My whole life, I've never loved anything else.

Oz ,'Him'


Natter 63: Life after PuppyCam  

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.


msbelle - Jan 30, 2009 8:57:12 am PST #4312 of 30000
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb

I KNOW, right?

Maybe she didn't read the part where you and I have taken up residence in the high-thrones of judginess. Or maybe she likes the disapproving glances.


Typo Boy - Jan 30, 2009 9:06:30 am PST #4313 of 30000
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.

Also on anyone continuing to have more kids by any means if they need government assistance to get by.

What if they have zero kids? Do people too poor to get by on their own lose their (moral) right to reproduce? (I understand you don't want to take away their legal right. Would that include not taking away either their government benefits or their children?)


msbelle - Jan 30, 2009 9:12:39 am PST #4314 of 30000
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb

yes, I think it is irresponsible to have children if you are not able to support yourself.


Amy - Jan 30, 2009 9:13:16 am PST #4315 of 30000
Because books.

Or maybe she likes the disapproving glances.

You never know with Perkins. She's contrary like that.

::adjusts to more comfortable position on throne::


javachik - Jan 30, 2009 9:27:44 am PST #4316 of 30000
Our wings are not tired.

I get nervous with the "too poor to have more children" talk because some of the best parents I know struggle on a monthly basis financially. And if you have to be solvent, that's sort of making a rule where only the middle-class or rich are allowed to have babies. I'm not cool with that.

I'm more inclined to be judgmental about the tolls on the Earth. And that is not related to one's financial well-being, it's fully related to the Earth's.


meara - Jan 30, 2009 9:44:41 am PST #4317 of 30000

I'm totally judgey about that woman. And many many other people. On a daily basis. ...as someone else said, that doesn't mean I think we should legislate against like, the number of embryos to be implanted, or whatever. That would be ridic.

Likewise, I am totally prochoice when it comes to abortion. Bring 'em on. Don't stand in my way, protestors! ...but that doesn't mean I'd necessarily get one, nor does it mean if you choose not to I think you're stupid. Or that if you choose to get a whole bunch of them, I'm not going to judge you and think "learn how to use the freakin' birth control perhaps?!?!". Ahem. ...I still think you should be ALLOWED.

Judgey McJudgerson, that's me!


Fred Pete - Jan 30, 2009 9:45:31 am PST #4318 of 30000
Ann, that's a ferret.

I'm also uncomfortable with the financial arguments, on both sides of the coin. It's certainly Not Wise to bear and rear a child when you know going in that somebody will have to go hungry. But it's also Not Wise to limit childbearing and -rearing to people that know they'll be able to afford to pay for a college education.

Not to mention, Things Happen. Plenty of families had kids in the last few years, not knowing the economy would go bad and take their jobs away. It's hardly Wise to demand that they give up their kids.

And money isn't the only thing needed to care for a child. We're financially better able to handle child care expenses than a lot of people. But I know I don't have the patience to bring up kids. (I have enough trouble helping to babysit Hubs's brother's kids for a few hours.) So, no kids here. Just cats.

Which is why I'll be judgmental enough to say, "She's craxy" but not enough to say, "There oughta be a law."


msbelle - Jan 30, 2009 9:53:39 am PST #4319 of 30000
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb

There's a fairly large gap between, "I can feed my family without government aid" and "I can pay for a college education". Seriously.

And there's also a difference between a family needing to go on aid and that same family deciding to have more kids once they are on aid.

who suggested families give up their kids?! and who suggested laws?


Amy - Jan 30, 2009 9:55:43 am PST #4320 of 30000
Because books.

But it's also Not Wise to limit childbearing and -rearing to people that know they'll be able to afford to pay for a college education.

This would have left me out. I don't think anyone is suggesting that.


Ginger - Jan 30, 2009 10:07:49 am PST #4321 of 30000
"It didn't taste good. It tasted soooo horrible. It tasted like....a vodka martini." - Matilda

I think once a child has been born, we as a society have obligations to that child regardless of their parents' choices. I become very twitchy when the talk show types talk about cutting off aid to women who have many children because of poor life choices. The blood pressure starts to rise pretty high when they get on the topic of the welfare queen, a creature more mythical than the unicorn. I'd love to see them raise several children on what AFDC pays.

Regardless of any of that, our society will suffer if those children don't get adequate food and encouragement and support to stay in school. I'd be for a large investment in free contraception and education that teaches the costs and responsibilities of raising children. However, I'd also like it to be socially unacceptable to have large families and drive gas guzzlers.