"I don't believe in abortion."

The aforementioned sentence was uttered by a mom of 2 who's barely old enough to drink legally. She will adamantly claim that her brats, who are less than 2 years apart, were planned, even though she's on welfare (she is married, and both of them have jobs, however).

Let me get this straight: You don't believe in getting an abortion, but you believe in bringing helpless kids who you cannot afford into the world, which gives them a disadvantage right out of the gate?

Can someone please explain that logic -- or lack of it? She took an IQ test, and got a pretty high score, yet she seems incapable of stringing together a coherent sentence.

They're lucky they have at least SOME familial support, not to mention welfare, otherwise things would be a lot worse; those kids don't go hungry or without basic needs.

It's idiotic to me that people like her don't believe in a medical procedure that kills a non-sentient potential person, yet have no problem bring an actual thinking, feeling being into the world when they are wholly unprepared to do so.

I'm waiting for her to get knocked up again...

I don't get this attitude either.

I always think about "social mobility" in such cases.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/03/the-mobility-myth

The social mobility is very low. The ones who were born poor will remain
poor for the rest of their lives.
Everyone who ever lived in poverty knows that life in poverty sucks.
Why would someone want to pass this torch to their chyld is beyond me.

Living in "poverty" is getting ever more comfortable and equal with middle class life IF you breed. Thing is, they have a safety net, an ever widening one. So they get what they want - the kids, they don't have to worry about the kids being clothed and fed, taxpayers take care of that. They get social support and often financial support from their families. They get udder rubs from friends and co-workers. They get validated by the media and current attitude about moo-worship and sprogging/baybies good. Unless they are addicts or there is some major problem other than they just don't have high paying jobs, they should do well being the working poor with kids. The CF working poor or elderly poor is a whole other matter.

@ blondie: you are unfortunately right. I would like to know where it is all leading. This system is not sustainable, all western countries have debts.

She can be against abortion but if she can't afford a baby, why not put it up for adoption?

Call me all the names you wish, but I don't believe in all these non-stop benefits for kids. The problem is that these adults know that society will pay to feed, clothe, house and educate their kids, so they go about and have them, knowing that it's no skin off their back. I wish we could go back to the days when social security was only for elderly people, when there was no financial benefit to having kids. You breed 'em, you feed 'em. Yes, some kids would be hungry and wear rags, but such is life. Previous generations went through that, and those kids were determined to improve their lot in life as an adult. Today, all they learn is that society will support them if they breed, so why bother working?

Does this mean that only affluent people will be able to afford kids? In all likelihood, yes, if we cut out the incentives for breeding. And that's how it should be. If you can't afford it, then you don't have it. I would love to own an estate with 20 acres. If I went to the government demanding this to be funded by society and tax breaks, they'd think I was nuts. How is it any different with children? They are a choice in life, just like the 20 acre estate. Nobody is obligated to have either.

ETA: Written on a tablet, proofread before hitting the submit button.

Quote
Peace
Call me all the names you wish, but I don't believe in all these non-stop benefits for kids. The problem is that these adults know that society will pay to feed, clothe, house and educate their kids, so they go about and have them, knowing that it's no skin off their back. I wish we could go back to the days when social security was only for elderly people, when there was no financial benefit to having kids. You breed 'em, you feed 'em. Yes, some kids would be hungry and wear rags, but such is life. Previous generations went through that, and those kids were determined to improve their lot in life as an adult. Today, all they learn is that society will support them if they breed, so why bother working?

Does this mean that only affluent people will be able to afford kids? In all likelihood, yes, if we cut out the incentives for breeding. And that's how it should be. If you can't afford it, then you don't have it. I would love to own an estate with 20 acres. If I went to the government demanding this to be funded by society and tax breaks, they'd think I was nuts. How is it any different with children? They are a choice in life, just like the 20 acre estate. Nobody is obligated to have either.

ETA: Written on a tablet, proofread before hitting the submit button.

I worked in social services many years ago and I saw this going from generation to generation welfare. It really did disgust me. Even going after the absent parents for child support didn't help much, since most of them were unemployed or in jail and the ones who were employed mostly worked low income jobs so child support orders were pretty low. I saw an order once for $35/month child support. I saw another one where I guy was paying $18/week and owed back child support.

I also think we need to get rid of tax breaks for breeding. I don't think we need more people, we need less, so we need to get rid of the incentives to breed. Say all children born after a certain date aren't deductible, that would help.

I also think teens having kids should give them up for adoption, and not to the immediate family, to someone far away and the records sealed so the child can have something for a normal life. None of this stuff about the teen father "taking responsibility." How much responsibility can a teen working fast food take for a baby?

I think a middle class couple can afford one or two planned kids if they are willing to budget. It is a real problem that poor unprepared people are breeding, it always has been, but now it almost seems encouraged. Some people believe it is just a way to control the population, with this dependent underclass. Now they are fat and happy too. Some people really prefer this way of life to that of working or trying to make something of oneself. Now, being a parunt is enough. Being a mooching moo or duh is enough to equal success. If you have a tard, more points for you and more cash, pretty big cash. On top of that parents can also be paid to care for their own kids if the kids are disabled. More cash. That type of society cannot be sustained, not as a free society.

When abortion was legalized again in the states, the mantra was "Abortion without apology".
I blame the rise of the *Religious Right who saw this as a perfect issue to gain control again.
I also blame the Democratic party for going along with the framing of abortion as a bad thing.

Hoping to appease the fetus humpers has lead us to this point where yes, now they are going after birth control.
I'm 50 years old, had my tubes tied at 44 and am celibate. I don't have to worry, but what about the younger generation?



*Did you know that George Bush Sr. nickname was "Rubbers"? He was passionate about birth control.
That's how badly the Republican party has changed.

______________________________________________________
Someday we'll look back on this moment and plow into a parked car.

Evan Davis

Quote
mrs. chinaski
I don't get this attitude either.

I always think about "social mobility" in such cases.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/03/the-mobility-myth

The social mobility is very low. The ones who were born poor will remain
poor for the rest of their lives.
Everyone who ever lived in poverty knows that life in poverty sucks.
Why would someone want to pass this torch to their chyld is beyond me.

As I am fond of pointing out, there are things way, waaaaay worse than merely not existing. Being born with the deck stacked against you is definitely one of them.

Sounds like one of those pro-liar brainwashed asshats who believes baking a loaf to term is infinitely more important than actually providing for the kid once it's born. Incredibly selfish when you have two helpless mouths to feed. If I knew any people like this and found out they were expecting another one, I think I'd lose it.

_________________________________________________________________

"If your parenting didn't make him a sociopath the lack of it did." -Jessica Jones

Quote
blondie
Living in "poverty" is getting ever more comfortable and equal with middle class life IF you breed. Thing is, they have a safety net, an ever widening one. So they get what they want - the kids, they don't have to worry about the kids being clothed and fed, taxpayers take care of that. They get social support and often financial support from their families. They get udder rubs from friends and co-workers. They get validated by the media and current attitude about moo-worship and sprogging/baybies good. Unless they are addicts or there is some major problem other than they just don't have high paying jobs, they should do well being the working poor with kids. The CF working poor or elderly poor is a whole other matter.

Don't forget the disabled. They just hope we Darwin ourselves!

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

The thing is...when you whine on FB that your phone is getting shut off because you cannot afford the bill, and you're broke within 30 minutes of getting your check, wouldn't that be an...epiphany of sorts to not continue to make more babies?

Well I don't believe in having to support other people's children

These fucking uneducated stupid trash-breeding bitches always have the latest iphone, too.

We need sexual sterilization in drinking water.

This shit is getting so fucking ridiculous.

~~~~~~~~~~~
I miss my little feather baby.

Quote
Peace
Call me all the names you wish, but I don't believe in all these non-stop benefits for kids. The problem is that these adults know that society will pay to feed, clothe, house and educate their kids, so they go about and have them, knowing that it's no skin off their back. I wish we could go back to the days when social security was only for elderly people, when there was no financial benefit to having kids. You breed 'em, you feed 'em. Yes, some kids would be hungry and wear rags, but such is life. Previous generations went through that, and those kids were determined to improve their lot in life as an adult. Today, all they learn is that society will support them if they breed, so why bother working?

Does this mean that only affluent people will be able to afford kids? In all likelihood, yes, if we cut out the incentives for breeding. And that's how it should be. If you can't afford it, then you don't have it. I would love to own an estate with 20 acres. If I went to the government demanding this to be funded by society and tax breaks, they'd think I was nuts. How is it any different with children? They are a choice in life, just like the 20 acre estate. Nobody is obligated to have either.

ETA: Written on a tablet, proofread before hitting the submit button.

hankyou

Children are in no way necessary for an individual's survival or happiness (and are often in fact detrimental to both). Children are a luxury. Why anyone should feel entitled to a child they can't afford, any more than they should feel entitled to a 20-bedroom mansion or a Ferrari, is completely beyond me. If I want that Ferrari I have to work and save my money...why should it be any different for someone who wants a kyd? And unlike a house or a fancy car, a kyd is sentient and there's a lot more suffering to be had both for the kyd and society as a whole when people have kyds they can't care for.

Even if the government pays to food, house, and educate these kids, it's not enough to give them a decent lot in life. They wind up eating junk food and no fruits or vegetables, because it's cheaper and/or it's all their breeders will buy—and many of them end up overweight, diabetic at a young age (higher medical bills again on someone else's dime), and have no idea how to lead a healthy lifestyle. Breeders guilt their relatives into letting them move in, jump from place to place because they get evicted when they can't pay rent, or end up staying in government housing in a neighborhood overrun with gang activity, drug deals, and general crime. Needless to say, the schools they attend are underfunded, filled with teachers who leave after a year or aren't even qualified because no one wants to work there, and often unsafe and literally coming apart at the seams (seriously, read The Shame of the Nation by Jonathan Kozol).

And that's all in a first world country. How could anyone in good conscience bring a child into the world knowing that's almost certainly the best he/she will ever have?:headbrick But no, WE'RE the selfish ones...

There are so many birth control options and it's difficult to end up pregnant in this day and age while attempting to responsibly prevent pregnancy. I have been practicing natural family planning for over a decade with no failure at all. If done correctly, it's essentially as effective as hormonal contraception. I don't do it for religious reasons, but simply because one of my sisters nearly died of a pulmonary embolism. Now, the chances of that happening to me are pretty slim, Actually, for any woman, getting pregnant causes the risk of a thrombus or a PE to go up exponentially. While I conceptually understand that, the irrational part of me always prefers to go the natural route on everything. I'm allergic to all condoms because damn it nobody has made a non latex non lubricated male condom.

I have asked myself if I got pregnant by mistake, could I go through an abortion? I'm so militant with the method I use it's almost impossible for that to happen so I try not to dwell on decisions I don't have to make. I think the idiotic mother who continually gets pregnant while unable to help her offspring thrive in this society is a fucking cunt. Luckily, I've never had to face that decision in my entire life. If somehow in an alternate dimension I became a mindless fucking Moo, I would ask for a C section because I'm too chicken shit to go through with labor pain and demand a tubal ligation. We are in a position were we could afford the one oopsie child, and I would endeavor to keep the selfish little shit safe, happy, loved, and well educated.If a person can't meet these basic needs, they need to abort or put the kid up for adoption.

Now, as the years pass, my childbearing years are coming closer and closer to an end. I really look forward to menopause, and if I have successfully prevented pregnancy for 10 years with NFP, I'm doing something right and why can't these fucking bitches do the same.. The other problem is the bible literalists. They feel that it's murder to have an abortion. I believe that a pregnant mother at any stage of the pregnancy should be allowed to abort. Imagine a child with a health condition that will bring unspeakable pain upon birth. Is not the kindest thing to give it a merciful and peaceful death? These pro life fucking nutters are the same fucking people that will drag a terminally ill person through horrors just to wait until God calls them home. Not me. I've already researched Dignitas and Exit, and I hope that if I make it to AARP membership I will still have those choices then. Or even better, I hope right to die becomes lawful in more places and anyone can humanely check out when they want. This world is going to hell in a hand basket and any children born in dysfunctional environments now are going to live a miserable existence for the rest of their lives. I would never judge anyone for deciding to have an abortion or for deciding to reproduce if they can afford the kid. I know this sounds like I'm a fucking bitch, but I believe anyone who has a kid and has little financial solvency, should get sterilized in a mandatory manner after their first mistake.

I find the part of the phrase 'don't believe in' so inane. Well, whether or not you believe in it, women have always had them and more than likely always will (until/unless technology catches up, etc). Just come right out and say you don't like it, or you loathe or hate it, or whatever. 'Don't believe' just comes off as namby-pamby.

Quote
Videogamesforeverkidsnever
Can someone please explain that logic -- or lack of it? She took an IQ test, and got a pretty high score, yet she seems incapable of stringing together a coherent sentence.

That's what happens when you sprog, you loose brain cells /function to the parasite.