Anyone who knows me much has figured out I like kids... As long as I can give them back to their parents at the end of the day! I don't like the noise, I don't know what the hell you're supposed to do with them, and I simply tend to regard the young ones as an alien species. I have no desire to have my own, and never have. This has actually ended relationships in the past!

That being said, I'm curious as to why people do want them! The world is overpopulated, yet we have a common family of 3-4 kids, and plenty with more kids.

Should we adopt something similar to China, where we reward people for only having a certain number of kids? Or would that cripple our nation? What's your take on kids?

Have two, then kill the parents.

Logan's Run had the right idea.

I actually view kids as like having a pet crocodile (for me, anyway): On one hand, I can see how it would be fascinating, fulfilling, wonderful experience, but on the other hand, I can see how it's a huge pain in the ass.

My GF recently had a pregnancy scare (wholly unfounded, as she's on a super form of birth control that combines an IUD and hormones and we always use condoms as well), and I used the same analogy - if someone dropped a croc in my lap, I'd take care of it, but I'm not going to go buy one.

That said, I *do* have a slight desire for kids for the most arrogant reason possible, a sort of genetic noblesse oblige - given my IQ, it would almost be a pity not to pass on my genes in some manner.

Mokele

Haha, Mokele has the right idea. I mean, who hasn't seen a story on TV about the single mother of five (each of which has a different father) and thought "oh God, why are the stupid people breeding?"

I'm not very good with kids--they walk all over me, which may be why I'm not too keen on the idea of raising one. I wouldn't say I'm resolved never to have kids. One, possibly two, should work out okay.

I'd like to see incentives (tax cuts) for 1 kid... nothing for 2... and progressive penalties (increased tax) for 3 and up.

That way, no one is saying you can't have 8 kids... but you're gonna pay.

Over-population is THE world's root problem which is the single BIGGEST contributor to all other issues such as hunger, climate, pollution, wars ect ect ect.

Population reduction can be done the nice way (mandated birth rate reduction) or it can be done the not-so-nice way of war...disease...starvation

Take your pick.

I don't see why everyone thinks everyone's baby is gorgeous. There have to be average ones, even ugly ones, out there somewhere. Is it just the fear of offending someone, that if you don't say their baby is cute they'll find it unbelievably offensive? Sure, people can dote on their baby, but how cute are they really?

But most babies are cute. They're all so... fleshy and innocent.

---

---

Quote:

Speaking of which, I feel that if someone is so irresponsible that they cannot locate the father of their child to collect child support, you shouldn't be eligible for welfare and you should even have your kid taken away from you

So, if your kid's father beat you and you had to get a restraining order, you should be punished?

If your kid's father is just a low-life scum who bolted, you should be punished?

The US is freaking HUGE, and it's *very* easy to disappear even within a single state, let alone among states. Furthermore, because of our roots as a coalition of semi-autonomous states, the laws between states vary, meaning that even if you can find him, you might have no legal basis to get child support due to the law in his location.

You do realize that the idea you propose would force women to stay with men who abuse them, just to avoid losing their kids, right?

Quote:

If you are incapable of having kids, why not take the opportunity to adopt? So long as there's unwanted children why offer the ability to make even more?

That I strongly agree with. I can see why people may want kids "of their own", but the US foster care system is absolutely overflowing.

Mokele

I think what Doom was getting at wasn't "stay with the bastard" so much as "know who the bastard is, and stop sleeping with every loser that comes your way!" Too many women float from one abusive/alcoholic/low-life/loser to the next, usually taking some poor kid with them as the result.

I agree with adoption being a solution. I would even be happy to see people have one kid of their own, you know, the "bloodline passing down" thing, and then adopt any other kids they wanted. Yes, it comes with a lot of trouble and potential heart-break, but so do bio kids. (I am adopted, in a strange series of events, and so I know some of those heart-break things. And it's not just the kids who can cause them)

I'd like to see screening for parenthood, along the lines of the gun and driving licenses, in line with what was suggested earlier. If you don't pass, tough s***, you'd better go wise up a bit.

---

---

Quote:

How the hell would it do that?! Do you know how the law works with that? Women can have a restraining order on their babydaddy and collect child support easily. I am absolutely not recommending that women stay with abusive men.

Because the guy can just run away. The abusive bastard can say "stay with me, because if you kick me out, I'll disappear and the government will take your kids away".

Quote:

I was prompted to write this because I know someone who had a kid, knows where the guy is, and didn't go after him for child support and I'm pretty sure she's collecting welfare on top of that. And if you're stupid enough to sleep with lowlife scum, you absolutely should be punished.

Firstly, have you asked why she didn't? Maybe the lawyer cost would be extreme and she'd have minimal chance of winning due to local laws.

Secondly, you assume that scum are always scum. What if he's a nice guy to start, but then gets into drugs and becomes scum? I have a friend whose mother left because her father, an ER doctor, was hooked on cocaine. How could she have predicted that?

And who gets to decide who's "low-life scum"? I know of guys who seemed like decent blokes, and buggered off as soon as they heard of a kid, while I know of others who would be considered "scum" at a glance, but when the situation came up, proved themselves to be truly reliable.

Mokele

I like how you took a VERY legitimate argument and wielded it as if it applies in all cases (or even in most cases).

You took doomhammr's words and twisted them beyond all recognition in order to create an opportunity to "sell" your point. I'm disappointed. Is that how science works these days... skew the data to achieve the desired results? Nevermind... we've seen the answer to that far too often.

But the truth is that the VAST majority of cases of children put up for adoption or of poverty stricken kids in fatherless homes is due to irresponsibility and stupidity. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people more willing to give a long-term commitment to their car than their kid.

While your point is well taken, it applies to only a fraction of those in play. An "innocent victim" or "good cause" can be found in any argument, it doesn't mean it should dictate the course of action. There are quite a few people who have died over the years from an allergy to peanuts... it doesn't mean that we ban that food product. We educate, then rely on self-responsibility. uh-oh... I said the SR word... a concept that is apparently extinct.

***Now here comes the argument, "How is a woman's self-responsibility going to keep her boyfriend from being an ass?" Wait for it... wait for it...

See, the "victim" argument always ignores half of the equation.

Raise your kids to do the right thing... to be responsible people who believe in intergrity. Then, maybe they will end the cycle.

Fif, no offense, but I'm pretty sure most people have been trying raise their children to do the right thing for a long time. It doesn't always work out.

Can we agree that taking a mother's child away from her because she couldn't locate the father is a punishment that does not fit the crime? I mean, accidents happen. Condoms break. Pills are unreliable.

Oh, and then there's rape. Doomhammr's suggestion, taken literally, would mean that women who got pregnant from rape and kept their baby would have it taken away from them if they did not press charges. That could put a lot of women in a very very sticky situation. Most rapes are commited by someone known and trusted by women. If we're talking about a parent, teacher or other authority figure, that person could very easily be able to put a LOT of pressure on that girl. And there's date rape drugs, where women can't neccesarily remember what happened. How is a woman accountable for someone slipping a pill into her drink while she is distracted?

Also, I don't believe that stupidity should be punished. What does that even mean? Teen pregnancies, for instance: Are we going to punish someone for being stupid when we don't even trust them to vote? To buy their own drinks? To me, Doomhammr's idea sounds more like kicking someone who's already lying down. And more importantly, you would be punishing the child as well as the woman, even if you take it away from her.

And there it is...

FIFTHWIND wrote:

See, the "victim" argument always ignores half of the equation.

As predicted, you addressed only half the equation and focused your attention on one side. You assumed that "self-responsibility" was ONLY meant to apply to the woman... a typical one-sided blindness that comes from the "victim" argument.

Where in my post did I suggest that only the woman should have a responsible attitude toward having children.

If these "fathers" had any sense of responsibility... nuff said.

That's a huge if, and it's not the father's you're punishing.

Since when is asking someone to be responsible for the children they bring into this world "A punishment" And since when is "an accident" a justifiable excuse for one of the parents to bolt?

You're right, accidents happen, but it's not a "pass" that allows one of the parents to leave (or shouldn't be). Enter into parenthood as a responsible individual to begin with... there shouldn't be any "ifs" attached. And you can't say "I didn't think of that" when it comes to feeding or clothing your child. You didn't think of that? Then why the heck are you having children... Someone please sterilize that Dumbshit immediately so they don't f**k up another kid's life next year. In fact, every male who bolts within the first year of a kids birth because "I'm not ready for that level of responsibility" SHOULD HAVE THEIR NUTS CUT OFF.

I don't believe in the idea of "Give everyone a pass because some might be innocent victims". Heck, just avert your eyes to crime then too, because we wouldn't want to punish the potentially innocent... just don't prosecute any crimes at all to be on the safe side.

Look, there will always be innocent victims... but don't reward the bad people because of that unfortunate fact!

The lack of responsibility from the mother, the father, or both is *usually* the blame. I never singled out the moms. And it wasn't (I suspect) doomhammr's intention to do so either.
************************************************************

Edit: and BTW... I DO think stupidity should be punished. I'll at least give you my true opinion on that one.

Please note that I didn't say "intelligence" was a factor. Even people with phd's can be stupid enough that they need to be slapped.

---

Now watch...

Someone will say: "But private investigators cost money"

You will say: "So does having and raising a child"

Then someone will say: "But they can barely afford to take care of the kid, much less pay for a PI"

And you'll say: "Then why did they have one, if they can't afford to take care of it?"

***Sits back to enjoy the show...

Quote:

You took doomhammr's words and twisted them beyond all recognition in order to create an opportunity to "sell" your point. I'm disappointed. Is that how science works these days... skew the data to achieve the desired results? Nevermind... we've seen the answer to that far too often.

So, how am I wrong? I'm pointing out a LEGITIMATE downside of his idea.

Quote:

But the truth is that the VAST majority of cases of children put up for adoption or of poverty stricken kids in fatherless homes is due to irresponsibility and stupidity. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people more willing to give a long-term commitment to their car than their kid.

Prove it.

Give me data. Hard, empirical facts that support your assertion.

Until then, I suspect your view of poverty owes more to Hollywood than reality.

Quote:

While your point is well taken, it applies to only a fraction of those in play. An "innocent victim" or "good cause" can be found in any argument, it doesn't mean it should dictate the course of action. There are quite a few people who have died over the years from an allergy to peanuts... it doesn't mean that we ban that food product. We educate, then rely on self-responsibility. uh-oh... I said the SR word... a concept that is apparently extinct.

False analogy.

A peanut allergy is a) something individuals have no control over and b) something that they can simply avoid.

A law is a) something we *can* choose to implement or not and b) CANNOT be avoided by those governed by it if it is pass.

How am I not "being responsible" if a poorly worded, poorly thought-out law affects me adversely? Silly me, I should have used magic psychic abilities to predict what law would be passed when.

Quote:

***Now here comes the argument, "How is a woman's self-responsibility going to keep her boyfriend from being an ass?" Wait for it... wait for it... See, the "victim" argument always ignores half of the equation. Wink Raise your kids to do the right thing... to be responsible people who believe in intergrity. Then, maybe they will end the cycle.

So, "responsible" people never become asses? Tell that to my friend's mom, who married a doctor and got a cokehead.

So people never raised "right" in "good families" never become asses? Three words: George W Bush.

Quote:

Where in my post did I suggest that only the woman should have a responsible attitude toward having children.

Should? Yes. But we don't live in Should-ville.

Quote:

You're right, accidents happen, but it's not a "pass" that allows one of the parents to leave (or shouldn't be).

Agreed, but notice that doomhammer's proposal punishes the parent who DIDN'T leave, punishing the RESPONSIBLE one.

Quote:

I don't believe in the idea of "Give everyone a pass because some might be innocent victims". Heck, just avert your eyes to crime then too, because we wouldn't want to punish the potentially innocent... just don't prosecute any crimes at all to be on the safe side.

Nor do I, but I believe in laws that are specific enough to prevent such errors.

Quote:

Then why does every pill commercial say 99% effective? The unreliability comes from the failure of proper use.

But there are drugs, even common foods, which can interact with the pill and render it ineffective.

Furthermore, many women can't use the Pill for more than a few years due to the risk of stroke. My fiancee had to stop using it due to some suspicious headaches and pre-existing stroke risk in the family.

Quote:

Then all she has to do is tell Uncle Sam before he bolts. They'll keep an eye on his ass.

No, they won't. You vastly overestimate the resources available.

Quote:

Better yet, if he bolts beforehand, get a private investigator. If you're a law abiding citizen, I would bet Uncle Sam or a PI can find you easily.

Um, you vastly underestimate how easy it is to disappear and get false credentials. Why do you think we have 10 million undocumented illegal immigrants? I'm not just talking about those crossing the border; people fly in and overstay their visas, and the US just never finds them.

And why assume they're law-abiding?

Quote:

Then someone will say: "But they can barely afford to take care of the kid, much less pay for a PI"

First, PI's aren't as common as fiction writers want, secondly, have you priced them? Kids are expensive, but not THAT expensive.

Tell me, how can someone who is, by the definition of this thread "poor" hire a PI who works for $70/hour? In one day, they can use up a week's pay.

Mokele

---

Well, that discussion was interesting and exhausted.

Keep in mind that here at the FWF, we don't solve the world's problems we just play armchair quarterback and bitch about them...

I, for one, am not qualified to lead an overhaul of my sock drawer, much less fix the world's problems.

and psst... neither are any of you.