[Bluestar]

Originally Posted by Sea_of_Roses

It doesnt matter, Im sure they know that knocking boots=babies, therefore they should pick up some of those FREE condoms I see given out at many places such as clinics.

I think Timbit was referring to the places which can't afford condoms because they can't afford sexual health clinics. Plus some places, especially where there's on going war, they'll be given out freely after being poked with a safety pin to "increase the number of their army".

Also, condoms aren't available for free when someone continuously visits the clinic. Eventually they'll run out.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by LEGALEAGLE

I think we're missing the enormous push that population increase has given to technological development

its mostly the other way around

[sally]

Also, condoms aren't as magically effective as people make them out to be.

[sally]

This is in response to the post you posted in my Child Boxing: Exploitation or Necessity thread; it's more relevant here.

http://www.islamicaweb.com/forums/ne...-necessary.htm

Originally Posted by shadha

Thank you. This is another perfect example of people having children that they can’t afford. The children get exploited and abused.

There is no excuse under the sun that would justify parents enslaving and/or exploiting their children for money. Absolute child abuse and it’s a damn shame. It’s so disgusting how commonplace child labor, child slavery, child brides & child prostitution has become. The governments are failing these poor innocent children, and so is society as a whole. We are not doing enough to prevent & stop it.

First thing that came to my mind when I read this article was dog fighting. With force, raising and training dogs [in this case young girls] to beat the living **** out of each other for money. I wonder how many girls have died from this brutal abuse and exploitation thus far.

I’m sorry, to me, even children who are forced into karate or other sports here and get verbally attacked by their parents constitutes child abuse. How many times have we heard parents cursing their young children out who aren’t doing well on the field? When I was doing TKD when I was younger, a father was yelling and calling his daughter a ***** because she wasn’t fighting up to his standards. Child. Abuse. I don’t want to imagine what happened to that girl once home.


shadha-

What is your proposed solution? Population control helps to some extent, but it starts with proper sexual education and birth control resources. Without those, and undoubtedly those are lacking in these types of communities, there's nothing that one can really do. Abstaining from intimate relations is not the solution. You're going to end up having a bunch of snipers or something, as a result of all that sexual aggression.

Population control will end up having awful consequences. Take China, for example. They've always valued boys over girls, but with the one child policy (even though ever since 2002 it's been a bit more relaxed policy), their male to female ratio is now royally screwed. In fact, probability theories suggest that in some years time there's going to be single, marriageable aged women everywhere. It's actually evident from now on.

Also, their economy is booming and they need all their males to work their butts off to keep up with their country. The ratio of elderly people and adult children has also increased significantly, and they've got this new "4:2:1" concept as a result. It basically means that more couples (2) will be responsible for one child (1) AND both the couples' parents (4).

So you see, there are all these disastrous social consequences.

More details at: NEJM -- The Effect of China's One-Child Family Policy after 25 Years

Oh, I also forgot to mention the icing on the cake. Which is, in some localities in China, there's an 'area quota' of children. So though everyone is given the notion that they can have as many children as they want, there's still a quota. But every couples in the area is not going to know the family plans of every other couple in the area and naturally, the locality is going to go over the quota. In such cases, the government (though they won't admit it) rounds up the pregnant women in the locality, snatching them away from their husbands, drives them to a hospital and forcefully aborts each and everyone one of their children.

Read this for more info: NPR : Cases of Forced Abortions Surface in China


[I'm also posting this in your Why Have Kids? thread because it's more relevant there).

[Bluestar]

-sweeping comments

-no valid proof that lack of poverty is correlated to a lower educational level

-no suggestion of resolve - how to prevent poor people to have children.

-no awareness that its the very large companies who prevent a fair distribution of wealth so maybe we should be working to get money well distributed instead of punishing the people even more!

-bad attitude

I think the last one is the worst part of this thread so far.

[Timbit]

Originally Posted by Bluestar

I think Timbit was referring to the places which can't afford condoms because they can't afford sexual health clinics. Plus some places, especially where there's on going war, they'll be given out freely after being poked with a safety pin to "increase the number of their army".

Also, condoms aren't available for free when someone continuously visits the clinic. Eventually they'll run out.

Thanks. That is what I meant.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Bluestar

you linked poverty to violence in families assuming that most families which breed violence are poor. Yet, it could easily be argued that (a) that is not true since research can not fully intercept in private family matters and so what we know of it, does not form a full picture or (b) some people may exert different forms of violence on their family members, but it's only poor families which exhibit in a way which is noticeable.

No, I don't think I did say that. I wasn't making a comparison to the population as a whole. I simply said that kids growing up in that environment don't have much of a chance to climb out of poverty, and the situation tends to propagate itself. I realize that this is my own personal observation and not a scientific study, but I'll stick with it until someone shows me one to the contrary.

I can however say that absolutely there is empirical data gathered correlating income, education and number of children born to a household. That is to say that people living below the poverty line, tend to have less education and more children. It's not a big leap to say these factors are connected. This is true for North America, and for the world in general... especially in developing countries.

Poverty isn't related to the lack of education anymore. Globalisation has made education free and easy to access. Qualifications still cost but the responsibility to find knowledge has always lay on an individual, having money can make that search easier, but not having it does not make it impossible to attain. If there's a lack of drive for education, that's changing values to blame.

If you were talking about Sweden, I'm sure you could make a case for this. Talking about most of the population of the planet, this is simply untrue.

[Bluestar]

Originally Posted by Variable

No, I don't think I did say that. I wasn't making a comparison to the population as a whole. I simply said that kids growing up in that environment don't have much of a chance to climb out of poverty, and the situation tends to propagate itself. I realize that this is my own personal observation and not a scientific study, but I'll stick with it until someone shows me one to the contrary.

hmm, obviously not true in all cases but perhaps true for many. Surely that would give you the opinion that the less priviledged exist in a financial situation outside of their control - which makes the real problem, an unfair distribution of wealth?

I can however say that absolutely there is empirical data gathered correlating income, education and number of children born to a household. That is to say that people living below the poverty line, tend to have less education and more children. It's not a big leap to say these factors are connected. This is true for North America, and for the world in general... especially in developing countries.

Hmm, what sort of data? Thats the thing, this kind of information is usually derived from results of a census but a census doesn't accurately measure and explain values. For another thing, of course they will have less education in the sense of attending college/university or in poorer countries, even school. Again, these may be consequences beyond their choice and control. Of course there is the other alternative, where some people rely on self teaching themselves or just enjoy reading. They may not have qualifications but they will have a grounded knowledge of the world they live in. Another possibility may be that, they may have an extensive knowledge of the world around them, in terms of agriculture/survival etc so who would be seen as the most educated, the guy with the BA Hons or the guy who relies on practical application of his knowledge rather than memory. All of this ties in to the question, what is education?

If you were talking about Sweden, I'm sure you could make a case for this. Talking about most of the population of the planet, this is simply untrue.

You don't think changing values lead people to bring up bad kids? Hmm, i was picking it up from what i've seen around in England.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Bluestar

hmm, obviously not true in all cases but perhaps true for many. Surely that would give you the opinion that the less priviledged exist in a financial situation outside of their control - which makes the real problem, an unfair distribution of wealth?

I think the reasons for the real problem are varied. My point only being that kids who grow up in families with financial hardship have one less escape route, their problems perhaps having been caused by the financial pressures themselves or related to the same sources (i.e. substance abuse).

Hmm, what sort of data? Thats the thing, this kind of information is usually derived from results of a census but a census doesn't accurately measure and explain values. For another thing, of course they will have less education in the sense of attending college/university or in poorer countries, even school. Again, these may be consequences beyond their choice and control. Of course there is the other alternative, where some people rely on self teaching themselves or just enjoy reading. They may not have qualifications but they will have a grounded knowledge of the world they live in. Another possibility may be that, they may have an extensive knowledge of the world around them, in terms of agriculture/survival etc so who would be seen as the most educated, the guy with the BA Hons or the guy who relies on practical application of his knowledge rather than memory. All of this ties in to the question, what is education?

Yes, I agree that it's important to read the statistics carefully and critically. They can hide important factors. But in this case, we are talking about broad sections of populations. We do have to realize that the fact that high child birth, poverty and low education are somehow related, is not the whole story. But would it not be prudent to acknowledge that there does tend to be a corelation? To get to the bottom of it, for a more qualitative view, we'd have to take a close up look at less-priveledged segments of the population.

I see what you're saying about the definition of education. Like who are we to say that a university degree is necessary when some guy can make his own crops grow, and live a happy life. But I think given the opportunity, most people in say, subsitence agriculture would choose to have more options in their lives (through education), even if they decided to continue with their farming.

I have actally seen something that made a connection between a dollar value and happiness. It went something like - people living on less than $30 000 dollars per year reported more that they were unhappy, and cited financial stress as main reasons for failing marriages etc. However, people living on $50 000 tended to be happy, and that level of reported happiness didn't increase even into incomes of millions of dollars.

This study's dollar value would only apply in a certain society with certain values, but what it does I think is show that people are after freedom from financial stress.

You don't think changing values lead people to bring up bad kids? Hmm, i was picking it up from what i've seen around in England.

I said that to address the statment you made regarding children having access to education regarding globalization. There are countries with massive social saftey nets, that really make education available if you want it. But those aren't where the majority of the population lives. Large segments of the planet's population don't have access to schools. Or even books for that matter, lot's of places hardly have any books printed in the local language.

Also, in more developed countries, children in families that don't give them the same kind of encouragement for school work aren't fully equipped to lift themselves from their social stratum.

[Bluestar]

Originally Posted by Variable

I think the reasons for the real problem are varied. My point only being that kids who grow up in families with financial hardship have one less escape route, their problems perhaps having been caused by the financial pressures themselves or related to the same sources (i.e. substance abuse).

well.....no, not always. Sometime people really want to get out of these situations but can't because the same services available to rich people easily aren't available to them as easily. For example, a good english class for people who have come over from another country may cost 700 pounds a year. Is it the individuals fault through drug abuse and other self causes that he/she cannot afford this english course?

I don't think so, i think society is structured in a way in which its people are made to stay or grow worse in their financial position. When you owe money to the bank, they charge interest. Most entertainment is directed to the middle class and so have higher prices. You get free health care but you have to pay for your prescription. You may get refunded for some health care/dentistry but you have to have the money first, pay for it first and then receive the compensation.

I don't think it was very fair to say people stay where they are because of drugs or other self causes. Even if drugs are used, we should be asking, why are they used? Usually people who overdose themselves on pills or coke have problems either to do with the stress of their present life, their past or maybe something else. So maybe it's the lack of counselling available to the lower class that is to blame?

Yes, I agree that it's important to read the statistics carefully and critically. They can hide important factors. But in this case, we are talking about broad sections of populations. We do have to realize that the fact that high child birth, poverty and low education are somehow related, is not the whole story. But would it not be prudent to acknowledge that there does tend to be a corelation?

....the only thing you would be highlighting is that there is a connection but not what the connection is. Also, if you say just that they are connected, you risk being undertstood as saying that they are all correllated and caused by each other and that would be incorrect. I don't agree with using statistics altogether, to me, it's like measuring how happy you are with a ruler. I take the sides of sociologists who have learnt from Weber, where you have to put yourself in the position of the other person to understand them fully. If that is impossible for people in a larger scale, then they shouldn't be measured in a large scale because the number of differences and variables which exist that affect these peoples lives just can't be collected and analysed through objective research.

I see what you're saying about the definition of education. Like who are we to say that a university degree is necessary when some guy can make his own crops grow, and live a happy life. But I think given the opportunity, most people in say, subsitence agriculture would choose to have more options in their lives (through education), even if they decided to continue with their farming.

Umm no not just farming, a couple of friends didn't go to university but know way more about history that I do. These people have sufficient knowledge which can be applicable in any situation but it won't be accepted, not even if it is tested by an employer because that person doesn't have any qualifications. The same is happening in this thread where education isn't being noticed or valued if it's not learnt in an institution. A lot of poorer people can get hold of information, knowledge and pass it on to their children but still be labelled as being uneducated because of GCSE qualifications or haven't graduated in college.

I have actally seen something that made a connection between a dollar value and happiness. It went something like - people living on less than $30 000 dollars per year reported more that they were unhappy, and cited financial stress as main reasons for failing marriages etc. However, people living on $50 000 tended to be happy, and that level of reported happiness didn't increase even into incomes of millions of dollars.

That doesn't surprise me, again because of changing values. If people have to learnt to rely on money, or rather made to rely on money. All of their entertainment, modes of transport, accomodation, food is tied into pieces of paper which happen to have monetary significance.

The problem with the above theory is that, again making sweeping statement organised in that way makes it seem as if the people on $30,000 only have to work harder to earn $50,000 and then their lives will be happy. Sorry, but that seems dodgy to me, maybe we should be asking, why is it that our lives are made miserable with a smaller income? Maybe it is the life that people have, in which, everything they want to do costs money. Not being able to afford it, they stay in and then become depressed about it. Maybe the solution would be to go out for wild walks, morning picnics, in other words, changing the way they live to accomodate their situation so that they can be happier whilst they do have a lower income.

This study's dollar value would only apply in a certain society with certain values, but what it does I think is show that people are after freedom from financial stress.

Yup, but peoples wants change. As they grow richer, they might demand more expensive things on the market and then they'll have the same patterns of cash turnover in a month, it'll just be that now they spend it on unnecessary objects, like laptops, spoilers etc instead of things that are actually necessary.

I said that to address the statment you made regarding children having access to education regarding globalization. There are countries with massive social saftey nets, that really make education available if you want it. But those aren't where the majority of the population lives. Large segments of the planet's population don't have access to schools. Or even books for that matter, lot's of places hardly have any books printed in the local language.

Well yeah in situations like these you couldn't possibly say people poverty is caused by their own causes. The same idea would apply though, where those who actually spend time thinking, interacting and understanding human life form opinions which could be respected in any culture. It's this way that books started being made in the first place, with people like these who put their thoughts to paper. Personally, i don't separate ruminations which lead to a positive understanding of human life to education.

Also, in more developed countries, children in families that don't give them the same kind of encouragement for school work aren't fully equipped to lift themselves from their social stratum.

Hmm, but education isn't often available to them for free, at a time when they might form their own mind and make a decision to learn more. If they really do want to learn more, regardless of the fact there aren't sufficient places for them to learn, they can self teach themselves. But that's going back to modern ways of attaining knowledge, which we've already covered.

xx

[Aryan_]

Actually, now that I think about it everyone should have as many children as they can.

Condoms and not putting out are both the work of satan.

[Timbit]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

Actually, now that I think about it everyone should have as many children as they can.

Condoms and not putting out are both the work of satan.

Well, there are other methods of contraception.
If you're in a monogamous relationship and you and your partner are both free of STIs, then you don't have to use condoms.

[iTz_NoT_Me_iTzZu]

just what are you proposing here shadha? eugenics?