[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The focus should be more on teaching kids not to have sex until they are ready to have and pay for babies. Safe Sex is not 100% safe. Abstinence is 100% safe.
[/quote]
If asked to pick a winner between testosterone and biological drive, on the one hand, and a 14-18 year old’s will power, good judgment, and strong moral compass, on the other, I wouldn’t consider the latter a particularly safe bet, even with good parents and good training.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The focus should be more on teaching kids not to have sex until they are ready to have and pay for babies. Safe Sex is not 100% safe. Abstinence is 100% safe.
[/quote]
If asked to pick a winner between testosterone and biological drive, on the one hand, and a 14-18 year old’s will power, good judgment, and strong moral compass, on the other, I wouldn’t consider the latter a particularly safe bet, even with good parents and good training. [/quote]
Agree completely, except I think you’re being way too conservative in stating that age range. I’d say 12-48 is more like it.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Lets change it up a bit. The focus should be more on teaching kids not to have sex until they are ready to have and pay for babies. Safe Sex is not 100% safe. Abstinence is 100% safe.
I know I know but boys cant keep it in the their pants, and girls are just looking for a baby daddy.[/quote]
Abstinence is 100% safe, but can be a tall order. I am all for being responsible, it worked out well for me.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
The focus should be more on teaching kids how not to make babies when having sex.[/quote]
So you think that really is the solution to the root problem?[/quote]
I dont think there is an easy solution. It seems the worse off people are on the social scale, the better they are at procreating.
I dont know how the ruleset is in the different states in the US either. In Norway one can do an abortion before 12 weeks of pregnancy, after that there should be some serious lifethreatening conditions that applies before one can do a legal abortion. I must say, I saw my daughter on 3D ultrasound after 11 weeks of pregnancy and loved her already.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The focus should be more on teaching kids not to have sex until they are ready to have and pay for babies. Safe Sex is not 100% safe. Abstinence is 100% safe.
[/quote]
If asked to pick a winner between testosterone and biological drive, on the one hand, and a 14-18 year old’s will power, good judgment, and strong moral compass, on the other, I wouldn’t consider the latter a particularly safe bet, even with good parents and good training. [/quote]
Agree completely, except I think you’re being way too conservative in stating that age range. I’d say 12-48 is more like it. [/quote]
I agree with you guys. All I was saying was it was an option. All that is ever stated is we need to teach safe sex. Why not teach abstinence as well? It is a 100% viable and safe option, but people are not willing to try it.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The focus should be more on teaching kids not to have sex until they are ready to have and pay for babies. Safe Sex is not 100% safe. Abstinence is 100% safe.
[/quote]
If asked to pick a winner between testosterone and biological drive, on the one hand, and a 14-18 year old’s will power, good judgment, and strong moral compass, on the other, I wouldn’t consider the latter a particularly safe bet, even with good parents and good training. [/quote]
Agree completely, except I think you’re being way too conservative in stating that age range. I’d say 12-48 is more like it. [/quote]
I agree with you guys. All I was saying was it was an option. All that is ever stated is we need to teach safe sex. Why not teach abstinence as well? It is a 100% viable and safe option, but people are not willing to try it.
[/quote]
It makes sense to me to use every reasonable arrow in the quiver to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
If there is one thing I will teach my daughter it is that I know plenty of people getting kids by using the I dont know the english term for this, but we call it “jumping off in the curve” method. Which means going bareback then betting the rest of your life on the boy pulling out before it is too late. Not very effective.
[quote]espenl wrote:
]
I dont think there is an easy solution. It seems the worse off people are on the social scale, the better they are at procreating.
[/quote]
I am going to throw a bomb in the room. It is because people are not working so they have a lot of time on their hands. What better to do than start having sex with everyone and making babies.
[quote]espenl wrote:
If there is one thing I will teach my daughter it is that I know plenty of people getting kids by using the I dont know the english term for this, but we call it “jumping off in the curve” method. Which means going bareback then betting the rest of your life on the boy pulling out before it is too late. Not very effective.[/quote]
We call it the “withdrawal” or (more technically) “coitus interruptus”, and yes, it’s one of the least effective birth control methods there is. Also, coincidentally, the only method specifically condemned in the Bible.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
]
I dont think there is an easy solution. It seems the worse off people are on the social scale, the better they are at procreating.
[/quote]
I am going to throw a bomb in the room. It is because people are not working so they have a lot of time on their hands. What better to do than start having sex with everyone and making babies.
[/quote]
The poor can afford more children than the rich can.
Also, and I know I’m going to get hated on for this observation, but it does seem to be the case that the less education and wealth you have, the more likely it is that you belong to a religion that encourages you (commands, even) to have as many children as you possibly can.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Also, and I know I’m going to get hated on for this observation, but it does seem to be the case that the less education and wealth you have, the more likely it is that you belong to a religion that encourages you (commands, even) to have as many children as you possibly can. [/quote]
Religion, or a particular denomination?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Also, and I know I’m going to get hated on for this observation, but it does seem to be the case that the less education and wealth you have, the more likely it is that you belong to a religion that encourages you (commands, even) to have as many children as you possibly can. [/quote]
Religion, or a particular denomination?[/quote]
I’d say that any religion that exhorts its followers to be fruitful and multiply probably falls within this classification.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Also, and I know I’m going to get hated on for this observation, but it does seem to be the case that the less education and wealth you have, the more likely it is that you belong to a religion that encourages you (commands, even) to have as many children as you possibly can. [/quote]
Religion, or a particular denomination?[/quote]
I’d say that any religion that exhorts its followers to be fruitful and multiply probably falls within this classification. [/quote]
Muslims do this and the Catholics. Protestants are alright with birth control. Just not abortion. Just for clarification.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Also, and I know I’m going to get hated on for this observation, but it does seem to be the case that the less education and wealth you have, the more likely it is that you belong to a religion that encourages you (commands, even) to have as many children as you possibly can. [/quote]
Religion, or a particular denomination?[/quote]
I’d say that any religion that exhorts its followers to be fruitful and multiply probably falls within this classification. [/quote]
Muslims do this and the Catholics. Protestants are alright with birth control. Just not abortion. Just for clarification.
[/quote]
Well, then. I remove the Protestants from my statement. Still, I would like to see a study correlating income and educational level with birthrate and religious affiliation. Not making any value judgments, but I predict that poorer, less educated people are more likely to be wealthy in two areas: piety and progeny.
And here we come to the great bone of socioeconomic contention: do the poor have a lot of children because they are poor, or are they poor because they have a lot of children?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Also, and I know I’m going to get hated on for this observation, but it does seem to be the case that the less education and wealth you have, the more likely it is that you belong to a religion that encourages you (commands, even) to have as many children as you possibly can. [/quote]
Religion, or a particular denomination?[/quote]
I’d say that any religion that exhorts its followers to be fruitful and multiply probably falls within this classification. [/quote]
Muslims do this and the Catholics. Protestants are alright with birth control. Just not abortion. Just for clarification.
[/quote]
Interestingly, according to these studies, the abortion rate among Catholic women in the United States is slightly higher than that of Protestant women: 22 per 1000 as opposed to 15 per 1000. And self-identifying Catholics and Protestants account for 28 and 37 percent of all abortions in the US, respectively.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2011/01/31/Advisory-Abortion-Mental-Health.pdf
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And here we come to the great bone of socioeconomic contention: do the poor have a lot of children because they are poor, or are they poor because they have a lot of children?[/quote]
At least in countries with no pension and high rate of child death lots of kids is a kind of future insurance. Giving women a role other than just making and raising children will lead to a more productive rich society. If child death is reduced so you can have 2-3 kids and they will outlive you will help.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And here we come to the great bone of socioeconomic contention: do the poor have a lot of children because they are poor, or are they poor because they have a lot of children?[/quote]
I know several affluent families with 9+ kids. Granted, they are Canadian bourgeois. I never thought you were capable of generalizations. I am disappoint.
[quote]theBeth wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And here we come to the great bone of socioeconomic contention: do the poor have a lot of children because they are poor, or are they poor because they have a lot of children?[/quote]
I know several affluent families with 9+ kids. Granted, they are Canadian bourgeois. I never thought you were capable of generalizations. I am disappoint.[/quote]
No, you are mistook.
Had I said “all poor families have a lot of children”, or “all people with a lot f children are poor”, those would be generalizations, and they would be wrong.
However, it is safe to say that poor families tend to have more children then rich families. There are exceptions, such as the Mormons, the Saudi Royal Family, and your Canadian bourgeoisie, but these are statistical outliers.
The question (and I am not the first to ask it) is, if poverty and large families are causative rather than merely correlative, in which direction does causation flow?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]theBeth wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And here we come to the great bone of socioeconomic contention: do the poor have a lot of children because they are poor, or are they poor because they have a lot of children?[/quote]
I know several affluent families with 9+ kids. Granted, they are Canadian bourgeois. I never thought you were capable of generalizations. I am disappoint.[/quote]
No, you are mistook.
Had I said “all poor families have a lot of children”, or “all people with a lot f children are poor”, those would be generalizations, and they would be wrong.
However, it is safe to say that poor families tend to have more children then rich families. There are exceptions, such as the Mormons, the Saudi Royal Family, and your Canadian bourgeoisie, but these are statistical outliers.
The question (and I am not the first to ask it) is, if poverty and large families are causative rather than merely correlative, in which direction does causation flow?[/quote]
If you’re not the first to ask it then it means that nobody really knows, not even sociologists. I think it has a lot to do with cultural/social gender roles. The affluent families I know with that many kids are also Christian and patriarchal - the woman doesn’t work. The men have really good, high paying jobs. Mormons and Muslims have the same MO. But poor people?
That’s a different bag of kittycats. In my state it’s fair to say for a lot of them, it’s a “job”. They pop out kids and manipulate the system, thereby earning a better living than I do. You are a teacher, yes? I challenge you to get off the damn computer, hit the dirrrrty with me and find out why these people have so many kids.