"It's immoral for poor people to have a lot of kids"

[the_bob_delusion]

Not just irresponsible but immoral. 

GO.

[springyzone]

No, it is not immoral.

For something to be wrongdoing, 3 things need to be in place

-the thing that is done needs to be wrong

-the person who does it has to know it is wrong

-the person has to do it deliberately.

Now let's look at this. I notice that in our modern society some people assume pregnancy is totally a matter of choice and planning.

It is not. And certainly not always in underdeveloped areas.

Personally I would like to see contraception more widespread in developing countries, I don't believe the world has unlimited resources.

In our own society, we probably need to make some changes to welfare, bring in more accountability.

But we have to allow for human nature.

Is sex wrong?

If we want to limit populations maybe we should also be pushing for a return to sex only within marriage.

To push the idea that one night stands & multiple sex partners is the way to go is pretty stupid if you want to cut down on pregnancies.

Just saying.

[icyfroth]

---

@skyrider12-au wrote:

If these countries are living in poverty, it's not because they can't make a living from the land. It's because the land is being monopolised by Industrialists, Speculators, Investors and Corporations

Well that's a fair enough statement to make. That's a different scenario than the drought affected areas in Africa and the increasing violence taking place in the middle east yet, never-the-less, the responsibility of bringing a child into the place your talking of, is no different than the places I'm talking about. Tell me why you think it's ok to subject a child, from any where on earth, to what I would call child abuse. I'm sorry but, for me, your earlier post just doesn't cut it.

---

no need to apologise, you're entitled to your opinion.

[opmania]

You know what I think Is immoral

Is that some third world people

Have to walk several kilometers a day

To get a bucket  of water

And the civilized world flushes the 

Equivalent in clean fresh drinking

water down the toilet

Every time they pee 

[raptor_rebooted]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

Not just irresponsible but immoral. 

GO.

---

its irresponsible for bad parents to have

children.

A VICTORIAN couple who lost a baby to SIDS five years ago has been denied access to IVF after a court found it would not be in the best interests of a child.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal found the mother, known only as TRV, had a history of substantial concerns, including emotional abuse, medical and environmental neglect and exposure to family violence.

The disability pensioner plans to marry her partner of five years, a fulltime security guard known as TPW, in December. Between them they have 10 children, aged 15 to 36, from previous relationships.

The couple had hoped to conceive together again after their baby daughter died from SIDS at seven weeks old in 2010.

TRV will turn 46 in September, after which she will be ineligible for reproductive assistance.

Victorian law requires couples to prove they are fit to be parents before undergoing IVF.

Child protection officials had previously removed four children from TRV’s custody resulting in a “presumption against treatment”, prompting the matter to be referred to VCAT.

A VCAT panel of three, led by Judge Pamela Jenkins, found there was a history of substantial concerns in TRV’s life, including emotional abuse, medical and environmental neglect and exposure to family violence, and that she lacked insight into her children’s experiences.

“At this point in time there is a real risk of harm (physical, emotional, sexual and developmental wellbeing), to a child to be born and that overall, the welfare and interests of a child born to the couple may not be protected,” a psychologist’s report to the tribunal said.

Positive changes in her life, including her relationship with TPW and good intentions despite lack of insight, were taken into consideration by the panel but permission for IVF was denied.

news.com.au

[joa_ell]

From what I understand, the world's population don't just stedally increase, it doubles in an explosion every few years. Here' kinda an example....

100 becomes 200 becomes 400 becomes 800 but we are now at a point where hundreds have passed thousands and millions and became billions. At close to 8 billion..

So is it immoral, is it irresponsible? I'm not the one to say, I don't even condone getting a pet fixed who has never experanced pregnancy, giving birth and motherhood at least once in their life. But this is about having lots of kids I'm gussing. Again, not for me to say. However it does pose some understandable concerns.

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

No, it is not immoral.

For something to be wrongdoing, 3 things need to be in place

-the thing that is done needs to be wrong

-the person who does it has to know it is wrong

-the person has to do it deliberately.

Absolutely untrue.........credit card companies charging usurious interest rates isn't illegal, but it's immoral.  Impregnating your spouse in a place where food and water isn't sufficient for the family you already have isn't illegal, but it's immoral.  Anyone familiar with cause-and-effect knows that what they're doing is wrong, and it doesn't accidently slip into place..........

[icyfroth]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

No, it is not immoral.

For something to be wrongdoing, 3 things need to be in place

-the thing that is done needs to be wrong

-the person who does it has to know it is wrong

-the person has to do it deliberately.

Absolutely untrue.........credit card companies charging usurious interest rates isn't illegal, but it's immoral.  Impregnating your spouse in a place where food and water isn't sufficient for the family you already have isn't illegal, but it's immoral.  Anyone familiar with cause-and-effect knows that what they're doing is wrong, and it doesn't accidently slip into place..........

---

Thing is, if you have a family, having impregnated your female several times, lol, you tend to make a living where there was previously no food or water, or you go somewhere where there is.

Hence the great migrations of the past, and of course the present level of migration where hordes of ppl from the middle-east and Africa are swamping Europe, and other first world countries. To find a living.

In the past, countries like Australia invited ppl with large families to come and populate the country and grow the economy.

It's not immoral, it's vital to have children.

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

Thing is, if you have a family, having impregnated your female several times, lol, you tend to make a living where there was previously no food or water, or you go somewhere where there is.

Hence the great migrations of the past, and of course the present level of migration where hordes of ppl from the middle-east and Africa are swamping Europe, and other first world countries. To find a living.

You're stuck in the past......people from the middle east aren't swamping Europe..........and very little migration occurs from sub-Saharan Africa.  Going somewhere where there was food and water was great, when there were a billion or less people in the world..........now there is close to 8 billion.

Australia is already having problems with water, hence the proposals put forth for pipelines and pumping stations........

[icyfroth]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

Thing is, if you have a family, having impregnated your female several times, lol, you tend to make a living where there was previously no food or water, or you go somewhere where there is.

Hence the great migrations of the past, and of course the present level of migration where hordes of ppl from the middle-east and Africa are swamping Europe, and other first world countries. To find a living.

You're stuck in the past......people from the middle east aren't swamping Europe..........and very little migration occurs from sub-Saharan Africa.  Going somewhere where there was food and water was great, when there were a billion or less people in the world..........now there is close to 8 billion.

Australia is already having problems with water, hence the proposals put forth for pipelines and pumping stations........

Exactly my point. We can harvest rainwater to fill the needs of our population, and in the process create employment.

---

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

Not much rainwater to be harvested in the Sudan, Somalia, and other sub-Saharan countries.........China's water is polluted, as is India's.......when the monsoon fails, disaster strikes.

Just how many more citizens do you think Australia can support?  What happens when that number is reached?