- #1
rootX
- 479
- 4
Should people below the poverty line, who can't feed themselves, have children?
They should not, but if the society supports 'freedom', then society cannot be consistent and infringe upon the freedom.rootX said:Should people below the poverty line, who can't feed themselves, have children?
Well, people have the right to be irresponsible for themselves, but that does not give them the right to act irresponsibly towards others dependent upon them. I.e, it is not against the principle of the freedom of the individual to deprive irresponsible parents of the right to raise their children. (rather, it may be our duty to do so, in the best interest of the child.)Astronuc said:They should not, but if the society supports 'freedom', then society cannot be consistent and infringe upon the freedom.
Parallel question - "Do people have to right to be irresponsible?". If not, what sanctions should be applied to those who are irresponsible? For example, what sanctions should be applied to a woman or couple who have children but not the means to support those children? - or "What sanctions should be applied to a man who fathers many children with multiple wives, but choses not to support any of them (there was a case locally of a guy who fathered 9 or so children with several women who were on welfare)? - or "What should be the sanctions for people who buy a house or real estate on credit, but then cannot repay the debt or interest according to the schedule?"
I agree with your statements.arildno said:Well, people have the right to be irresponsible for themselves, but that does not give them the right to act irresponsibly towards others dependent upon them. I.e, it is not against the principle of the freedom of the individual to deprive irresponsible parents of the right to raise their children. (rather, it may be our duty to do so, in the best interest of the child.)
Astronuc said:"What should be the sanctions for people who buy a house or real estate on credit, but then cannot repay the debt or interest according to the schedule?"
arildno2 said:Well, if they are not able to feed their children properly, they may be divested of the right to be the children's primary carers. The children, after all, have the right to live and have the chance to prosper. If their biological parents have serious difficulties in preserving that right for their own children, others are entitled to secure that right for those children. Whether the parents object or not.
LowlyPion said:Throw them in debtors prison and send them to a prison colony like say Australia?
LowlyPion said:Throw them in debtors prison and send them to a prison colony like say Australia?
TVP45 said:Can we do the same for congressmen who pass spending bills and then cannot raise taxes to cover that deficit? And why Australia? What's wrong with Mississippi?
That used to be the solution.LowlyPion said:Throw them in debtors prison and send them to a prison colony like say Australia?
I'm Australian.TVP45 said:And why Australia?
JasonRox said:Children who can help contribute to the family.
TVP45 said:What's wrong with Mississippi?
jimmysnyder said:I voted yes. If they have children, then they can feed themselves.
Astronuc said:Parallel question - "Do people have to right to be irresponsible?"
rootX said:Should people below the poverty line, who can't feed themselves, have children?
rootX said:One more: Should people stop having children in tough times?
Taking Holocaust as recent event, I wonder if Jews stopped reproducing for those years.
or
Would we have been here if our ancestors stop reproducing when they ran out of ways to sustain themselves?
I was thinking about the third world countries:
It seems that parents think children (boys) would be able to get a job and sustain the whole family. But this doesn't work all the times and also unlike developed countries poor stay poor (very few opportunities for them to rise).
Also assume that parents go without having any children. By the time, they reach 50-60, they wouldn't be able to do any work (assuming that they do reach 50-60), would they die out of starvation?
And, if they get sick during that age who is going to take care of them?
They definitely need(want) someone to take their care during those times.
rootX said:Should people below the poverty line, who can't feed themselves, have children?
BobG said:32.6% of the world's population lives below the poverty line
LowlyPion said:The poverty line has a life of its own. If you got rid of everyone below it, you think it wouldn't rearrange itself like charge on a conducting surface and define another group to be defined below the poverty line?
LowlyPion said:The poverty line has a life of its own. If you got rid of everyone below it, you think it wouldn't rearrange itself like charge on a conducting surface and define another group to be defined below the poverty line?
I was thinking about the third world countries:
BobG said:If people below the poverty line quit having children, it would go a long way towards controlling overpopulation. 32.6% of the world's population lives below the poverty line (stats compiled from CIA World Fact Book).
Liberia, Gaza Strip, Haiti, Zimbabwe, and Chad would be particularly sparse, as 80% of their population lives below the poverty line.
I guess if they stopped having children, it would be less messy than out and out genocide.
Evo said:Throwing in a twist.
If people know they have a very great chance of passing a debilitating and incurable disease onto their children, one that would make them incapable of of earning a living and requiring constant expensive medical care, costs that are quite likely to be footed by the public, should they have children?