No more overlooking negligent procreation

[Sable_Strenua]

Interesting Commentary from columnist Margery Eagan - Boston Herald


http://news.bostonherald.com/columni...8619&srvc=home

Yet even TV commentators overlooked another obvious contradiction: Wonderful mothers do not get pregnant once, never mind twice, by a man like Bobby Cutts Jr.: a married police officer fired after links to drug trafficking and three years? probation for breaking into another girlfriend?s home.

-------
Somebody should found Mothers About Raising Children Honorably (MARCH) to change our nonchalant attitudes about women bringing children into the world when they have no ability to raise them and no intention of learning how.

Somebody had to say it!!!


i know she's going to get some backlash from that article, but i believe she had some excellent points. your viewpoint?

[CoffeCanSlayer]

So let me get this clear just to initiate what it says. Women need an orginized group to tell them to stop having babies that they cannot raise? Thats the message? Wont work, sorry to be bitter, but the teen pregnancy rate is horrible, I know of a girl, (shes my neighbor) that is 13 and pregnant, thats horrible.

Im not saying its the girls fault, it takes two.

[Sable_Strenua]

So let me get this clear just to initiate what it says. Women need an orginized group to tell them to stop having babies that they cannot raise? Thats the message? Wont work, sorry to be bitter, but the teen pregnancy rate is horrible, I know of a girl, (shes my neighbor) that is 13 and pregnant, thats horrible.

Im not saying its the girls fault, it takes two.

No, not that. She's making a point towards women in particular to be more responsible for their actions and to take a more active role in how they rear each their children - and for society as a whole to look at the entire picture and not be so quick to paint the picture for the American audience.

She provides several examples from different races, socioeconomic backgrounds, and circumstances to further support her claim that it is a problem across the board and should be addressed appropriately.

edit: did u even read the article? ALL of the article?

[Amanda76]

I'm not sure why she should receive any backlash. You'd have to be an idiot not to agree with the sentiment.

[CoffeCanSlayer]

Yeah sorry, had to read it again to get what she was saying, sorry, slow reader. I get it, women need to be more responsible, but what about the irresponsible men? I mean they are just free to go? No lecture to them? Or is it because most wont get the logic to keep their junk in their pants until they are ready to raise the result of their action?

[Amanda76]

Yeah sorry, had to read it again to get what she was saying, sorry, slow reader. I get it, women need to be more responsible, but what about the irresponsible men? I mean they are just free to go? No lecture to them? Or is it because most wont get the logic to keep their junk in their pants until they are ready to raise the result of their action?

She mentioned that men aren't off the hook. Really, it sounded more like a rant than a well thought out plan on the writer's side.

[Sable_Strenua]

Yeah sorry, had to read it again to get what she was saying, sorry, slow reader. I get it, women need to be more responsible, but what about the irresponsible men? I mean they are just free to go? No lecture to them? Or is it because most wont get the logic to keep their junk in their pants until they are ready to raise the result of their action?

No, I believe she does think that men don't get a free pass. It was moreso written as a "pep talk" to women to step up and help each other with this problem in society.

[CoffeCanSlayer]

Yeah, it was a good article. But im not sure girls are going to listen to it. In my opinion, the article should be sent out to every household to have family discussions about the topic, it is a widespread epidemic if you will.

[Beklet]

Backlash or not, the article was spot on.

Too many people just have kids without a thought - how they are going to afford it, without any idea of the responsibility involved, or how to ensure the kid gets a decent upbringing, Sometimes babies are seen as a fashion accessory, or proof of virility or whatever when in truth, the majority of the population can procreate with very little effort.

It takes more thought and effort to NOT get (someone)pregnant, than in does to breed.

/rant

'You have given out too much reputation blah blah blah'

[MacGyverDel]

Wish I had something to add........but I don't.

I do feel that both men and woman need to be more responsible on the whole here.


*EDIT* Found what I was looking for. * A side note on todays world population. *

Year Population (in millions)

10000 BC 4
5000 BC 5
4000 BC 7
3000 BC 14
2000 BC 27
1000 BC 50
500 BC 100
200 BC 150
0 170
200 AD 190
400 AD 190
500 AD 190
600 AD 200
700 AD 210
800 AD 220
900 AD 240
1000 AD 265
1100 AD 320
1200 AD 360
1300 AD 360
1400 AD 350
1500 AD 425
1550 AD 480
1600 AD 545
1650 AD 545
1700 AD 610
1750 AD 720
1800 AD 900
1850 AD 1200
1875 AD 1325
1900 AD 1625
1925 AD 2000
1950 AD 2500 25 yrs later 1.4 billion
1975 AD 3900 25 yrs later 2.1 billion
1999 AD 6000 25 yrs later ? ................(staggering isn't it.)

Just look at the big increases at the last couple or so entries. 2.1 billion in less than 25 years.

[exnihillo]

Good article...I had my first son when I was 20 years old..Had to drop out of college to support him.. I love kids but after the struggles me and my wife had trying to raise him on our own we waited 7 years before we had another..We waited until we were fianacially sound and able to take care of another.. But in the area I grew up in I saw tons of teenage pregnancies..We referred to them as state babies because the moms went on welfare and all kinds of state assistants to take care of th baby..MOst of them to this day do not work..but have more kids because the state will give them more money and free housing..

Trust me at times I was ready to give up..I did not want to be tied down with kids but I pushed through it and made it were I am today because of the struggles..

[bubba g]

Backlash or not, the article was spot on.

Too many people just have kids without a thought - how they are going to afford it, without any idea of the responsibility involved, or how to ensure the kid gets a decent upbringing, Sometimes babies are seen as a fashion accessory, or proof of virility or whatever when in truth, the majority of the population can procreate with very little effort.

It takes more thought and effort to NOT get (someone)pregnant, than in does to breed.

/rant

'You have given out too much reputation blah blah blah'

The thing that sickens me are single mothers who are on welfare to begin with who continue having more chidren when they already need support for the first. I am friends with several married couples who work their ass off, and would like to have children, but can't afford it, so they are waiting till their careers are in order to have one or possibly two children.. Meanwhile women who have no job, or ambition to get a job, and support their children have 5 kids who are being suported by the tax dollars of the people who I described earlier who can't yet afford children of their own...

[Tyrbolift]

One of the downsides to the sexual revolution. The idea that we can have sex merely for enjoyment, with multiple partners.

In my agnostic belief system, I believe there's a reason(s) most religions advocate monogamy and abstinence: It's because of the spread of STD's and unfavorable child-rearing conditions that have existed for eons.

Whether it's God's punishment or not for improper behavior, the results of mens and womens "free" behavior is plain to see.

(and no, I don't propose returning to an era of sexual hangups and wearing scarlet letters, either). People just need to wait longer, attach more importance to sex as a bond and commitment, not just a diversion, and people need to choose partners with quality characteristics other than "hotness" alone. like stability, integrity, honor, and empathy.

[Geno]

One of the downsides to the sexual revolution. The idea that we can have sex merely for enjoyment, with multiple partners.

In my agnostic belief system, I believe there's a reason(s) most religions advocate monogamy and abstinence: It's because of the spread of STD's and unfavorable child-rearing conditions that have existed for eons.

Whether it's God's punishment or not for improper behavior, the results of mens and womens "free" behavior is plain to see.

(and no, I don't propose returning to an era of sexual hangups and wearing scarlet letters, either). People just need to wait longer, attach more importance to sex as a bond and commitment, not just a diversion, and people need to choose partners with quality characteristics other than "hotness" alone. like stability, integrity, honor, and empathy.

OR they could practice safe sex. Duh.

[DonMegaR]

I am not gonna say anything about her article, except that she is not a Social Liberal...

interesting read nonetheless

[Amanda76]

I am not gonna say anything about her article, except that she is not a Social Liberal...

interesting read nonetheless

It is interesting that someone who claims to be, would be pro-anything that would lead to less government dependancy.

[Sable_Strenua]

I'm loving the responses thus far
I know the article is R&P worthy but i just don't like stepping into that forum (outside of the military thread there).

[Amanda76]

Good article...I had my first son when I was 20 years old..Had to drop out of college to support him...

Trust me at times I was ready to give up..I did not want to be tied down with kids but I pushed through it and made it were I am today because of the struggles..

Ah...I feel your pain. I'm a single parent because of an unplanned pregnancy. I just got finished with a time in life where I was working 2-3 jobs at a time and going to school. There was a time I was married and I HAVE received help from my parents and friends...but I was brought up to be responsible for myself and not be a lazy mooch, so, yeah. I made a mistake. It made things rough. You don't let something that starts out as small (or big, depending on how you look at it) as being lazy about protection compound itself by continuing to make the same mistakes over and over again. I really don't understand how some people can live with themselves when they don't try to acheive...anything at all.

The thing that sickens me are single mothers who are on welfare to begin with who continue having more chidren when they already need support for the first. I am friends with several married couples who work their ass off, and would like to have children, but can't afford it, so they are waiting till their careers are in order to have one or possibly two children.. Meanwhile women who have no job, or ambition to get a job, and support their children have 5 kids who are being suported by the tax dollars of the people who I described earlier who can't yet afford children of their own...

That is horribly unfair. I feel for people who really want children but can't have them for any reason. I know people make mistakes in their youth, but it almost seems like after a couple of mistakes the government should be able to force someone to have to get their tubes tied or something. I mean, if they won't take responsibility for themselves, someone has to, right?

I used to work with a girl (well, woman, I guess...she's 28) who was pretty much figuring that if she didn't find someone she'd quit work and live off welfare so she could raise her baby (remember, this is a baby that doesn't even exist yet) at home. I was like, WTF? Who PLANS to live off welfare? She was dead serious. Which, of course, led to a long discussion that ended with me still not understanding how she could think that was okay. Yeah, maybe things were better when children were raised at home exposed mostly to their parents values. But what the heck are you teaching that child by not earning your keep?

One of the downsides to the sexual revolution. The idea that we can have sex merely for enjoyment, with multiple partners.

Damn hippies!

In my agnostic belief system, I believe there's a reason(s) most religions advocate monogamy and abstinence: It's because of the spread of STD's and unfavorable child-rearing conditions that have existed for eons.

Whether it's God's punishment or not for improper behavior, the results of mens and womens "free" behavior is plain to see.

(and no, I don't propose returning to an era of sexual hangups and wearing scarlet letters, either). People just need to wait longer, attach more importance to sex as a bond and commitment, not just a diversion, and people need to choose partners with quality characteristics other than "hotness" alone. like stability, integrity, honor, and empathy.

I like the way you put that. Logic is an amazing thing.

OR they could practice safe sex. Duh.

Kinda hard to remember all that after the bars close. Besides that, there's less chance of getting a DWI if you drive straight home and don't stop at the convenience store. :P I agree with your option too...your's and turbo's would be killer if taken in combination with each other.

[bubba g]

I have thought that myself.. At some point the Government has to say to these women. You have a choice get your tubes tied, and remain on welfare, or don't and be cut from the welfare system...

I think the welfare system is needed, and it really helps out some people who do want to get ahead who are having a tough time, but in my opinion the system is heavily abused, and seriously needs to be reformed to cut back on the people who take advantage of it....

I don't care if the same amount of tax dollars goes towards welfare, I would just rather see more money go to people who are really trying to make something of themselves, and little to none going to the people who's sole ambition in life is to get on welfare, and stay on it forever.. all the while bringing children into the world who will need additional money, and health care from the system...