Highly Controversial Topic

[Gisella]

You're right, Gisella, but actually the federal government in the U.S. (at least in its current incarnation) is not a big fan of even publicizing birth control, much less advocating it. We've also been exporting that "abstinence only" policy to some of those 3rd World countries you mention. In terms of the original question, I myself don't feel comfortable passing judgment on people whose lives I haven't led.

But SurferGirl...have patience with me bcause I arrived here an young adult never attend school in the US or have kids attending schools..but I always understood that acess to good education play major role in teaching US youth to understand not only reproductive system but have classes how to prevent pregnancy and STDS and introduction to birth control methods, plus you were teen woman and get pregnant you have help from school social worker and acess to abort clinics that is a legal practice in this country..than even if at home was not taught to be responsable and protect self to have sex you would have acess to terminate pregnancy.

In my mind if you have goals to your future and it does include education, more you study more you will have chances to make good $$$..for sure there are teens that got pregnant choose have kids and still graduate and keep going with many strugles but they better and improve their lives...but if you are young and keep having babies and you are not financial stable things will get tough...I have single moms friends who works full time have just 1 kid and can not afford good day care...imagine if you have more than 2 ? And the reality of my friends are that they are high school drop outs, working in manual jobs and to things get worse they have dead beat dad's who does not help and already have other women impregnated by them left in the same situation as them. Than they know and choose to not count on them for sure.

My own coutry is a disaster we have huge amount of abandon kids on street and institucionalized in terrible situations...abortions there is ilegal only if you have money you find clandestines and many times unsafe conditions. Many macho men dont like wear condons and women accept that. What is commom is that when young women get first baby or after few babies the doctors knot the tubes.

But what i see in my foggy lenses about New Orleans is the situation that in first place blocked their natural flee to scape Katrina eminent disaster: the lack of $$$$. They stay bcause they had not the means to save their own lives not bcause they were not 'only' poor but have nothing, in my mind only if you have 'no legs' you cant scape for your life...just like a nightmare.

And I think before Katrina there were many things going on in the insides of that community...and it reminds me a lot with reality of Rio de Janeiro, a carnaval party place, unique and touristic but is divided by diferent realities of the few very rich and the many vary poor, during the carnaval they party the same but after the party there are in 2 completly different worlds. And I think they knew it very deeply but only when the disaster hit and they had to stay and got abandoned by all it hit and they saw by themselves they were citzen of the richier country in the world but treated as 3world citzens and living all the realities of a 3rd world slump. But how it could this hapening in the USA...how? USA citzen are not supose to be left behind in disaster times or during peaceful times. This is what I had learn with patriotism here but was not true to them.

I dont know really they are the ones who have to tell their stories. I know only mine own.

 

[BuddyBoy]

You're right, Gisella, but actually the federal government in the U.S. (at least in its current incarnation) is not a big fan of even publicizing birth control, much less advocating it. We've also been exporting that "abstinence only" policy to some of those 3rd World countries you mention.

The supporters of "abstinence only" programs love to tout the 100% effective rate against pregnancy and disease when used as directed. They conviently ignore the 60-70% overall failure rate due to improper use - i.e. practitioners, tits to the wind, schtupping like rabbits. :biggrin1:

 

[B_Lightkeeper]

I'll probably catch hell for saying this but I really feel that there should be no tax credits or break for having three or more kids. And then only giving it to actually married (legal) couples. There are too many people having too many babies these days out of stupidity, carelessness or for welfare reasons.

 

[Gisella]

You're right, Gisella, but actually the federal government in the U.S. (at least in its current incarnation) is not a big fan of even publicizing birth control, much less advocating it. We've also been exporting that "abstinence only" policy to some of those 3rd World countries you mention. In terms of the original question, I myself don't feel comfortable passing judgment on people whose lives I haven't led.

Ops..i forgot about the abstinence only policy...

The actual US gov has nothing to do with abstinence policy going for ages in some countries but the official church Roman Catholic in those countries, that has this policy of no sex before mariage and not use of birth control and etc plus the lack of other things.

Anyways my own coutry Brasil, is the less conservative compared with other countries in Latin America.

 

[BuddyBoy]

I can see how on the surface that seems like it's true but really it's not. As younger people have their children, older generations die. Then in 20 years the next generation has children, while the next oldest generation dies. There might be 3 generations separating the ones having kids and the ones dying, but the rate of birth and death is still equal if everyone has 2 kids. I don't know about China but I'm guessing if their population is still increasing it must be because a lot of people didn't follow the 1 child family policy.

If the birth rate is stable at 2 per couple and has been so for four generations then the population will be stable. If the birth rate has been higher in the past, it will take from two to four generations for the death rate to catch up and equillibrium to be acheived.

In the case of China, going from a primarily rural base with it's inheirently high birth rate down to a 1 child per family policy, it will take at least two or three generations before the population begins to level off and decrease, even if everyone follows all the rules. It's just population dynamics, and the math is fairly clear - I could post the formulas for you, if you'd like. :biggrin1:

 

[amberleafbabe]

I'll probably catch hell for saying this but I really feel that there should be no tax credits or break for having three or more kids. And then only giving it to actually married (legal) couples. There are too many people having too many babies these days out of stupidity, carelessness or for welfare reasons.

so.if you are a single parent.whom once was married,but are now divorced.you should not get a tax credit?lets just face it i know a number of people in here are parents.it really makes no difference what social,or economical class you are in.it is hard,and costly as hell to raise children.

 

[B_Lightkeeper]

Newsweek Magazine did an update this week on a Katrina evacuee. A 28 year-old single mother with 7 children. She is back now in New Orleans trying to find a job. Seems she would have been better off doing that long ago instead of making babies.

 

[Wonderboy]

The world is overpopulated. Something will happen to fix it though. Extinction level disaster and what have you.

China needs to stop fuckin. hehe.

 

[buck]

This may be an unpopular position and many may say it is politically incorrect, but it is true. As nations become more advanced, they see a decline in birth rate. The decline comes primarily from the more affluent and educated. As the overall birth rate declines, among poorer, less educated people the birth rate remains the same and so they become a larger portion of the population.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

It'd be interesting to see whether the divide between rich-poor has an effect on population growth.