• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

tackling the big issues.... why do poor people have more kids??

you are speaking from your experience

strumpet is speaking from her's

i [who originally wrote this comment] am speaking from mine

there is no right and wrong.

i never claimed my reasons were blanket for every large, poor family, merely that this is something i have come across. :\

also nephron: i don't feel that anybody was debating the fact that rich families also can be large, more so the thread was started out of curiousity how poorer families, who sometimes do not appear to be able to support a small family, will continue reproducing.

[correct me if i'm wrong muzby - that was my interpretation :\]
 
KemicalBurn said:
You cant survive on alot of love, but you can survive on alot of money.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm damn good proof of being able to live on love not money. When I'm with good friends and family- I've just about starved but I've been OK. When I'm without friends or family I wither much much faster than mere lack of food.
 
I went to school with some people and their parents had 9 children, almost one kid a year. There wasn't once (in the 6 years of school I was in the class of this kid) that his mother wasn't pregnant or giving birth.

now having 9 kids would be expensive as fuck, but I know for a fact they get a shitload of money from the government.
 
mary poppins- I know, but I'm pointing out that there are large and small families, both rich and poor.

Most of the poor families I know have the same motivations as the rich ones in having children- they want more children. Of course there are always parents who have children for status symbols or other pretty crappy reasons, but...
 
Mary Poppins said:
you are speaking from your experience

strumpet is speaking from her's

i [who originally wrote this comment] am speaking from mine

there is no right and wrong.

i never claimed my reasons were blanket for every large, poor family, merely that this is something i have come across. :\

also nephron: i don't feel that anybody was debating the fact that rich families also can be large, more so the thread was started out of curiousity how poorer families, who sometimes do not appear to be able to support a small family, will continue reproducing.

[correct me if i'm wrong muzby - that was my interpretation :\]
Click to expand...

I am absolutely positive that there are lots of families, rich and poor, who have lots of children because they LOVE kids. If you will read my post, hell, why don't I just repeat myself here:
"Also, there is often a sense that you don't NEED as many material things in less well off families. You get by with what you've got.

Whereas a lot of better off families see a lot of things as 'essential' -- things they want to be able to provide for their kids. They wait until they're positive they'll be able to give them all those things. In my opinion, they actually wait too long, sometimes."

Clearly I was not saying that EVERYONE does it for a welfare check, or money from a well-off dad.

But if you think that it doesn't happen -- I frankly believe that's a little naive. Just like you are naive if you think rich people give lots of money to charities out of the goodness of their heart, you're wrong. They get a massive tax write off for that goodness.
 
Why do poor people have more kids?

Have we remembered to include third world countries where there is no baby bonus, child support payments and the like? But they still have shit loads of kids?

The reason?

Cause if you are poor and can't afford to go out, buy a big screen tv, see a movie, have dinner out, go to a play or otherwise entertain yourself through a means that costs money. You have to entertain yourself through a way that doesn't cost money. And whats the quickest, easiest (and possibly the best) way to entertain yourself? To fuck.

Next question please.
 
Just for interest's sake, the Family Assistance website estimates that a single mother earning $24,000 (so, say, a checkout) with 6 kids under 16 will get just under $1,000 a fortnight from the government in family tax benefit.

I'd like to see anyone here clothe, house, feed and educate 6 kids for $500 a week.

I'm sure it has little to do with the money and more about feeling important, and to a lesser extent lack of education.
 
Pseudo G said:
Why do poor people have more kids?

Have we remembered to include third world countries where there is no baby bonus, child support payments and the like? But they still have shit loads of kids?

The reason?

Cause if you are poor and can't afford to go out, buy a big screen tv, see a movie, have dinner out, go to a play or otherwise entertain yourself through a means that costs money. You have to entertain yourself through a way that doesn't cost money. And whats the quickest, easiest (and possibly the best) way to entertain yourself? To fuck.

Next question please.
Click to expand...

Hey! In third world countries there are major other serious considerations: religion, lack of birth control, rape by people who think if they rape a virgin they can get rid of HIV, and all sorts of other factors.
 
KemicalBurn said:
Thats such a cop out and you know it.

Thanks Moonbeam, but the 60s ended a long time ago. Have a mocha-latte with soy and wake to the future. The flaws in hippy sentiments became known in the 70s. This is why the hippies were hunted for sport until they were enventually wiped by punk-rockers in the early 80s.

If you come in here and say "Money cant buy you happiness" then you obviously dont know where to shop.

Money is the number one reason why families argue. This is a statistically proven fact.

Love doesnt pay the bills nor does it provide food and a roof to live under.

You cant survive on alot of love, but you can survive on alot of money.
Click to expand...


Listen up sport.........just because u have issues.........dont come in here and start throwing crap at me.............I meant every word i wrote and i stick by it.

You can believe what you want and i will respect your opinion..........but at the same time I expect u to respect mine.


Your right...........money is the number one reason why families argue.........and i will guarantee you that it is equally amongst those who u may percieve to have money as those whom u think dont...............ie the news this morning that a cat fight has broken out in the Sneddon family over the millions.

I respect that not everyone may have the same opinion as i do that money is not a measure of richness..............thats fine its your opinion..........

My opinion happens to be violently different.

Now back off bitch. ;)
 
I much prefer a cynical attitude rather than jumping on some naïve ideology of how great love is and how it "may not pay the bills but it keeps my bed warm at night".

Following such a doctrine of life and always taking the moral high-ground in life will not get you very far.

Being optimistic and believing that "love will find a way" is foolish and i say that you have lost your mind to that of hollywood and Disney's vision. Life isnt sugar-coated and the underdog doesnt always win. Dreams get shattered all the time. All around the world.

Im sure there is love in many a third world nation. Does that mean they are better off than we? No it doesnt. They have large families (largely brought about by lack of contraceptions, but that is another debate) and children are dying there all the time. Where is your love, compassion and empathy now?

And you'll find that the refuge of the poor isnt love, it is their dreams of escaping the poor way of life.

I have issues? at least i see the world with both eyes open.
 
A child who dies with people who believe in the power of their love for him is much better off than one who dies surrounded by people full of resentment and cynicism.
 
anna! said:
A child who dies with people who believe in the power of their love for him is much better off than one who dies surrounded by people full of resentment and cynicism.
Click to expand...

Given that they reach an equal age and opportunity to make their own life, SURE. But if it is because there was lots of love but not enough food to make it to legal working age, surely not?
 
anna! said:
A child who dies with people who believe in the power of their love for him is much better off than one who dies surrounded by people full of resentment and cynicism.
Click to expand...

I dont see your point. the child dies either way. So how is the child "better off"?
 
money can buy your kid everything, but it cant buy your parents love.

tucking your kids into bed at night, reading them a book, dressing them for school, holding their hand crossing the road, making them lunch for school and watching them grow up happy is not something you can get by throwing money around.

if you think you can have a child and he/she will be happy with just your money, I suggest you go out and buy yourself a large Barbie doll because you're a dick and you shouldn't be allowed to have a child.
 
Because a child can live a full life without having a lot of money. In fact, it seems that in many of these situations (not so much in third-world countries, but in poorer families in developed countries) there is a better balance of family life, working life, community, and so on.

When I was growing up, my parents earned somewhere in the vacinity of $800,000 a year - but that was all they ever did. My friends who had parents who worked less, earned less and spent more time with them were better off than I was.

There's a lot to be said about a parent's attitude towards their kids - the one with the Playstation isn't always going to be happier than the one with the bedtime stories. I think the same applies worldwide, with different particulars.
 
More apt in the "third world" situation - but, Kids are an investment in your future.
You've got no super. You've got no pension. No-one else connected to you is going to provide for you.
Having kids is a safeguard against your demise.
in the third world, male children will be able to "provide" more than females, hence the importance in having boys. In the Western world, thankfully, this is not so much the case any more.
 
Hey now!

anna! said:


There's a lot to be said about a parent's attitude towards their kids - the one with the Playstation isn't always going to be happier than the one with the bedtime stories. I think the same applies worldwide, with different particulars.
Click to expand...

My kids have both. They have had a goodnight story every single day of their life since the first was born over 8 years ago. I think I have spent a total of 20 nights away from them. They go to bed every night clean and showered, hugged. I make their lunch, take them to school, pick them up, go to their cricket, do their homework with them, practice piano with them, and play taxi-driver all fucking day on weekends with them. Every other Friday, I have a babysitter for them so I can go out drinking, and, if I'm lucky, do a little pill in the privacy of my own bedroom after they are asleep and in their beds.

They also go to private school, have a hard-working dad, and a mum at uni. They have an x-box. They have a gameboy. They have more books than I can count.

I resent the implication that just because they have some material good, that negates any possiblilty of their being in a loving family.

Again, I refer to my previous points on the matter.

Just because I am perfect tho 8) doesn't mean that there aren't people who have kids for the wrong reason in BOTH ends of the socio economic spectrum.

Now, excuse me, I have a rugby game to watch.
 
haha, well put strumpet.

I dont give a rats how much money anyone has.........it just doesnt equate to richness...........your family strumpet is obviously rich.........rich in love and caring for each other.

If its only possible to be rich by money and thats the only way of being happy.........then I guess nobody was happy or rich way back.


And hell even the rich people during the Normandy days didnt have playstations and tele etc...........I doubt even the riuchest king in the world back then would be considered rich measuring by todays standards............what do I want with ten castles and a few armies of men and some horses??

The one constant is the family, the love and the caring..........hey its not happenning everywhere........granted.........but my guess is that most kids growing up are loved pretty heavily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top