]

Historically speaking there is a correlation between poverty and higher childbirth because, simply put, more children are needed to sustain families and provide for them. This was actually an unconscious rational decision made in reaction to enforced poverty. This practice is offcourse highly influenced by several other factors already mentioned and the fact that locally, larger families carry more weight in the community.

Modern societies in the western world have gone through a demographic transition phase in which these other factors, like child mortality and accessibility to contraceptives, have gone through rapid changes as did the chance of upward mobility.

What OP claims is supported by several statistics....especially within the US...where women receiving some form of welfare or government support have birthrates three times higher than women who are not and higher birth rates than the national avarage.

But the concept of having or not having "responsibility" as being a factor is imo vile. We can debate about wether poverty stimulates childbirth or wether childbirth stimulates poverty but the fact of the matter is that research clearly shows when the economic chances of an area increase so does childbirth decrease. But responsibility or intelligenced does not factor in the equation.

I was reading an interesting study on socio-economic inequality in respect to teen pregnancies in the US which illustrates this. The findings of the study show that high income inequality in an area influences the amount of teenpregnancies by increasing them. Income equality however reduces them. As far as I have understood from the article income equality does not mean higher income rates. Relatively poor areas which are more homogenous in income fluctuations have a steady rate fo teen pregnancies akin to richer areas with a more homogonous income fluctuation like New Hampshire. While areas such as Washington where there is a very high income inequality actually sees higher teen pregnancies.

The explanation given was what the researchers called "culture of despair". It is not entirely clear on what they base this explanation but it goes as follows:

The study also concluded that higher income teens are more likely to have a failed pregnancy (with which they mean they get an abortion and have better access to abortion facilities)....

The same conclusion was reached in a Harvard study spanning more than 30 years in Maniupur, punjab in India. Where contraceptive programs and education didn't work at all...but increasing economic chances suddenly caused a sharp and steady decline in childbirths.

Why? Because children ensure the future of the family by providing for that family, either directly by employment, or indirectly by providing manual labour within the family unit or providing higher social status and influence. When that is no longer needed for economic safety and advancement....childbirth declines.Do you have sources for these studies? Interested.

[#FF0000]

Is it well known? I know that rural communities tend to have more children and people in places with higher child mortality tend to have more children, but I'm not sure if poor people universally tend to have more children.

Is having children a cause of poverty? Absolutely not. Poverty in capitalism is due to the organization of the way work and production are done. If everyone lived a life of pure personal austerity like monks in their cells, there would necessarily be a tendency for capitalists to drive wages down further in order to create a pool of willing laborers. The high end of what workers make under capitalism depends on how much we have and are able to fight for a bigger share of the wealth we create, the low end is determined by what it takes to basically ensure that we can maintain ourselves and come back to work the next day with a reasonable level of productive energy - so if we all lived like monks, then we'd all have a vow of poverty forced on us.

In the bigger picture, population does not cause poverty in capitalism because there is a situation of abundance, again it's the way production and labor and power are organized. People starve as subsidies are given to farmers not to grow and as governments invest tons and tons of money into destructive capacity like weapons and armies - all this could be organized democratically by and for the people who make it all possible through their work, rather than organized by bureaucrats and major stock-holders etc in the interests of profit.

reposting this read it again

[NGNM85]

I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy going on, here. It isn't; 'Should society ensure that all citizens have access to family planning services, and that everyone has access to a minimum standard of living.' vs.; 'People should endeavor to behave rationally, and responsibly.' There's no fundamental contradiction between these two arguments. They're both strong points. Of course, in the 21st century, there's absolutely no excuse, whatsoever, for the enormous inequality, and grinding poverty that we presently have. Granted. However; that isn't a blank check absolving those of working class backgrounds of any, and all responsibility for their actions. Personally; I think the decision to have a child, especially given the explosion in global population, and the rampant destruction of the biosphere, needs to be taken a lot more seriously, across the board. People treat it as if it's just something you do once you get to be a certain age; like getting a drivers' license. People have children because they want emotional fulfillment, they treat it as if they were buying a fucking puppy. I think we need to change the way our culture looks at childbirth. I think it needs to be seen as the solemn responsibility that it should be. It should be viewed much in the same way as imposing the death penalty. (Which I oppose, incidentally.) You have someone's whole life in your hands. That overwhelming responsibility obligates us to approach it with deadly seriousness, whatever our circumstances might be.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

However; that isn't a blank check absolving those of working class backgrounds of any, and all responsibility for their actions. Personally; I think the decision to have a child, especially given the explosion in global population, and the rampant destruction of the biosphere, needs to be taken a lot more seriously, across the board.

Destruction of the biosphere has more to do with the absolutely dire state of environmental management and waste recycling that capitalism has created, than it has to do with people having kids.


People treat it as if it's just something you do once you get to be a certain age; like getting a drivers' license. People have children because they want emotional fulfillment, they treat it as if they were buying a fucking puppy.

Do they? I'm pretty sure most capable adults realise that having a child means bringing another human being into the world. As for those who aren't capable adults (and who gets to decide that?), what do you propose? Parenthood licences?


I think we need to change the way our culture looks at childbirth. I think it needs to be seen as the solemn responsibility that it should be. It should be viewed much in the same way as imposing the death penalty. (Which I oppose, incidentally.) You have someone's whole life in your hands.

I'm not seeing the parallels. One involves raising a human being, another involves ending the life of one, hopefully an adult one after a fair trial.


That overwhelming responsibility obligates us to approach it with deadly seriousness, whatever our circumstances might be.

What po-faced rubbish! Why wouldn't any woman who is willing to undergo the nine months or so of pregnancy required to have a child have given the matter serious thought? Certainly the idea that they should limit their progeny due to some nao-Malthusian nonsense is a non-starter.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Basic point, but the OP is wide of the mark. Poor people re-producing in greater numbers is a reaction to, not a cause of, the wealth inequality that exists under Capitalism. It has its roots in poorer families engaged in either farming work or handicrafts (i.e post feudal apprentice-family system) or other situations where children could be used as labour, i..e literally to feed the family. Secondly, as I think Jimmie Higgins identified, child mortality is generally higher amongst the poor than the rich, so more children are produced as 'insurance' against this risk, or simply because the children initially die off, and more are bred as replacements (sorry for my insensitive language, it's late and i've been working all motherfuckin' day).

It has been proven time and again that personal responsibility - including the responsibility to breed and raise offspring - is not a cause of poverty. If it were, it would have been solved by now, or we can conclude that even if it is, it's a constant not a variable, in that you cannot change human behaviour on such a scale, so it's essentially pointless to BLAME poverty on personal irresponsibility. But it's mostly endemic as part of capitalism, not the choices individuals make.

[rti]

Hindsight20/20 nailed it

[mew]

I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy going on, here. It isn't; 'Should society ensure that all citizens have access to family planning services, and that everyone has access to a minimum standard of living.' vs.; 'People should endeavor to behave rationally, and responsibly.' There's no fundamental contradiction between these two arguments. They're both strong points. Of course, in the 21st century, there's absolutely no excuse, whatsoever, for the enormous inequality, and grinding poverty that we presently have. Granted. However; that isn't a blank check absolving those of working class backgrounds of any, and all responsibility for their actions. Personally; I think the decision to have a child, especially given the explosion in global population, and the rampant destruction of the biosphere, needs to be taken a lot more seriously, across the board. People treat it as if it's just something you do once you get to be a certain age; like getting a drivers' license. People have children because they want emotional fulfillment, they treat it as if they were buying a fucking puppy. I think we need to change the way our culture looks at childbirth. I think it needs to be seen as the solemn responsibility that it should be. It should be viewed much in the same way as imposing the death penalty. (Which I oppose, incidentally.) You have someone's whole life in your hands. That overwhelming responsibility obligates us to approach it with deadly seriousness, whatever our circumstances might be.

stupid poor people, especially the working class women are stupid and irresponsible. you disgust me ngnm85. btw doesn't it make sense to be pro-choice to keep the 'irresponsible' people from breeding too much?

it's soooooooooooooo obvious you're a liberal via privileged background and will give up all pretense of being an 'anarchist' in 10 years or so. so glad you're restricted.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Personally; I think the decision to have a child, especially given the explosion in global population, and the rampant destruction of the biosphere, needs to be taken a lot more seriously, across the board. People treat it as if it's just something you do once you get to be a certain age; like getting a drivers' license. People have children because they want emotional fulfillment, they treat it as if they were buying a fucking puppy.

No, people don't have kids as if they're getting a new 'fucking puppy', they have kids - whether they are rich or poor - because objectively speaking, that is the only purpose of human life, that we need to do in order to survive.

You act as though working class people should bear the brunt of the environmental destruction that industrialisation has caused. Why the fuck should they? Are we all in this together now?

You disgust me, you come across as some sort of privileged, pretentious, first-world hippy following the trend of 'that Socialism thing', without actually understanding the mechanics of anything.

[Dean]

It is well known that many poor people carry more children than richer people.

Don't they have a personal responsibility, at least partial, to the situation they're in and to their poverty?
No. We don't live in a regime of personal responsibility so its not clear to me why we should be applying that to poor people.


Aren't they at least partially to blame, for carrying children they can't support thus sustaining their poverty and greatly reducing their chances and opportunities for escaping poverty?
Sure, I guess you could say that. And we should be confronting all decisions that expand poverty as well. So when capitalists decide to layoff 50 workers, they should be held to be responsible for that, and when 1 worker chooses to spend 1/3rd of her wages to support a child, she and her support network should be held responsible for that.

Of course, I believe in liberty, so I think women should be allowed to have kids. That kind of liberty is far more important than the liberty to control and pauperize peasants that capitalists clamor for. Because of this simple distinction, I would gladly dispossess the latter to provide a massive expansion of liberty for the former in our society.



What do socialists think of this?
It's a petty cultural dispute that does nothing except to obfuscate the structure of power that maintains our population in a persistent state of servitude.

If you're not concerned with the structural conditions that create and expand poverty, then you're not serious about the issue. Why should anyone care about your little rhetorical games? So we can vote for one of your laughable candidates, or so that we can provide legitimacy to the capital regime which runs a constant barbeque in the middle east and forces free market discipline on the impoverished classes while comprehensive state welfare is provided to the highest echelons of the regime?

Keep rolling those dice kid. Tell me in 10 years wherever it gets you.

[Comrade #138672]

Well, from a Western perspective it may make no sense and would even seem like child abuse. However, when you're in that situation it's necessary for survival. Many of your children will not survive and you need the children to aid your own survival.

Of course, when you live in abundance, you don't ever come to think about such survival strategies.

[Igor]

instead you should give all the kids to poor people that way they're less likely grow up to be dickheads

[ed miliband]

my dad grew up very poor and had eight siblings, i think this is definitive proof that poor people don't know how to practice self-control. like bloody rabbits or something.

[cynicles]

Don't poor people mostly have lots of kids for economic security reasons, when they're old and needs lots of kids to support them?

[l'Enfermé]

The obvious solution, then, is to castrate the poor, aye? That should teach them some personal responsibility, those filthy buggers.

[NGNM85]

stupid poor people, especially the working class women are stupid and irresponsible.

This is a gross distortion of what I said.


you disgust me ngnm85. btw doesn't it make sense to be pro-choice to keep the 'irresponsible' people from breeding too much?

I don't know who told you I was Pro-Life, but you've been lied to. I've always been Pro-Choice, well, ever since I could properly understand what an abortion was.

Potentially combatting overpopulation (Incidentally, I don't think it has that much of an effect.) is the least of the reasons for legalized abortion.


it's soooooooooooooo obvious you're a liberal via privileged background

Beyond the fact that this, also, has virtually no relationship to what I said, this is so incredibly wrong it's hilarious. I'm working class, born and raised, mac. My mom raised me, all by herself, worked three jobs, at times, to put food on the table. I'm also a blue-collar worker, (I'm in a labor union.) I don't recall my last tax return, but if I recall correctly, I'm making around, maybe, 17K, annually. I'm sleeping on somebody's couch, because I can't afford an apartment, before that I was actually homeless, for a little while. (Not that this is any of your fucking business, of course.) So, the struggles of working class aren't at all theoretical to me. I'm painfully aware.


and will give up all pretense of being an 'anarchist' in 10 years or so.
so glad you're restricted.


Well, it's been about 12 years, now, so I don't think that's very likely.

There's also absolutely no reason for you to put that in quotes. Nothing in the previous statement, in any way, fundamentally conflicts with the tenets of Anarchism, whatsoever. You're just slinging whatever shit you can come up with.

[NGNM85]

No, people don't have kids as if they're getting a new 'fucking puppy',

Some of them do.


they have kids - whether they are rich or poor - because objectively speaking, that is the only purpose of human life, that we need to do in order to survive.

There is no 'purpose' for human life, beyond the purpose we give ourselves. The instinctual drive to reproduce is hardwired into our brains, but, unlike other animals, human beings are not slaves to evolutionary programming, we alone (At least, so far, on this planet.) are capable of truly free, conscious activity. Furthermore; with the number of humans on this planet, presently, being in the area of 7 billion, substantially increasing the global population, at this point, is more likely to be detrimental to human survival.


You act as though working class people should bear the brunt of the environmental destruction that industrialisation has caused. Why the fuck should they? Are we all in this together now?

This, also, has very little relationship to what I said. I freely acknowledge that the working class does, as you phrase it; 'bear the brunt of the environmental destruction that industrialisation has caused.' Incidentally, not to get to far off point, I would place the lions' share of the blame on capitalism. However, I've never suggested that this should be so. I've never said anything of the kind. It's horrible. What I was saying is that while being a Socialist necessitates that one must care about the working class, and I think a number of people around these parts come up short on that end, and support the working class, that doesn't mean that every individuual working class person is immune from criticism, regardless of what they choose to do. There's absolutely no contradiction, there.


You disgust me, you come across as some sort of privileged, pretentious, first-world hippy following the trend of 'that Socialism thing',

I'm not priveleged, by any definition. Also; I'm not a pacifist, I just don't believe violence should be the solution to everything.


without actually understanding the mechanics of anything.

What does this have to do with my post?

[NGNM85]

Destruction of the biosphere has more to do with the absolutely dire state of environmental management and waste recycling that capitalism has created, than it has to do with people having kids.

True, but seeing as we presently do live in a modern, capitalist economic system, with all that that entails, and the frightening pace at which we are eroding this planets' capacity to support life, and that niether of these things is likely to change, anytime soon, it stands to reason that adding another billion, or two to the global population is probably more likely to have an, overwhelmingly negative impact on human flourishing.


Do they? I'm pretty sure most capable adults realise that having a child means bringing another human being into the world.

That's just two ways of saying the same thing. Furthermore; not all parents are adults, or capable.


As for those who aren't capable adults (and who gets to decide that?), what do you propose? Parenthood licences?

I certainly think that there should absolutely be agencies to which one can report child neglect, or abuse, and who investigate child neglect, and abuse. Of course; these agencies already exist, although they are generally terribly overworked, and underfunded. I mean, the big overarching problem is capitalism, itself, and I won't bother arguing against that, because I just take it as a forgone conclusion that we're agreed on that. Beyond all that the aforementioned entails; public ownership, and management of the means of production, a minimum standard of living, universal healthcare an education, etc., the only change I've suggested is cultural, that we should change the way we look at child rearing, which, for some incomprehensible reason, you find horribly offensive.


I'm not seeing the parallels. One involves raising a human being, another involves ending the life of one, hopefully an adult one after a fair trial.

The paralell is that you have someone's whole life squarely in your hands. Actually, in the latter case, the responsibility is greater, because the former would most likely be decided by a jury of twelve, whereas in the latter case, the totality of the responsibility rests on one person.



What po-faced rubbish! Why wouldn't any woman who is willing to undergo the nine months or so of pregnancy required to have a child have given the matter serious thought?

Last time I checked; Thomas Beatie wasn't a woman.

There's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be given serious thought. However; in many cases, it isn't.


Certainly the idea that they should limit their progeny due to some nao-Malthusian nonsense is a non-starter.

The truly frightening pace of the destruction of the biosphere, while very distressing, was actually tangenital to my point. I was saying that primarily, people should take child rearing much more seriously because the awesome responsibility of this act ethically obligates them to, and, in practical terms, because, already, so very many children are brought into this world to suffer abuse, and neglect.

[NGNM85]

The obvious solution, then, is to castrate the poor, aye? That should teach them some personal responsibility, those filthy buggers.

You're deliberately misconstruing what I said. Again; everyone should take the enormous responsibility of child rearing with the deathly seriousness it deserves, and; 'everyone' includes working class people.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Beyond all that the aforementioned entails; public ownership, and management of the means of production, a minimum standard of living, universal healthcare an education, etc., the only change I've suggested is cultural, that we should change the way we look at child rearing, which, for some incomprehensible reason, you find horribly offensive.

So you don't think that such a considerable change in material circumstances along the lines of what you suggest would change the culture at all?


The paralell is that you have someone's whole life squarely in your hands. Actually, in the latter case, the responsibility is greater, because the former would most likely be decided by a jury of twelve, whereas in the latter case, the totality of the responsibility rests on one person.

Bullshit as far as countries with any kind of child protection service is concerned. I can have my child taken away from me if it is found that I am unwilling look after him or her properly. In all countries that I'm aware of, killing your kids is considered murder, not a legitimate parenting decision.

Your parallel still sucks.


Last time I checked, Thomas Beatie wasn't a woman.

There's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be given serious thought. However; in many cases, it isn't.

Why do you think that is? People are just callous or shallow for the fuck of it?


The truly frightening pace of the destruction of the biosphere, while very distressing, was actually tangenital to my point. I was saying that primarily, people should take child rearing much more seriously because the awesome responsibility of this act ethically obligates them to, and, in practical terms, because, already, so very many children are brought into this world to suffer abuse, and neglect.

I'd say we fix the obviously broken shit before we start lecturing people with our ideas of why one should have kids.

[NGNM85]

So you don't think that such a considerable change in material circumstances along the lines of what you suggest would change the culture at all?

That's very likely. However; the two are not mutually exclusive.


Bullshit as far as countries with any kind of child protection service is concerned. I can have my child taken away from me if it is found that I am unwilling look after him or her properly.

Yes; however, the view of these agencies is limited, they basically only get involved after the shit hits the fan, after someone makes a complaint, or after the police have gotten involved, they're resources are exceedingly limited, and they also tend to only intervene in the most extreme cases. Most of my friends, when I was growing up, came from broken homes, or from homes where there was some kind of abuse, or neglect, however; most of these cases, while deeply damaging, psychologically, to those kids, simply did not fit the criteria for intervention. Look, again; all I'm saying is that our culture should promote a much more responsible, and serious attitude towards child rearing.


In all countries that I'm aware of, killing your kids is considered murder, not a legitimate parenting decision.

I never suggested otherwise. The point of a comparison is the specific common features that are being compared. If I said; 'Ghandi and Hitler are alike, in the sense that both men had facial hair.', it would make no sense to point out the innumerable ways in which they are different. The thing that was being compared was the enormous responsibility, in fact, total responsibility, over another human beings' life, which hangs, helplessly, in the balance. The difference is people tend to be much more ambivalent about child rearing than they are about reaching a verdict in a capital case.


Your parallel still sucks.

Again; the comparison was valid, but you can feel however you want to feel about it.


Why do you think that is? People are just callous or shallow for the fuck of it?

I didn't say that. However; if people are callous and shallow, and behave accordingly, we shouldn't give them a free pass simply because they happen to be working class.


I'd say we fix the obviously broken shit before we start lecturing people with our ideas of why one should have kids.

Again; there's no reason why we can't do both.

Honestly; there's just no talking to you about some subjects.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's very likely. However; the two are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe not, but I suspect that changing conditions is liable to give better and enduring results.


Yes; however, the view of these agencies is limited, they basically only get involved after the shit hits the fan, after someone makes a complaint, or after the police have gotten involved, they're resources are exceedingly limited, and they also tend to only intervene in the most extreme cases. Most of my friends, when I was growing up, came from broken homes, or from homes where there was some kind of abuse, or neglect, however; most of these cases, while deeply damaging, psychologically, to those kids, simply did not fit the criteria for intervention. Look, again; all I'm saying is that our culture should promote a much more responsible, and serious attitude towards child rearing.

Which means what, precisely? The reason I'm asking you all these rhetorical questions about the solutions you propose is because you keep dancing around the issue of what to actually do.


I never suggested otherwise. The point of a comparison is the specific common features that are being compared. If I said; 'Ghandi and Hitler are alike, in the sense that both men had facial hair.', it would make no sense to point out the innumerable ways in which they are different. The thing that was being compared was the enormous responsibility, in fact, total responsibility, over another human beings' life, which hangs, helplessly, in the balance. The difference is people tend to be much more ambivalent about child rearing than they are about reaching a verdict in a capital case.

And my point is that your comparison is so generalised as to be fucking trivial. When I'm operating a motor vehicle, the welfare of my passengers in my hands, but I don't see you wittering on about how we should be so much more solemn and serious about operating motor vehicles.


Again; the comparison was valid, but you can feel however you want to feel about it.

Have you ever considered that there might be enough differences between the two situations to warrant a different treatment of each?


I didn't say that. However; if people are callous and shallow, and behave accordingly, we shouldn't give them a free pass simply because they happen to be working class.

Who's doing that?


Again; there's no reason why we can't do both.

I for one will choose not to be arrogant enough to assume my reasons for having kids are going to be good enough for anyone else, at least not without consulting them first.

Adequate nutrition, schooling, socialisation, that kind of stuff is important and there are objectively good reasons why every parent should make the effort to provide them and more. In the majority of cases parents are unable to provide for those things due to external factors, rather than any personal failing.

What you seem to want to do is add a whole bunch of finger-wagging nonsense on top. You seem shocked that such presumptuous behaviour would cause people to tell you to fuck off.


Honestly; there's just no talking to you about some subjects.

Why do you always throw a wobbler when someone vigorously disagrees with something you say?

[Raúl Duke]

It is well known that many poor people carry more children than richer people.

Don't they have a personal responsibility, at least partial, to the situation they're in and to their poverty?

Aren't they at least partially to blame, for carrying children they can't support thus sustaining their poverty and greatly reducing their chances and opportunities for escaping poverty?

What do socialists think of this?

I find it relative and complex.

To some extent there's a measure of personal responsibility regarding getting pregnant and having or not having children; but this doesn't directly correlate to poverty.


Poverty itself is just like Jimmie Higgins said. It's an aspect of capitalist social relationships.

Part of the problem has more to do with structural issues, for example there's a lack of access to contraception in certain usually impoverished areas in terms of availability of contraception and price of contraception. If contraception/birth control and abortions were more widely available and subsidized or free it's likely that more poor people will be able to choose to not have children.

Another thing has to do with sex ed. We got to get rid of any abstinence-only and/or non-sensical sex ed and make sure there's a good broad accurate sex ed available to all.

[#FF0000]

Again; there's no reason why we can't do both.

thing is there's no reason to do your thing because nobody looks at having a kid like its buying a puppy, stupid.

[l'Enfermé]

You're deliberately misconstruing what I said. Again; everyone should take the enormous responsibility of child rearing with the deathly seriousness it deserves, and; 'everyone' includes working class people.
I wasn't addressing you comrade. Just making a useless post to pretend I'm still involved in RevLeft stuff, it gets quite boring being gaoled to OI with no interesting threads in sight.

[NGNM85]

I wasn't addressing you comrade. Just making a useless post to pretend I'm still involved in RevLeft stuff, it gets quite boring being gaoled to OI with no interesting threads in sight.

Oh, ok.

Yeah, I know what you mean.

[NGNM85]

I find it relative and complex.

To some extent there's a measure of personal responsibility regarding getting pregnant and having or not having children;

Finally; somebody with an ounce of common sense.


but this doesn't directly correlate to poverty.

Absolutely. Although; the working class are most likely to lack the material necessities for supporting a child.



Poverty itself is just like Jimmie Higgins said. It's an aspect of capitalist social relationships.

Absolutely.


Part of the problem has more to do with structural issues, for example there's a lack of access to contraception in certain usually impoverished areas in terms of availability of contraception and price of contraception. If contraception/birth control and abortions were more widely available and subsidized or free it's likely that more poor people will be able to choose to not have children.

Another thing has to do with sex ed. We got to get rid of any abstinence-only and/or non-sensical sex ed and make sure there's a good broad accurate sex ed available to all.

All excellent ideas; I couldn't agree more.

[Urbandale]

The reason he refuses to outright tell people what his solution/alternative is is because he's arguing for eugenics explicitly for the poor, and if not, should really clarify, since that what every single one of his arguments so far support. Including/especially the casual mention that abortion solves for overpopulation, which at this point is a pretty dogwhistle term, as far as that sort of thing goes.

[NGNM85]

Maybe not, but I suspect that changing conditions is liable to give better and enduring results.

Well, this is sort of a false dichotomy, as the two are intrinsically linked. You can change the culture without changing the structure of society, but changing the fundamental structure of society will inevitably have an effect on the culture.


Which means what, precisely? The reason I'm asking you all these rhetorical questions about the solutions you propose is because you keep dancing around the issue of what to actually do.

No, not 'dancing', I haven't moved an inch. More importantly; this question rests on bogus premises, the first being that if I choose to criticize something, by so doing, I am under some obligation to propose a solution, (Admittedly; this is considerably more constructive, although it is possible for criticism, itself, to serve a constructive purpose.) and that any such solution must take the shape of public policy. There are any number of irresponsible, or unethical behaviors, such as, for example; pathological dishonesty, or chronic infidelity, which are very clearly negative, and worthy of criticism, but for which there really aren't any sensible political solutions.


Have you ever considered that there might be enough differences between the two situations to warrant a different treatment of each?


No. In both situations a human life rests squarely, and completely in our hands, alone; they are totally at the mercy of our decision, specifically; the decision whether they should live, or not. The fact that this decision will potentially affect another beings' whole life, namely; whether or not they have one, obligates us to consider it with utmost seriousness. To do otherwise would be grossly irresponsible because every human being, by definition, posess the potentiality to manifest consciousness, to be a 'judge of the universe', with all the near infinite possibilities that entails.


And my point is that your comparison is so generalised as to be fucking trivial. When I'm operating a motor vehicle, the welfare of my passengers in my hands, but I don't see you wittering on about how we should be so much more solemn and serious about operating motor vehicles.

It's possible for you to kill your passengers. However; when one is performing the various forms of mental calculus related to giving someone a lift; 'Should I kill my passengers?' usually isn't part of the equation. Also; your passengers are not necessarily totally at your mercy, they usually decide to get in the vehicle, they probably have the option of attempting to exist the vehicle, or interfering with your operation of the vehicle, etc., again; the comparison is strictly referring to the total control over another persons' life. The comparison is perfectly sound and reasonable. You can choose to become as emotional as you want to be about it, but I'm not going to waste any more time on this subject, so you're going to have to work that out some other way.


Who's doing that?

Specifically? You, The Boss, Mew, #FF000, and Urbandale, so far. I wouldn't be surprised if some other misguided souls decide to pile on. You, and the others, have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that anyone has ever deliberately decided to have a child they were unwilling, or unable to support, (Although; to your credit, you alone seem to have at least entertained the possibility that such an event may have occurred, at some point, in human history.) and that if such an event ever were to occur, we absolutely mustn't dare criticize the perpetrators. This is, of course, both; completely insane, and totally predictable.


I for one will choose not to be arrogant enough to assume my reasons for having kids are going to be good enough for anyone else, at least not without consulting them first.

There's only one, well, make that two, reasons to bring a child into this world; to give that child all the care and support that it deserves, and requires, to be a parent to the child, in every sense of the word, or; to preserve the species, but, as I've already pointed ot, that's simply not necessary, at this point in time.

Again; I am not pre-judging anyone. Even if you presume that such an event has never occurred, in human history, if no-one had ever deliberately chosen to have a child that they were unable, or, even worse unwilling to support, (Which is fucking preposterous.) that shoud not, in any way, prevent you from reaching the painfully obvious conclusion that to do so would be grossly negligent.


Adequate nutrition, schooling, socialisation, that kind of stuff is important and there are objectively good reasons why every parent should make the effort to provide them and more. In the majority of cases parents are unable to provide for those things due to external factors, rather than any personal failing.

I haven't done any kind of in-depth statistical analysis, but I suspect that's probably accurate. However; as I never suggested otherwise, this is about as relevent as the barometric pressure in Bangladesh.

Also; when I was criticizing parents who are unable, or unwilling to give their children the care and support they require, and deserve, I was not merely exclusively in terms of financial, or material support, but also nurturing.


What you seem to want to do is add a whole bunch of finger-wagging nonsense on top. You seem shocked that such presumptuous behaviour would cause people to tell you to fuck off.

This is perhaps the starkest example of how you're emotions have corrupted your typically fairly solid reasoning. This ridiculous outrage that I would have the audacity to criticize people for behaving in irresponsible, and negligent ways, even grossly negligent, and irresponsible ways, carries within it a deeper skepticism as to whether one ever has the right to criticize anyone, for any reason. Obviously; this is completely absurd, and, as I was saying, a testament to the extent to which this issue has, for whatever reason, caused your logic mechanism to short circuit.

Again; I'm not pre-judging, anything. I'm judging. The statement was specifically referring to individuals who deliberately choose (The operative word being; 'choose.') to have children that they are unable, or unwilling to support. I was not referring to any single individual, or demographic, beyond shitty parents, who happen to come in all races, sizes, and socioeconomic backgrounds. The only thing I suppose is that such individuals exist, and that such behavior is grossly negligent, all of which, frankly, goes without saying.

Finally; it would be one thing if people could restrict themselves to substantive arguments, (Which don't exist, because; everything I said was either obvious empirical fact, or basic common sense.) however; most of the discussion thus far has been devoted to baseless accusations, insults, and personal attacks. I'll also point out that, yet again, I have chosen not to respond, in kind.


Why do you always throw a wobbler when someone vigorously disagrees with something you say?

Presuming; 'throw a wobbler' means what I think it means, this is ridiculous. I have been subject to a deluge of venom, and bile, and am only slightly irritated, while you, on the other hand, have become practically apoplectic. So, you might want to get your own house in order.

Second; this really is pretty well removed from what's going on, here. As I've said; there really aren't any substantive arguments to be made, and there doesn't seem to be much interest, in that, anyhow, which is why I'm sitting here pleading with you to understand that two, and two equals four.

[NGNM85]

The reason he refuses to outright tell people what his solution/alternative

No, I didn't. I said that our culture should place much greater value on child rearing, that it should be treated as the awesome responsibility that it is. That's my proposition


is is because he's arguing for eugenics explicitly for the poor,

Not remotely.


and if not, should really clarify, since that what every single one of his arguments so far support.

Right, because; 'Personally; I think the decision to have a child,...needs to be taken a lot more seriously, across the board.', and; 'That overwhelming responsibility obligates us to approach it with deadly seriousness, whatever our circumstances might be.' is synonymous with; 'We should forcibly sterilize poor people.' You've got stones, I'll give you that. That is a masterpiece of bullshit. That is a leap worthy of the Last Son of Krypton. I'm under no obligation to demonstrate anything of the kind, just as I am not obligated to demonstrate that I am not a white supremacist, a serial killer, or the Prince of Wales; because there's no reason a rational person (Good luck finding one of those.) would ever arrive at that conclusion. However; simply because I'm a generous sort; No, I completely oppose forcibly sterilizing people, on the basis of socioeconomic status, or any other reason, not in the least because that's fucking insane.



Including/especially the casual mention that abortion solves for overpopulation, which at this point is a pretty dogwhistle term, as far as that sort of thing goes.

You may be deluded, but at least you're consistent. Actually; I said that abortion has no significant effect on population, (Which is the exact opposite of the statement you've attributed to me.) which I only mentioned as a response to Mew's completely baseless accusation that I am Pro-Life. Incidentally; I've told her this at least twice, if not three times, now.

I'm using the word; 'overpopulation' as a kind of shorthand. If we were all reasonable, intelligent people we could agree that because the planet earth is a closed system, and it's resources are finite, that, while we can't produce an exact figure, we can say, definitively, that there is almost assuredly some maximum number of humans that the earth can support, regardless of their level of industrialization, and that even an agrarian, precapitalist species, were it's population to expand, indefinitely, would come up against this limit. Furthermore; industrial civilization, particularly organized along capitalist lines, is especially destructive to the biosphere. Therefore; taking into account that niether industry, nor capitalism are going anywhere, anytime soon, the frightening speed at which we are, already, destroying this planets' capacity to support life, and the fact that the human race has already swelled to some 7 billion, and likely to add at least another billion to that, fairly soon, that, overall, significantly increasing the population of this planet is likely to have, generally speaking, a proportional, negative impact on human flourishing. All of which is of course, totally obvious to any smart, rational person. More importantly; it should have been equally obvious that this rather banal remark was just a casual observation, and totally tangenital to the point that I was making, which, clearly, you didn't understand, either.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The argument that the founders of planned parenthood used to justify abortion is that it could be used a population control device for the undesirable elements in society (the working poor).
NGNM85 would get along well with Margaret Sanger. Patronizing liberal who just knows that if only those idiot workers would listen to the academic lefties who know better everything would go better for them.

[Beeth]

The argument that the founders of planned parenthood used to justify abortion is that it could be used a population control device for the undesirable elements in society (the working poor).
NGNM85 would get along well with Margaret Sanger. Patronizing liberal who just knows that if only those idiot workers would listen to the academic lefties who know better everything would go better for them.

Not all workers are class-conscious. Most of them are reactionary.

[Hiero]

I don't think it is necessarily income that correlates to birth rates, but rather class position and the future aspirations that each class generally hold. For the middle classes to reproduce, they generally require a period of study and which creates moments of instability in their adolescence. They become more career driven then those in working class occupations. They focus on quality of work rather than quantity (moving through the tiers of the workplace rather than say working long hours and getting overtime). The birth of child for a middle class aspirant in their 20s to 30s could hinder (in thought) the reproduction into the middle classes. The working seeks to build a future based on time and labour. They can accumulate money and the spending of money on objects (like houses, cars etc) from the earlier point in their career. Children do not come in as hindrance in the early stage, but part of the gradual accumulation process. This is obviously generalisations, but my basic point is that classes have a different point attitude towards child birth. In Australia working class males can earn more than people working in middle class professions (excluding the top tiers of the middle class such as high end business lawyers, top HR executives)
Turning to the 'underclass' theory and the idea of 'culture of despair' is significantly different again. There has been a significant amount written about the under classes, which are seen as the long term unemployed, lumpen proletariat, children from abusive families. Their attitude is temporal and is based on their temporal existence, as opposed to stable workers and middle classes. The birth of a child is more of a temporal occurrence rather than a planned event. It is about how people envision their future. The stable working class and middle class incorporate children into their future, those lacking the means to envisage a future self (that is different to the present) child birth comes more of a natural outcome of male and female relations.



Part of the problem has more to do with structural issues, for example there's a lack of access to contraception in certain usually impoverished areas in terms of availability of contraception and price of contraception. If contraception/birth control and abortions were more widely available and subsidized or free it's likely that more poor people will be able to choose to not have children.

Another thing has to do with sex ed. We got to get rid of any abstinence-only and/or non-sensical sex ed and make sure there's a good broad accurate sex ed available to all.

Well you are taken it from a problem perspective, but is it a problem? If there is a problem it is not “poor people have children”, it is “children are growing up poor”. The question (which is such a troll question) asked what do socialist plan to do. The answer is to make living affordable. Contraception and sex ed really should be about public health, not population control. And people generally are not that dumb, they know the result of sex can be a birth and condoms are usually available (contraception is different abortion). However the amount of positive attention that is given to maintaining a sexual relationship, and creating a family are a predominate factor.

Socialist should not endorse programs which seek to shape the working poor’s morality into a middle class morality. Why would the working poor, without a significant change in the outcome of the economy, choose not have children? To wait until they buy a house in the suburbs? That is generally why stable working people and middle class people wait, for those milestones in their life. However if you are facing unemployment as a long term existence, then what would you be waiting for? Education and access to controlling birth is a part of it, but there is a practical component/lived existence that health workers and the welfare state do not even bother to learn about.

There is a underlying contradiction amongst this discourse, there is the pressure of the modern bourgeoisie morality to raise a family responsible and to have children, but a criticism of those who try but lack the means due to do so under bourgeoisie guidelines because of structural realities that are beyond the individual’s ability to fix. Which is the context of conditions we live in today, where we individualise social problems.

[Hiero]

Not all workers are class-conscious. Most of them are reactionary.

So? I would say most academics are not class conscious.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Not all workers are class-conscious. Most of them are reactionary.
So the answer is to trust in the petite-bourgeois students and their obscure role-playing game leftism?

[NGNM85]

Another ignoramus enters the fray, just as I predicted...


The argument that the founders of planned parenthood used to justify abortion is that it could be used a population control device for the undesirable elements in society (the working poor).

That's true.


NGNM85 would get along well with Margaret Sanger.

I've no idea what the woman was like, personally. However; what you're inaccurately, and, probably, disingenuously suggesting, that there is some ideological connection, specifically relating to eugenics, is completely asinine. For the third time; legalized abortion has no significant effect on population growth, which I very explicitly stated;


Potentially combatting overpopulation (Incidentally, I don't think it has that much of an effect.) is the least of the reasons for legalized abortion.


Actually; I said that abortion has no significant effect on population, (Which is the exact opposite of the statement you've attributed to me.)...

So, not only did I say the exact opposite of what you are attributing to me, twice, (Three times, now.) but I did so on the very same page. One can only conclude that either; you are remarkably thick, or you think everyone else is.


Patronizing liberal...

Here we go. Everything but the kitchen sink. Yes, again, the RevLeft equivalent of; 'Buttface', which displays about as much intelligence. ('Reactionary' was sooo last year.)


...who just knows that if only those idiot workers would listen to the academic lefties who know better everything would go better for them.

Wrong, again. While I observed that the working class are (Obviously.) the most likely to be lacking the material necessities for child rearing, that's only one part of the equation. Shitty parents come in all walks of life, as I pointed out in my very first post;


Personally; I think the decision to have a child ...needs to be taken a lot more seriously, across the board.

And again, here;


I was not referring to any single individual, or demographic, beyond shitty parents, who happen to come in all races, sizes, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

You also neglect the fact that I am a blue collar worker, myself, which you also already know. However, for what it's worth; I do believe that the Radical Left does have an important role in the fundamental transformation of society, primarily in terms of advancing, or defending the interests of the working class, or oppressed, or socially marginalized groups, and in organizing, and 'raising the consciousness', if you will, of the working class.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, this is sort of a false dichotomy, as the two are intrinsically linked. You can change the culture without changing the structure of society, but changing the fundamental structure of society will inevitably have an effect on the culture.

The nature of the cultural changes occurring without structural changes being what, exactly?


No, not 'dancing', I haven't moved an inch. More importantly; this question rests on bogus premises, the first being that if I choose to criticize something, by so doing, I am under some obligation to propose a solution, (Admittedly; this is considerably more constructive, although it is possible for criticism, itself, to serve a constructive purpose.) and that any such solution must take the shape of public policy. There are any number of irresponsible, or unethical behaviors, such as, for example; pathological dishonesty, or chronic infidelity, which are very clearly negative, and worthy of criticism, but for which there really aren't any sensible political solutions.

So what then? You're just whining because we aren't suitably stern and disapproving for your liking when a random member of the working class screws up?


No. In both situations a human life rests squarely, and completely in our hands, alone; they are totally at the mercy of our decision, specifically; the decision whether they should live, or not. The fact that this decision will potentially affect another beings' whole life, namely; whether or not they have one, obligates us to consider it with utmost seriousness. To do otherwise would be grossly irresponsible because every human being, by definition, posess the potentiality to manifest consciousness, to be a 'judge of the universe', with all the near infinite possibilities that entails.

Wrong. As children grow up they individuate themselves from their parents, becoming lives of their own. Their life is only in the parents' hands in so far as society allows them to keep their children, who can be taken away because they are not fucking property which the parents can do with as they please. I'm fucking astonished that I have to explain this to you.

With capital punishment there is a human life at the effective mercy of a system of (in)justice which has been deemed by that system to be deserving of such a sentence, barring such complications as appeals, pardons and commution of the sentence to a non-capital one.

Death row and growing up are not comparable experiences and you are a class-A moron for thinking that there is a non-trivial commonality between them.


It's possible for you to kill your passengers. However; when one is performing the various forms of mental calculus related to giving someone a lift; 'Should I kill my passengers?' usually isn't part of the equation. Also; your passengers are not necessarily totally at your mercy, they usually decide to get in the vehicle, they probably have the option of attempting to exist the vehicle, or interfering with your operation of the vehicle, etc., again; the comparison is strictly referring to the total control over another persons' life. The comparison is perfectly sound and reasonable. You can choose to become as emotional as you want to be about it, but I'm not going to waste any more time on this subject, so you're going to have to work that out some other way.

Kids run away all the time, you fucking idiot. Also, "should I kill my children" usually isn't part of the equation for raising children, either. However, "should we kill this person" is a part of the usual equation for capital punishment, which might be the essential and important difference that you seem to keep missing out on.


Specifically? You, The Boss, Mew, #FF000, and Urbandale, so far. I wouldn't be surprised if some other misguided souls decide to pile on. You, and the others, have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that anyone has ever deliberately decided to have a child they were unwilling, or unable to support, (Although; to your credit, you alone seem to have at least entertained the possibility that such an event may have occurred, at some point, in human history.) and that if such an event ever were to occur, we absolutely mustn't dare criticize the perpetrators. This is, of course, both; completely insane, and totally predictable.

What fucking good does pouring our scorn on them do, exactly?


There's only one, well, make that two, reasons to bring a child into this world; to give that child all the care and support that it deserves, and requires, to be a parent to the child, in every sense of the word, or; to preserve the species, but, as I've already pointed ot, that's simply not necessary, at this point in time.

People have children for all sorts of reasons, you clot. Those of us who aren't sociopaths recognise that taking good care of whatever children we have should be part and parcel of being a parent, whatever our other motivations for choosing parenthood.


Again; I am not pre-judging anyone. Even if you presume that such an event has never occurred, in human history, if no-one had ever deliberately chosen to have a child that they were unable, or, even worse unwilling to support, (Which is fucking preposterous.) that shoud not, in any way, prevent you from reaching the painfully obvious conclusion that to do so would be grossly negligent.

If people are having children they cannot support, maybe there's a reason for that?


I haven't done any kind of in-depth statistical analysis, but I suspect that's probably accurate. However; as I never suggested otherwise, this is about as relevent as the barometric pressure in Bangladesh.

Also; when I was criticizing parents who are unable, or unwilling to give their children the care and support they require, and deserve, I was not merely exclusively in terms of financial, or material support, but also nurturing.

So what? Are these people having children they can't support just incorrigible? Then what good would our scorn do, again?


This is perhaps the starkest example of how you're emotions have corrupted your typically fairly solid reasoning. This ridiculous outrage that I would have the audacity to criticize people for behaving in irresponsible, and negligent ways, even grossly negligent, and irresponsible ways, carries within it a deeper skepticism as to whether one ever has the right to criticize anyone, for any reason. Obviously; this is completely absurd, and, as I was saying, a testament to the extent to which this issue has, for whatever reason, caused your logic mechanism to short circuit.

I'm not saying you can't criticise what you want. I'm saying in this instance it's pointlessly paternalistic, and that you shouldn't be surprised when people take your well-intentioned preaching the wrong way.


Presuming; 'throw a wobbler' means what I think it means, this is ridiculous. I have been subject to a deluge of venom, and bile, and am only slightly irritated, while you, on the other hand, have become practically apoplectic. So, you might want to get your own house in order.

Second; this really is pretty well removed from what's going on, here. As I've said; there really aren't any substantive arguments to be made, and there doesn't seem to be much interest, in that, anyhow, which is why I'm sitting here pleading with you to understand that two, and two equals four.

No, you're asking us to accept that raising a child is somehow morally equivalent to capital punishment, which is absurd on the face of it and your continued defense of that flimsy analogy does you no credit whatsoever.

[NGNM85]

The nature of the cultural changes occurring without structural changes being what, exactly?

It isn't clear to me what you're asking.


So what then? You're just whining because we aren't suitably stern and disapproving for your liking when a random member of the working class screws up?

Again; I specifically pointed out that this phenomena was not, in any way, limited to the working class. It isn't that you aren't sufficiently critical, it's that you are suggesting that criticism, of any kind, is totally unacceptable.



Wrong. As children grow up they individuate themselves from their parents, becoming lives of their own. Their life is only in the parents' hands in so far as society allows them to keep their children, who can be taken away because they are not fucking property which the parents can do with as they please. I'm fucking astonished that I have to explain this to you.

I never suggested otherwise. I'm talking about children who haven't even been conceived yet. They aren't out there somewhere, begging to be brought into this world, rather; they are thrust into it, for good, or ill. This was my point; that the decision to bring someone into this world should be taken just as seriously as the decision to take someone out of it.


With capital punishment there is a human life at the effective mercy of a system of (in)justice which has been deemed by that system to be deserving of such a sentence, barring such complications as appeals, pardons and commution of the sentence to a non-capital one.

Death row and growing up are not comparable experiences and you are a class-A moron for thinking that there is a non-trivial commonality between them.

See above.


Kids run away all the time, you fucking idiot.

Of course. I never suggested otherwise. I'll ignore the rest.


Also, "should I kill my children" usually isn't part of the equation for raising children, either. However, "should we kill this person" is a part of the usual equation for capital punishment, which might be the essential and important difference that you seem to keep missing out on.

See above.


What fucking good does pouring our scorn on them do, exactly?

Again; this implies that we're only allowed to criticize people if it cam be demonstrated to serve some constructive purpose. I don't think you actually believe that.


People have children for all sorts of reasons, you clot. Those of us who aren't sociopaths recognise that taking good care of whatever children we have should be part and parcel of being a parent, whatever our other motivations for choosing parenthood.

Most neglectful, or negligent parents are not sociopaths. In any case; that would only be an explaination, it wouldn't constitute an excuse.


If people are having children they cannot support, maybe there's a reason for that?

This is a nonstatement. Evverything happens for a reason. However; again, there's a difference between a reason, and an excuse. Second; that you have to phrase this as a hypothetical is absurd. Clearly, such an event has taken place in human history, in truth, I would be surprised if everyone, here, doesn't know at least a few individuals who would fall into this criteria. That's part of the reason why this discussion is so ridiculous.


So what? Are these people having children they can't support just incorrigible? Then what good would our scorn do, again?

It varies from case, to case. Again; this suggests that criticism has to serve an immediately constructive purpose.


I'm not saying you can't criticise what you want.

No, that's exactly what you're saying.


I'm saying in this instance it's pointlessly paternalistic, and that you shouldn't be surprised when people take your well-intentioned preaching the wrong way.

Holy shit. Dear Diary...

In all seriousness, there's nothing especially 'paternalistic' about it. It isn't patronizing to criticize habitual liars, philanderers, or drunk drivers. There's no difference.


No, you're asking us to accept that raising a child is somehow morally equivalent to capital punishment, which is absurd on the face of it and your continued defense of that flimsy analogy does you no credit whatsoever.

See above.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It isn't clear to me what you're asking.

You said there could be cultural changes to how we view the raising of children, without accompanying structural changes. I want to know what you think the cultural-but-no-structural changes entail exactly.


Again; I specifically pointed out that this phenomena was not, in any way, limited to the working class. It isn't that you aren't sufficiently critical, it's that you are suggesting that criticism, of any kind, is totally unacceptable.

I'm asking what's the goddamn point? I can see the point in rendering assistance (verbal or physical) to individuals or trying to change things on a systemic level, but otherwise... ?


I never suggested otherwise. I'm talking about children who haven't even been conceived yet. They aren't out there somewhere, begging to be brought into this world, rather; they are thrust into it, for good, or ill. This was my point; that the decision to bring someone into this world should be taken just as seriously as the decision to take someone out of it.

"Children who haven't been conceived yet" don't exist. I'm concerned about the ones that do exist.


Of course. I never suggested otherwise. I'll ignore the rest.

Which means that raising children is more analogous to driving a motor vehicle with passengers than capital punishment; passengers can bail out if they think I'm driving like a lunatic, and children can run away (or be taken) from abusive/neglectful parents. Death row prisoners have much less opportunity for escape than either.


Again; this implies that we're only allowed to criticize people if it cam be demonstrated to serve some constructive purpose. I don't think you actually believe that.

I'm asking what good does it do? You keep evading this question. Which leads me to believe that you don't think there is any good that it does, and that it's merely in the service of making you feel better for hectoring those irresponsible proles.


Most neglectful, or negligent parents are not sociopaths. In any case; that would only be an explaination, it wouldn't constitute an excuse.

That's because neglect is more often than not down to environmental circumstances, like a lack of the resources parents need to look after their kids.

Once again I ask, if fixing the environmental and structural factors still leaves incorrigibly bad parents, what good does yelling at them do?


This is a nonstatement. Evverything happens for a reason. However; again, there's a difference between a reason, and an excuse. Second; that you have to phrase this as a hypothetical is absurd. Clearly, such an event has taken place in human history, in truth, I would be surprised if everyone, here, doesn't know at least a few individuals who would fall into this criteria. That's part of the reason why this discussion is so ridiculous.

What is the difference between a reason and an excuse?


It varies from case, to case. Again; this suggests that criticism has to serve an immediately constructive purpose.

It doesn't have to, but if it doesn't then I don't see the point of it, especially if the parents being criticised have no chance of hearing that criticism.


No, that's exactly what you're saying.

Bullshit! Who has control over your mouth and fingers, you or me?


Holy shit. Dear Diary...

In all seriousness, there's nothing especially 'paternalistic' about it. It isn't patronizing to criticize habitual liars, philanderers, or drunk drivers. There's no difference.

Patronising =/= paternalistic.

[NGNM85]

You said there could be cultural changes to how we view the raising of children, without accompanying structural changes. I want to know what you think the cultural-but-no-structural changes entail exactly.

This is still not clear to me. If you are asking whether or not it's possible to change culture, without changing the underlying social structure, I would have to say; yes. If you're asking how this might be accomplished; I think there any number of ways this could happen.

In context; it seems painfully obvious to me that society that places a stronger emphasis on nurturing, and providing for it's children wil be a better society for those specific individuals, and for human beings, in general, than one which does not, or does so to a lesser degree.


I'm asking what's the goddamn point? I can see the point in rendering assistance (verbal or physical) to individuals or trying to change things on a systemic level, but otherwise... ?

Asked, and answered. Again; this presumes that in order to criticize someone I have to be able to demonstrate that this serves an immediately constructive purpose. I don't recognize any such obligation, and I don't really think you believe it, either.


"Children who haven't been conceived yet" don't exist. I'm concerned about the ones that do exist.

That's very nice, but that's not really the topic of this conversation. The thing that is being discussed, here, is the ramifications of the decision to have a child.


Which means that raising children is more analogous to driving a motor vehicle with passengers than capital punishment; passengers can bail out if they think I'm driving like a lunatic, and children can run away (or be taken) from abusive/neglectful parents. Death row prisoners have much less opportunity for escape than either.

See above.



I'm asking what good does it do? You keep evading this question. Which leads me to believe that you don't think there is any good that it does, and that it's merely in the service of making you feel better for hectoring those irresponsible proles.

No, you just don't like the answer. Also; again, my criticism was not confined to any particular socioeconomic class, I was very explicit about that. (Apparently; it's fine to criticize shitty parents, just as long as they make, say, 250K a year.) Again; I don't have to justify criticizing someone, at least, not in that way. I'm under a burden of proof that my remarks reflect reality, that the events ocurred more, or less as I describe them, and, perhaps, to logically justify why X behavior is deserving of criticism, but I don't have to prove that acknowledging either of these facts is somehow productive, which isn't to say that it isn't. Also, again; I really don't think you believe this, either.


That's because neglect is more often than not down to environmental circumstances, like a lack of the resources parents need to look after their kids.

That's probably the case, in most situations, but by no means all situations.

Also; a lack of material resources required to nurture a child is not, by itself, an excuse, necessarily. Obviously; I'm not biologically capable of having children, but, for the sake of argument, let's presume I am, now; back when I was homeless, for a brief period, when I wasn't quite sure when I was going to find a place to live, or if, in fact, I was going to be able to find a place to live; it would have been deeply iresponsible of me to decide to have a child, knowing that. The first rule of parenting is to put your child first, always. To decide, and the word; 'decide' is crucial, here, to have a child, under such circumstances, knowing I couldn't possibly provide for it, but just because I wanted it, or because I didn't particularly care, either way, would have been grossly negligent. So you don't erroneously accuse me of picking on the poor, again; you could also say the same thing about a comparatively wealthy parent who has all of the material prerequisites to support a child; but just doesn't give a shit. That would be equally negligent.


Once again I ask, if fixing the environmental and structural factors still leaves incorrigibly bad parents, what good does yelling at them do?

See above.



What is the difference between a reason and an excuse?

'Excuse' implies that the individual is not at fault, or that their culpability is minimal. For example; Ellie Perkins' son stabbed her dozens of times until she was dead, there's no doubt about that, but he happens to be a schizophrenic, and suffering from a psychotic break, at the time. That's an excuse; he was suffering from an organic brain disease, rendering him incapable of understanding the consequences of his actions, his brain was broken, and I imagine it still is. Ted Bundy, on the other hand, was a perfectly sane, although, still deeply disturbed, individual who got his rocks off murdering, and torturing at least 17 young women, although, in actuality, the real number is probably closer to 40. For all his myriad psychological abnormalities, Ted Bundy was perfectly sane, he clearly understood what he was doing, and the consequences of his actions; he just didn't care. Even as a sociopath, lacking any internal feelings of empathy, or compassion for his fellow man, he still clearly understood the dire ramifications of his actions, and that they were totally prohibited by society. Therefore; his sociopathy (as well as violent mysogyny, sadism, etc.) explains his actions, but it does not excuse them.



It doesn't have to, but if it doesn't then I don't see the point of it, especially if the parents being criticised have no chance of hearing that criticism.

Nonsense. If I was so inclined I could find dozens of posts, by you criticizing any number of individuals, or groups of individuals, who were not present in those threads, for any number of reasons, which cannot be said to serve any immediate, constructive social purpose You have no point.


Bullshit! Who has control over your mouth and fingers, you or me?

You can't forcibly prohibit me from doing so, obviously. That's so obvious it's beneath mentioning. (Although; to be fair, one could say the same of most of this conversation.) However; clearly, what I meant is that you have consistently, and vehemently rejected the possibility that there is any circumstance where one would be justified in doing such a thing.


Patronising =/= paternalistic.

Oh, for christs' sake.... No; I'm not taking the bait.

Again; if it isn't out of bounds to criticize drunk drivers, which, incidentally, I submit, is a very sound point, as drunk driving endangers the lives of innocent people, then there's no logical reason why it would be out of bounds to criticize someone who deliberately chooses to have a child they are unable, or unwilling (Or, both, perhaps.) to support. You're just drawing an arbitrary boundry because you're letting your emotions get the better of you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is still not clear to me. If you are asking whether or not it's possible to change culture, without changing the underlying social structure, I would have to say; yes. If you're asking how this might be accomplished; I think there any number of ways this could happen.

In context; it seems painfully obvious to me that society that places a stronger emphasis on nurturing, and providing for it's children wil be a better society for those specific individuals, and for human beings, in general, than one which does not, or does so to a lesser degree.

As a general point I don't disagree, but I'm interested in how exactly you think this might be accomplished.


Asked, and answered. Again; this presumes that in order to criticize someone I have to be able to demonstrate that this serves an immediately constructive purpose. I don't recognize any such obligation, and I don't really think you believe it, either.

The problem is that you're talking in general terms, when the issue of raising children as a personal decision is dependent on personal circumstances.


That's very nice, but that's not really the topic of this conversation. The thing that is being discussed, here, is the ramifications of the decision to have a child.

Those ramifications are dependent on the aforementioned personal circumstances, which is why I find your insistence that we should be more willing to criticise comes across as moralising garbage.


See above.

None of what you've said above addresses my point.


No, you just don't like the answer. Also; again, my criticism was not confined to any particular socioeconomic class, I was very explicit about that. (Apparently; it's fine to criticize shitty parents, just as long as they make, say, 250K a year.)

I'm using the Marxist definition of class, in which the deciding factor is one's relationship to the means of production, not the size of one's pay packet.


Again; I don't have to justify criticizing someone, at least, not in that way. I'm under a burden of proof that my remarks reflect reality, that the events ocurred more, or less as I describe them, and, perhaps, to logically justify why X behavior is deserving of criticism, but I don't have to prove that acknowledging either of these facts is somehow productive, which isn't to say that it isn't. Also, again; I really don't think you believe this, either.

You accused the rest of us of being insufficiently critical of working class parents in general, rather than being insufficiently critical of a specific case involving working class parents. Because there are precious few specifics in this argument, it leads me to wonder what the hell is the problem exactly, since I'm sure that the vast majority of us would condemn a specific case involving deliberate neglect.


That's probably the case, in most situations, but by no means all situations.

Also; a lack of material resources required to nurture a child is not, by itself, an excuse, necessarily. Obviously; I'm not biologically capable of having children, but, for the sake of argument, let's presume I am, now; back when I was homeless, for a brief period, when I wasn't quite sure when I was going to find a place to live, or if, in fact, I was going to be able to find a place to live; it would have been deeply iresponsible of me to decide to have a child, knowing that. The first rule of parenting is to put your child first, always. To decide, and the word; 'decide' is crucial, here, to have a child, under such circumstances, knowing I couldn't possibly provide for it, but just because I wanted it, or because I didn't particularly care, either way, would have been grossly negligent. So you don't erroneously accuse me of picking on the poor, again; you could also say the same thing about a comparatively wealthy parent who has all of the material prerequisites to support a child; but just doesn't give a shit. That would be equally negligent.

And this specific (hypothetical) case relates to your general complaint how, exactly? Do you think that had you made the decision to have a child, that a post-hoc earful from us lot (as opposed to more bland admonitions that it was a bad move) would achieve anything, apart from making you feel bad for a decision that you cannot simply undo?


Nonsense. If I was so inclined I could find dozens of posts, by you criticizing any number of individuals, or groups of individuals, who were not present in those threads, for any number of reasons, which cannot be said to serve any immediate, constructive social purpose You have no point.

Capitalism could concievably be undone, and something I said, or something similar to what I have said, could in some extremely small way be said to have contributed in it's undoing. A child once born cannot be "undone" in any remotely similar fashion.


You can't forcibly prohibit me from doing so, obviously. That's so obvious it's beneath mentioning. (Although; to be fair, one could say the same of most of this conversation.) However; clearly, what I meant is that you have consistently, and vehemently rejected the possibility that there is any circumstance where one would be justified in doing such a thing.

You've provided one example, and I've pointed out how in that instance the more hectoring approach you're advocating wouldn't achieve anything worthwhile.


Oh, for christs' sake.... No; I'm not taking the bait.

Again; if it isn't out of bounds to criticize drunk drivers, which, incidentally, I submit, is a very sound point, as drunk driving endangers the lives of innocent people, then there's no logical reason why it would be out of bounds to criticize someone who deliberately chooses to have a child they are unable, or unwilling (Or, both, perhaps.) to support. You're just drawing an arbitrary boundry because you're letting your emotions get the better of you.

Not "out of bounds", just pointless and making one look like a lecturing ass.

[Jason]

Commonly on racist forums they try to use this argument: "the 3rd world people should stop having kids", while ignoring other factors. One factor that is leading to immigration (note: I am not commenting on whether immigration is good or bad) is "free trade". Free trade causes immigration to rich countries. It destroys the lower classes in poor nations. Think about it, why are they wanting to come the USA so badly, even risking their lives?