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

[the_bob_delusion]

Not just irresponsible but immoral. 

GO.

[youcandoityoucandoityoucandoit]

this-one, some people are dreaming, dont understand the issues or are just plain dumb ( and I dont mean you!)

The earth is ALREADY over populated.

There are not enough resources ALREADY to sustain the population that exists right now, this minute.

Having more children- and stating- just 'go somewhere where there is food, water and employment' is outmoded and simplistic, and shows a real lack of understanding of the issues.

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

Yeah, it's kind of sad.  "Build pipelines and harvest water".........that would beggar the country.  The US is a lot richer in water resources, but still,  the cost of getting it from one place to another is phenomenal.  Southern California wants Oregon's water..........it drives the politicians crazy to think of that 160 million acre-feet of pure water pouring into the Pacific Ocean each year......3/4 of the water discharged into the Pacific comes from the Columbia River.

[icyfroth]

---

@youcandoityoucandoityoucandoit wrote:

this-one, some people are dreaming, dont understand the issues or are just plain dumb ( and I dont mean you!)

The earth is ALREADY over populated.

There are not enough resources ALREADY to sustain the population that exists right now, this minute.

Having more children- and stating- just 'go somewhere where there is food, water and employment' is outmoded and simplistic, and shows a real lack of understanding of the issues.

---

---

@youcandoityoucandoityoucandoit wrote:

this-one, some people are dreaming, dont understand the issues or are just plain dumb ( and I dont mean you!)

Yeah we know who you mean lol

The earth is ALREADY over populated.

Who says? Has someone from the Eugenics crowd put a number on how many ppl Earth can sustain, perhapas?

There are not enough resources ALREADY to sustain the population that exists right now, this minute.

There are plenty of resources. We just have to husband them correctly. With fair trade as against profiteering.

If we can afford to throw tonnes of food away and suffer lifestyle diseases like heart failure, Diabetes, Cancer, we actually have too much. If other countries, like Africa,  don't have enough, then why? With all their land and resources, why is there such starvation? There's an imbalance there somewhere.

If we here in Australia can afford to sell off prime agricultural land and have our water aquifers destroyed by mining, we obviously don't value it perhaps as much as we should.

As for building infrastructure.

Countries can borrow money. Attract investment, start building roads railways bridges dams, pipelines, defences. Invest in Agriculture, develop export markets and protect them. Create employment for your population. Get ppl off welfare and into the workforce. Collect taxes. Pay back your loans.

Encourage large families to ensure the next generation.

Of course it would take a Government prepared to serve their country and it's ppl rather than to serve Corporations.

Having more children- and stating- just 'go somewhere where there is food, water and employment' is outmoded and simplistic, and shows a real lack of understanding of the issues.

Really? Why are we still accepting migrants then, and why would they want to come here if they're not seeking a better way of life for themselves and their families?

---

[springyzone]

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..........

I didn't say illegal, I said wrongdoing.

I do believe banks are very wrong in the ways they have given out credit cards & charged high interest, often to people who can't afford it. No accountability there.

However, there are other people-probably working in bank management who have probably seen nothing wrong in it.

Morality isn't a black and white thing-it varies from culture to culture, time to time. Most 'wrongdoing' is not illegal as such.

There is still the fact that people can fall pregant unexpectedly, even if on birth control.

So what happens? You may say-if they are poor they abort.

But that brings up another question.. is that more immoral than having the baby?

Opinions differ.

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

The problem is that "illegal" is clearly defined, while "wrong" is a subjective thing..........you think bank rates are wrong, I think popping out kid after kid is wrong, especially when you can't afford the ones you have.  I wonder how many instances of birth control failure occur in India, or the Congo, and when it happens, how many abortions follow?

[iapetus_rocks]

How many religions have it as fundamental doctrine that to procreate is an obligation and a religious responsibility?

Now that's immoral.

We live in a world of finite resources and we just cannot continue to procreate and populate at will and nor can we continue to "grow the economy" at will forever, consuming more and more of these finite resources.

It's all going to come to a very bad end if we don't think globally and act locally.

We are like fleas on a dog, sucking our host dry. What happens to the fleas when the dog dies of blood loss or of blood poisoning?

Oh, ok . . . we just find another dog?

[springyzone]

Our main problem is the areas of real population growth are not in our countries. To suggest anything else is a smokescreen.

We have to look at a couple of facts here.

a) People do want children, to pass on their line. It seems to be a fundamental genetic drive. It's not going to go away so we have to allow for it.

b) If there is a high infant mortality rate, people will have more children.Sometimes children are seen as an asset to work on farms, look after parents in older age etc

We have our own pockets in this country with some cultures that value large families or who milk welfare.

But the real problem is overseas.

So what's the answer?

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@springyzone wrote:

Our main problem is the areas of real population growth are not in our countries. To suggest anything else is a smokescreen.

We have to look at a couple of facts here.

a) People do want children, to pass on their line. It seems to be a fundamental genetic drive. It's not going to go away so we have to allow for it.

b) If there is a high infant mortality rate, people will have more children.Sometimes children are seen as an asset to work on farms, look after parents in older age etc

We have our own pockets in this country with some cultures that value large families or who milk welfare.

But the real problem is overseas.

So what's the answer?

---

Point of contention. You're missing the point of OP. 

Immorality. Bringing a child into the world knowing full well, they'll not have enough to eat, will not have the funding for education and will lack opportunity to surivive in life. By definition, is that immoral? Causing harm on purpose?

[icyfroth]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@springyzone wrote:

Our main problem is the areas of real population growth are not in our countries. To suggest anything else is a smokescreen.

We have to look at a couple of facts here.

a) People do want children, to pass on their line. It seems to be a fundamental genetic drive. It's not going to go away so we have to allow for it.

b) If there is a high infant mortality rate, people will have more children.Sometimes children are seen as an asset to work on farms, look after parents in older age etc

We have our own pockets in this country with some cultures that value large families or who milk welfare.

But the real problem is overseas.

So what's the answer?

---

Point of contention. You're missing the point of OP. 

Immorality. Bringing a child into the world knowing full well, they'll not have enough to eat, will not have the funding for education and will lack opportunity to surivive in life. By definition, is that immoral? Causing harm on purpose?

---

How do you know that child you prevent being born will not become the very person to solve the problem of starvation and lead the world out of degradation and desperation?

Would it not be immoral and selfish deny that person a chance at life?

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@springyzone wrote:

Our main problem is the areas of real population growth are not in our countries. To suggest anything else is a smokescreen.

We have to look at a couple of facts here.

a) People do want children, to pass on their line. It seems to be a fundamental genetic drive. It's not going to go away so we have to allow for it.

b) If there is a high infant mortality rate, people will have more children.Sometimes children are seen as an asset to work on farms, look after parents in older age etc

We have our own pockets in this country with some cultures that value large families or who milk welfare.

But the real problem is overseas.

So what's the answer?

---

Point of contention. You're missing the point of OP. 

Immorality. Bringing a child into the world knowing full well, they'll not have enough to eat, will not have the funding for education and will lack opportunity to surivive in life. By definition, is that immoral? Causing harm on purpose?

---

How do you know that child you prevent being born will not become the very person to solve the problem of starvation and lead the world out of degradation and desperation?

Would it not be immoral and selfish deny that person a chance at life?

---

What kind of logic is that??? It's like saying to anyone, by not having sex with me, you're denying our baby a chance at life. 
Every child you conceive. you want to give them the best chance to thrive.  Having no money to feed, clothes or house them and give them a decent education is the opposite of thriving.