Should only the upper middle & upper classes have children?

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 6 years ago

   Should only the upper middle & upper classes have children?
   
   I was listening to a great radio program hosted by Tom Leykis who indicated that poor people shouldn't have children because such children will be living in substandard neighborhoods, have poor/no health &/or medical care, have poor schooling, & an overall bad life quality.  Mr. Leykis further stated that poor people have the MOST children because of impulsive gratification w/o considering the ramifications of their actions.  Mr. Leykis maintained that it is UNWISE for poor people to have children as they have NOTHING to offer them.  Couldn't have said it better!
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Money only has value because we as a society place value onto it.  If people stopped suddenly stopped putting value in the dollar bill, then these rich people wouldn't like it. 
      
      Personally, I think all people, regardless of social class, is entitled to have a family if they chose.  And nothing of value to offer?  Everyone has something of value to pass down a child, even if your poor.   You can still impart values and previous life experiences that you've learned growing up so your child won't make the same mistakes.  That's one of the beauties of having kids is the chance to help a younger generation from making the same mistakes from the past.
      
      However, I do think young people that are underage shouldn't have children if i'm being honest, as many kids aren't ready for that kind of responsibility, which is why it saddens me to see a teen girl having to drop out of school to support a child, and essentially giving up her future.  Not saying children are a burden, but they are a lot of responsibility even for adults that are financially and capable of handling it.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Money is & should be the most valued commodity in this society.  Our society is ran by money. Without money, one wouldn't survive.  While your synopsis is well-taken, poor parents have nothing to bring to the table regarding giving advice.  Who is going to listen to such parents?  Their children view them as losers.  Also, poor parents don't care about their children beyond giving birth & providing a scant lifestyle for them. The average poor parent view their children as nuisances- they don't enjoy their children.  They want to get rid of their children as much as possible.
         
         Most poor children are oops &/or unwanted babies although parents are married.  Poor parents view their children as quite daunting.  They merely tolerate their children & their parenting style is quite perfunctory, it isn't loving in the way solidly middle, upper middle, & upper class parenting is.  Poor parents don't love their children nor give advice to them.  The method of discipline/correction in poor households is corporal.  Poor people seldom, if ever, discuss things w/their children.  They leave their children to their own devices.   The fact is that poor parents don't care about their lives & they definitely don't care about the lives of their children.  In one particular book on the lower socioeconomic echelon which I read in 10th grade, it deals how those in the lower socioeconomic echelon i.e. lower, working, & lower middle class are neglectful towards their children.  It also details the brutish home environments that those in the lower socioeconomic echelons experience.  Poor people don't plan at all but exist for instant gratification.  They have no intellectual nor cultural activities so their activities are more of a primitive kind...

         replyreport
2. 68

   abwilliamsposted 6 years ago

   While I am sure that is true for some, it is not true for all poor families.
   
   Children are born into wealthy families all of the time, that have nothing to offer them.
   They are given all the material things, but love and affection are missing.
   
   I wonder which of these a child truly desires?

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      BOTH, but money means more myriad opportunities in terms of education.  Poor parents HAVE NOTHING to offer their children but no opportunities for education & success.  Love & affection doesn't confer opportunities but MONEY does.

      replyreport
   2. 68

      abwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      My parents were born toward the end of the great depression. They both grew up with multiple siblings and had nothing, but love. They were taught self-sufficiency and frugality. I would not trade lessons learned, then passed on to us, for the world!

      replyreport
3. 81

   Cleo Burchposted 6 years ago

   Those who are poor should be able to have children as long as they can take care of them. There are wealthy children that go straight into the working force and skip out on college, just as there are poor children that earn scholarships for themselves to go to college. Public school is a thing and scholarships can be earned that way. So, yes, poor people should be able to gave children of their own.

   replyreport
4. 84

   tsmogposted 6 years ago

   The question presents cognitive dissonance with competing values . . . frankly, a myriad them.
   
   I answer the question with a resounding ‘No’ because of the word ‘only’, which infers mandatory through social and political engineering. That goes against the values of the Bible (God), the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, of which I have faith and trust.
   
   Pondering the question the closest solution I know of to meet that criteria is with the setting of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. In that global society their babies are test tube babies designed to be in a caste system. But, they still had lower castes known as Deltas and Epsilons. They were needed for the society to exist.

   replyreport
5. 71

   shanmarieposted 6 years ago

   You seem to me to be someone born into privilege who has never experienced any hardship of this nature. People often speak about others having kids they can't afford, but rarely bother to consider the reasons. Some people may have actually been on track for success when a child was conceived. No one can foresee all of the things that will happen inthe future. Sometimes waiting to have children can cause other difficulties. A person never knows whether or not their choices are definitively the best ones in the long run. We can only make decisions based off the information we have on hand at the time the choice is made. Wisdom and experience may come with age, but hindsight is still 20/20 and the information on hand still doesn't include the future. How easy it is to judge people and to lump everyone below you or different than you into stereotypes. I wonder how many baby boomers who think this way would be here if their parents thought the same way?

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Wasn't born into privilege-just born solidly middle class.  I have observed poor people via extended relatives & former classmates.  They didn't have the opportunities I had.  My parents PLANNED for me; they COULD afford me.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      shanmarieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Good for your parents. What about those who plan and then have health problems or fertility issues? Or those who plan and then plans fail for some reason? It's not all black and white.

      replyreport
   3. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      One has to think & plan logically.  That is what intelligent humans do.  Only non-thinking lifeforms act instinctively & impulsively.  There is NO EXCUSE for people to act rashly.  THINK before ACTING.

      replyreport
   4. 71

      shanmarieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Best laid plans sometimes fail. Injuries that change lives or the death of a spouse. The most intelligent and self controlled people can't even predict all the things that drain savings. Economic crash. Life is full of the unexpected.You missed my po

      replyreport
   5. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Falling on temporary hard times can be excused.  However, if being poor is a lifestyle & one is constantly struggling,why bring a precious child into that world.  To me, that is THE HEIGHT of selfishness & irresponsibility!

      replyreport
6. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 6 years ago

   
   
   By any reasonable logic, a resounding yes.  Children should be the province of those who can give them myriad educational & socioeconomic opportunities beyond the basic, struggling survival level.  Also, children should have things beyond the basic rudiments of food, clothing, & shelter.  They should have cultural & intellectual opportunities.
   
   Studies show that children born into poverty have a distinct disadvantage physically, mentally, & psychologically.  Being poor to impoverished have an adverse impact on children's physical & emotional development, not to mention psychological development.  Children born poor to impoverished don't have intellectual nor cultural stimuli.  They also are subject to poor horrendous living conditions, not to mention inferior quality nutrition which affects their brain development.  Children born poor to impoverished are exposed to more deleterious elements such as violence & other pathologies.  No thinking person would have children under such conditions. 
   
   Yes, poor people shouldn't even think of having children as such children have no future nor opportunities to advance themselves educationally & socioeconomically.   Children who are born poor to impoverished are highly likely to become poor to impoverished adults lest the generational cycle of being poor to impoverished continues ad infinitum. 
   
   Upper middle & upper class people have things to offer their children in terms of intellectual & cultural development.  They also have myriad socioeconomic opportunities to educate their children.  They furthermore can create environments in which children can thrive, not just survive.  On the contrary, poor parents have NOTHING to offer their children besides want, struggle, & the necessities, if that.  That is no way for children to live. 
   
   Poor parents can't educate nor teach their children as they are uneducated themselves.  They also can't provide their children cultural & intellectual stimulation.  Poor parents only do a HUGE DISSERVICE to their children.  They oftentimes handicap their children for life as such children don't have the opportunities that their upper middle & upper class counterparts DON'T have.  Yes, having children should be the purview of only the upper middle & upper classes.  Poor people HAVE NO BUSINESS even thinking of becoming parents.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      shanmarieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I had a professor in college share her experiences. She grew up in poverty and became a highly esteemed prof of education. She aimed to teach her students how to be better teachers to children from poverty. It is possible for impoverished  children t

      replyreport
   2. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What you fail to realize that children born into poverty are doomed, even damned from the inception.  In the 21st century, poor children will be LOCKED INTO POVERTY, becoming a PERMANENT underclass.  Poor children have NO FUTURE at all.

      replyreport
   3. 84

      tsmogposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You have presented an argument I will ponder over with my position Grace. But, it remains there is a lot of cognitive dissonance as does with the realm of abortion, death penalty, and forced euthanasia.

      replyreport
   4. 68

      abwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It's bad enough that abortion is accepted(aka Women's health) (In Oregon, up until birth now) What now? Post abortion for those falling below the poverty line? What are you suggesting?
      ...Images of Margaret Sanger...
      I'm Conservative, not heartless.

      replyreport
   5. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      @Ab, not talking about abortion here.  Not at all but what about mandatory birth control, even sterilization for those who are too irresponsible to have children they CAN'T afford.  No precious child should grow up poor or in poverty.

      replyreport
   6. 68

      abwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The thought of forced sterilization makes me cringe! (except for habitual rapists)
      Ideally, there'd be no abortion, no unwanted or uncared for (used) children, the Saving Grace Adoption! Through proper channels, details worked out case by case.

      replyreport
   7. 61

      fpherj48posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hello there ab! Sterilization 4 serial rapists,stops ONLY pregnancies.Hard core fact is, these scumbags must have Lorena Bobbit Surgery, then a boat ride 2b dumped on a desolate island 4 the remainder of their sick lives!

      replyreport
   8. 68

      abwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Bobbit....haven't heard that name in forever. Wonder what became of her and if she ever found herself another man....if so, what do you want to bet, he sleeps with one eye open?

      replyreport
   9. 61

      fpherj48posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      OH....LOL.....If she has a new man in her life, my money says he sleeps at the Motel 6 on the corner!......every night.  !! 

      replyreport
7. 53

   Singhbaghelposted 6 years ago

   No it's not like that
   I am from India and here parents love there children so much even though if they not have a good money source they​make sure that their children not feel unavailability of anything..
   Money is not everything it's depend on parenting and care a good parents never make excuses they work and provide their children good life

   replyreport
   1. 61

      M150posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed.

      replyreport
   2. 68

      abwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Grace, if you are playing Devil's Advocate, it has run its course. You seem to completely dismiss those that have learned valuable life lessons, led happy and productive lives and are comfortable with the skin they are in...in spite of poverty.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I am not playing Devil's Advocate.  I am DEAD serious.  I have always felt this way. Poor people have no business having children as they have nothing tangible to offer in terms of educational nor socioeconomic opportunities.  It is irresponsible for poor people to have children. On the other hand, upper middle & upper class parents have PLENTY to offer their children educationally & socioeconomically.   Upper middle & upper class people are suitable to be parents while poor people......AREN'T.

         replyreport
8. 61

   fpherj48posted 6 years ago

   Grace, really girl, don't hold back.Tell us what you really think. Your question goes well beyond hypothetical. Such a scenario could never & would never be possible to legislate &/or enforce~~certainly not in our country. I realize you made your bold statements to firmly impress your opinion but realistically, it can never fly.
   IMHO, ideally, if we're suggesting anything in terms of bringing precious children into the world by individuals who can barely keep their own bodies fed, sheltered & somewhat safe,( much less adding babies) what is a dire necessity is education, access to birth control, lessons in common sense & responsibility.  Yes, it's somewhat ironic that people who reproduce willy-nilly, w/o considering any repercussions nor consequences, are the very ones who lack decent educations, do not use birth control (even when it's FREE at public clinics) have zero common sense & ignore responsibilities.
   This can result in a serious social malady, with innocent kids suffering the very most. I'm afraid humanity will continue it's flawed behavior as it has, for all time. With any luck or a miracle perhaps, we can put time, money & efforts into the appropriate programs to make some strides in this sad issue. Why this country has not done so at this point is yet another shortcoming by our nasty politicians who are more concerned with THEIR lives & luxuries than in any need of citizens!  (I dare not get started on them!)
   Forced sterilization is not only overkill, but should not be considered by a civil society. Perhaps making Voluntary Sterilization FREE, may be one answer in a sensible list of others.
   Can there ever be a viable solution to brainless breeding by individuals who are less able or prepared to care for a pet?  Short of a true miracle, Grace, I highly doubt it.  Suffer the children.   Peace, Paula

   replyreport
9. 61

   M150posted 6 years ago

   I have often heard that poor people should not have children because they simply cannot "afford" them. I think this is an unfair statement or belief because money can increase (the so-called poor can find better means of income) and decrease (the upper class can lose financial assets and money), so to imply that poor people should not
   have children is not exactly a fair statement.
   
   Although the upper middle and upper class may be able to give monetary and material values this does not mean that family values as well as other values in life will be at their best. Money should not determine whether one should have children or not. Life itself is based on so much more - respect, love, dignity, etc. which should be carried on through our children.
   
   Everyone has something to offer in life; therefore we should not judge those who do not have lucrative incomes, and label them as being unable to provide a good quality of life or be a loving parent, which really  should be the main concern when having children not finances as fluctuating as they are in any society.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Really now.   Poor people have NOTHING to offer their children in terms of educational & socioeconomic opportunities  Poor people SHOULDN'T have kids-they CAN'T AFFORD them.  Your statement is purely illogical, bordering on the unintelligent.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Poor people CAN'T provide a good quality of life to their children.  They have nothing to offer their children educationally nor socioeconomically.  Poor people don't love their children, they merely tolerate them at best & are abusive at worse..   Look at any poor household, there is a high to very extreme incidence of child abuse & neglect..  Abuse is a lifestyle in poor households.  Get real......

      replyreport
      1. 89

         savvydatingposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         gm.....girlfriend. What rubbish. Abuse is everywhere, even in wealthy households. Abuse is not a respecter of person's. It doesn't care how much money you have. That is a fact. The statistics are available for anyone to research if they care.
         
         I am proud to have come from poor parents. Everything in my life made me who I am today. Some of the most respected and successful people in our nation came from poor parents. All people have a right to have children. Placing all poor people and all middle class or wealthy people in such a narrow box is not rather astonishing, to say the least. The facts do not back up your assumptions.
         Enough said.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            The average lower socioeconomic environment i.e. lower/working/lower middle class is a brutish one.  Parents are usually at their wit's end making ends meet.   This stress leads to emotional, verbal, even physical abuse.  Corporal discipline is rife in such households.  Parents are also authoritarian towards their children.  They don't believe in discussing things with their children- they correct/discipline their children by using harsh methods which includes shouting, berating, corporal punishment, & oftentimes abuse.    The conditions in lower socioeconomic households led to abuse.   Also in lower socioeconomic households, children just happen-they aren't planned like in solidly middle, upper middle, & upper class households. 
            
            Parents in low socioeconomic households view their children as mere mouths to feed, tolerable burdens, & at worst, noisome burdens.  They don't love their children but give them the minimal care possible so that such children are out of the house by eighteen.  That is life in lower socioeconomic households- children are viewed as onuses in one way or another & are treated as such.
            
            All people DON'T have the so-called right to have children.  That is the height of irresponsibility.  Parenthood isn't a right but a privilege.   Not all people have the right to have children.  There are people totally unsuited to have children.  I have always felt this way.

            replyreport
10. 89

    savvydatingposted 6 years ago

    God, I hope forced sterilization is never enforced in America. Why don't we just start throwing poor people into the ocean with a lead ankle brace. Sheesh! My parents, myself, and my son were all born into poor families and we did just fine. Some of us even did great! Some people are just irresponsible, whether they be rich or poor. Government can't control anything like that.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       Rich people aren't irresponsible....

       replyreport
       1. 89

          savvydatingposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Well, I'm glad no one ever told Abraham Lincoln's parents that.

          replyreport
11. 88

    mireland19posted 4 years ago

    Your theory would eliminate the backbone of this country. Do you know how rich people get wealthy? From people without wealth who are on the ground, slugging away for minimum wage everyday.
    
    You seem to have mistakenly drawn a link between poor parenting and social class. Not all poor people are bad parents. You don't have to invest much in a collage fund every month for it to add up over the years. Not all wealthy people are good parents. Being able to give your child money, houses and connections to good paying jobs does not automatically make you a good parent.
    
    It would be unfair to take away somebodies right, their biological right, to have children because you look down on poor people. It takes all kinds to make this world turn round.
    
    But if you started eliminating unhealthy people from the world, how would the rich stay rich?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Stevennix2001posted 4 years agoin reply to this

       Well said.

       replyreport
       1. 89

          savvydatingposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          The rich staying rich has nothing to do with the presumption that all poor parents are abusive and unfit to be parents.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Stevennix2001posted 4 years agoin reply to this

             Very true, as there's been tons of examples of rich and famous people being abusive parents too, so it's not like all rich people are saints.  That's just a broad ignorant assumption at best.  Heck, Woody Allen had an affair with his underage adopted daughter, and he's rich, so would anyone dare say he's a good parent?  No.  Of course not.  Thats the point.  Not all rich parents are good people.  Just like not all bad parents are poor.

             replyreport
12. 88

    mireland19posted 4 years ago

    I was not saying it did. I was asking the OP a question that points out the giant flaw in their master plan. They would like poor people to stop having children, or need to meet a certain financial criteria first, but if that happened, where would the wealthy get the work force needed in order to stay wealthy. Most wealthy people make money off of the work other people are doing. In some way, shape or form, even high paying job has lower paying jobs beneath it that makes their job possible. Do you think the children of wealthy households are going to want to work as cashiers and short order cooks?
    
    I do believe 100 percent that anyone can be abusive. My mother moved us across country, away from everything we had ever known, to live with a wealthy man she had met because she thought we would be given a better life. He was a jerk. He abused my mother, me and my sisters. Sure you could make the argument that I was not a child he planned for, he had been married twice before and treated the other two families the same way. Including the kids he had WANTED.
    
    Abuse is very present in wealthy homes. Corporal punishment is VERY present in wealthy homes. It's just not spoken about or looked into because people assume the same thing the OP assumes.
    
    Are there people who should not be allowed to have children? Absolutely! They are not all poor though.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       You have just substantiated what I said about the poor.  The poor are a disposable, usable slave class.   Poor children are raised to be slaves.   When poor parents have children, such children will be poor like their parents & grandparents.   Poor people are socioeconomic slaves, no more no less.
       
       You have confirmed my premises that poor children will be nothing but low end job wage slaves.   That is why I stated that poor people should not have children because they are damning their children to a life of poverty & struggle.   Poor people live a concentration camp existence.  Poor children will NEVER succeed educationally nor socioeconomically.  You are confirming my premise that poor people i.e. lower, working, & lower middle class are nothing but slaves & will always be slaves.
       
       Poor parents have nothing to offer their children socioeconomically nor educationally.  Children born in to such conditions will never amount to anything significant.   Yes, I believe that one should be AT THE MINIMUM, solidly middle income (of course, married or in a long-term committed relationship) to even think of having children.   Upper middle & upper class parents are the most suited to have children because they have the socioeconomic & educational wherewithal to nurture children.    Poor parents will only raise their children to be...…...SLAVES...… Think,, woman, think!!!
       
       Low end jobs are increasingly being done by automated machines.   Poor children will be nothing but (1) cannon fodder for wars, (2) be incarcerated in the prison system,  &(3) being a permanent underclass until measures are taken.   I vehemently maintain that poor people should NEVER have children as they are DAMNING their children to generational impoverishment.  Socioeconomics is an important factor in being a parent.  If one is socioeconomically deficient, h/she should even think of having children..  Would you want a mentally defective person to parent a child?  Please use reasoning here..... Poor people are socioeconomically deficient & shouldn't even think of becoming parents.  Parenthood isn't a right but a privilege.  I stand behind my premise & won't back down!

       replyreport
       1. 84

          gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          While you surmise that anyone can be abusive, poor parents are MORE LIKELY to be abusive parents than parents who are solidly middle, upper middle, & upper class.   Harsh & brutish conditions which are prevalent in lower socioeconomic households lead to abuse & neglect of children.  Furthermore, poor parents are less loving of their children as many of the children are oops or unwanted children.
          
          Poor parents, on average, aren't affectionate, involved parents but are very rudimentary, perfunctory parents.  In their eyes, children are just there until they are 18 & out of the house.   Poor parents merely tolerate their children because somehow these children are viewed as tolerable obligations, noisome burdens, & even taxing albatrosses.   I went to school with children who were from the lower classes i.e. lower, working, & lower middle class- they relayed how they were treated & abuse was normative in their household.  They also related that their parents were perfunctory parents.
          
          What I am saying about poor parents is right.  I studied the subject of poverty & socioeconomic class in college, read books extensively on the subject, & interacted with children from those backgrounds although I was born into a solidly middle class environment.   Poor people are brutish because of their environment.  I had a great professor which stated that poor people have to be brutish because they must be in order to survive.  Poor people are far different from the rest of us in outlook, philosophy, & purview.   Abuse occurs the most in lower socioeconomic households than it does in middle & upper socioeconomic households.  Face reality people......What you all have present is mere fanciful, emotive musings which doesn't have any conclusive logic.
          
          Poor people are the least suited to be parents.  They have nothing socioeconomically nor educationally to give to their children.  Such children will be bereft of things that other children have such as socioeconomic, cultural, intellectual, & educational opportunities. They will live in substandard, unsafe neighborhoods; attended the worst schools; have inferior food; poor quality healthcare; & slim life chances.  Poor people had children in the past because there was no sufficient birth control so they just breed; however, in the 21st century w/more modern methods of birth control, there is NO EXCUSE for the poor not to avail themselves of such methods.  Poor people know that they can't afford children, so they should avail themselves of birth control methods & use them.   Yes, I do believe that there should be MANDATORY birth control. 
          
          Solidly middle & of course, upper middle & upper class people are the most suited to be parents because they have more socioeconomic & educational opportunities to offer their children..  Lower, working, & lower middle class people have very little, if nothing, to offer their children in terms of socioeconomic & educational opportunities- get real here, people!!! Not everyone is parent material.  Poor people aren't parent material & they shouldn't have children at all for such children will be condemned to A LIFE OF DIMINISHED EDUCATIONAL & SOCIOECONOMIC opportunities.  Being a parent is beyond a physical act & giving birth- it is providing children w/the best socioeconomic & educational opportunities.   
          
          Let me make it very elementary to you people.   C & D students aren't considered college material because college will be intellectually daunting to such students.   However A & B students are deemed college material because they are suited for the intellectual rigors of college.   Lower, working, & lower middle class people aren't parent material- they don't have the means to offer their children the best socioeconomic, cultural, & educational opportunities.  Such things are outside their socioeconomic purview- all they have to offer their children are lives of socioeconomic struggle bereft of any type of educational & socioeconomic betterment hence they shouldn't be parents.  However, solidly middle, more so upper middle & upper class people are parent material- they have the means to offer their children myriad socioeconomic, cultural, & educational opportunities which will be instrumental in their children's success.

          replyreport