[zzze]

Asslamau alaykum

Originally Posted by Aryan_

Why not? Having children is not essential, that's a backwards third world mentality.

If Jordan wants to have feel mushy and have a child in her arms then she needs to start working and place herself in a position where she possesses the financial and mental faculties required to bring up children.

What she shouldn't expect is to get knocked up by some scally degenerate, and then jump on the gravy train living for the rest of her inane life on the generosity of others.

Jordan ( however haraamish her job maybe) gets paid mre than you
I don't think it's for you to decide whether children are a necessary aspect of life The Prophet said to have many children...he's backward too, eh?

[sally]

Originally Posted by zzze

The Prophet said to have many children...he's backward too, eh?

Did you read my post?

[zzze]

asslamau alayku

sorry not you - aryan.

[IbnMardhiyah]

This entire thread is without merit - Shadha has yet to prove that such kids are any substantial "burden" on society.

I'm part of society, and I don't feel any such burden. And I've lived all around North America, more than probably anyone else here.

[shadha]

...Ibn...if a person can't afford a child...and that person has a child...who is going to financially take care of that child since that person can't?


shadha-

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by shadha

...Ibn...if a person can't afford a child...and that person has a child...who is going to financially take care of that child since that person can't?


shadha-

Developed societies already have budgets to support such families. That is not tantamount to being a burden on society.

So either learn more about the situation and refine your stance, or just drop it. Because you're spinning your wheels like mad and getting nowhere fast.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Developed societies already have budgets to support such families. That is not tantamount to being a burden on society.

It is, some societies are just willing to collectively shoulder those burdens. Anyone who uses up more net resources than they put in are a burden. But of course this is going to lead to alot of pointless semantics arguments about the definition of the word "burden". So lets just put that word aside and say that there are individuals who use up alot more resources than they put in, which includes poor children, very poor adults, prison inmates, people with expensive chronic illnesses like kidney failure, handicapped people, etc. Some societies choose to support them but there are always those who protest this choice or who question the degree or nature of the support

On the other hand, poor people dont care about your tax dollars. They have children for a wide variety of reasons that are much more important to them than the good of society as a whole. If we all thought on grand terms like that, then nobody would have more than 1 child.

Shadha, I'm sure you wouldnt like someone wealthier than you talking about your social class in the same way you are talking about those who are a little bit less fortunate

ws

[shadha]

Ibn: Developed societies already have budgets to support such families. That is not tantamount to being a burden on society.

Ah. Actually it is. If you insist on continuing to have children without being able to provide for them, then yes, you will be a burden on society because it is society that will be shouldering the responsibility.

Mossad: Shadha, you seem pretty poor. No offense to you is intended by that assessment, it just seems that way from the way you describe yourself and your life. I'm sure you wouldnt like someone wealthier than you talking about your social class in the same way you are talking about those who are a little bit less fortunate

I am not going to comment on my financial status, so if that is the notion you get, then that's fine.

I have failed to see how I have been poorly talking about those who are less fortunate than I am. I am simply stating, that if one can't afford a child, one should not have a child.


shadha-

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by shadha

Ah. Actually it is. If you insist on continuing to have children without being able to provide for them, then yes, you will be a burden on society because it is society that will be shouldering the responsibility.

But that's what society IS all about - collective strength. Its part and parcel of societies to support those who are less fortunate. Its not like you're adding on anything extra that could be considered a burden.

I have a 175 pound frame. My head might weigh what? 15 pounds? 20? My arms probably weigh another 40? 50? None of it is a "burden". Its all part and parcel of my body.

But if you put a 50-pound pack on my back, then yeah I might consider that a burden.

Tax is a part of every civilized society, and part of tax is used to support social services. Everyone knows this and understands this. Those poor people also give back to society, but it doesn't HAVE to be commensurate with what society is giving to them in the first place, because then you'd be comparing apples and oranges.

If you dispute my stance, then please - provide a substantial amount of evidence from authoritative sources that such families are a burden on society. Otherwise, I can't take you seriously and I don't see too many other people taking you seriously either, on this issue.

[MossadConspiracy]

poor is relative, all of us here are poorer than others. when we're talking about the whole world population then we are all nice and rich but compared to many other americans, we're poor. That includes my poor family too. Like I said I didnt mean it in a bad way, but i did say it in a bad way so sorry about that

And yes, the entire tone you've been using to describe poor people has been negative, including that comment above. You are looking down on them just by presuming that its appropriate for you to judge when they should or shouldnt have children. You look down on them by dismissing or invalidating all of the multitude of motives that they may have for having children. You look down on them by portraying them as irresponsible for having children, etc etc etc. Pretty much everything you've written in this topic

Just think about all that stuff that you've written, and imagine that someone more wealthy than you had written it about your social class

ws

[zakk]

People do not stop living simply because their country is ravaged or their financial status declines. Honestly, how does the solution become "just don't have sex"? What if you're married and have no access to reliable birth control? I don't think someone actively would plan a child in such a case, but sex will happen regardless of your financial state.

As Muslims, we are taught to always rely on Allah, and to always have hope in His mercy. Therefore we do not go into some sort of crisis mode where we withdraw from our spouses because of finances or war... it is more beneficial to become closer and more supportive in these situations. Again, I highly doubt in these situations people actually plan on having a child. Further, we are allowed to practice birth control, but not for financial reasons.

As for welfare in this country, yes there are people who abuse it. What's your feasible solution, because I don't think people are going to stop having sex and the government isn't going to enforce sterilization either.

[sally]

Originally Posted by zakk

Further, we are allowed to practice birth control, but not for financial reasons.

Every child comes with his or her own rizq, yes, but where does tying your camel factor in here? Or does it not? Maybe we're just not supposed to speak of our financial concerns outloud to others or discuss it even in depth amongst ourselves when considering having any(more) kids. Some things are better left unsaid, I suppose.

[MossadConspiracy]

alot of the arguments come from a very racist politics in which wealthy upper class white politicians tried to blame all of society's problems on inner city blacks. So we had the stories of "welfare princesses" and "welfare queens" who enjoyed a great lifestyle and cranked out kids from many different dads to get more and more welfare. We heard about all the teenage single moms and how this was contributing to crime and infant mortality (along with stories here and there about black teens throwing their babies away into dumpsters). We heard about illegal immigrant and inner city residents and other poor people exploiting medicaid for their kids and other government resources. And so on. The only problem is that none of these claims have ever held up when investigated in a scientific manner. Yes, needy people use up resources- because they need them, not because they are maliciously stealing them. Crime comes from drugs, poor local government, and ineffective police. Teen moms are usually good moms. Infant mortality is so high in minorities because health services and infrastructure arent available to them. Etc.

All of these arguments are just aimed at deflecting blame away from those who caused the problems and shifting it onto the victims.

[zakk]

Um, some scholars say that the verse "And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance and yourselves (too); surely to kill them is a great wrong." [17:31] also applies to using birth control for financial reasons.

sally, I completely do not understand your post. please explain.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Sorry, I forgot to say - if we were arguing from an Islamic standpoint then Shadha's stance would be kinda weak, since we've been