Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?
Nope, you definitely left out some steps, and I promise you, nobody ends up with a McMansion. Look up the crisis in Venezuela and see how that all started and progressed, and what is happening now because of the "fairness" doctrine.
I asked if your argument was the "thin edge" argument because you said all workers getting paid the same is where forced charity and "fairness" leads to. So I was trying to find out more, as in what "forced charity" for health care leads to, in your opinion.
Venezuela. That's where it leads to.1 -
Well...I come here to discuss different ideas, not to be called stupid. You are plain wrong and I think the 'I got mine, screw you' mentality is disgusting. Have a nice life.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?
Nope, you definitely left out some steps, and I promise you, nobody ends up with a McMansion. Look up the crisis in Venezuela and see how that all started and progressed, and what is happening now because of the "fairness" doctrine.
I asked if your argument was the "thin edge" argument because you said all workers getting paid the same is where forced charity and "fairness" leads to. So I was trying to find out more, as in what "forced charity" for health care leads to, in your opinion.
Venezuela. That's where it leads to.
I simply don't see the connection between the ACA, obesity and Venezuela. Are you able to elaborate? Are Australia and Germany on a path to Venezuela?
Let me make sure I say this, so you don't overreact. I'm in NO WAY saying you're dumb or haven't worked hard for your money. I'm only asking you to explain how paying for public health leads to Venezuela, in your opinion. I may not be the smartest person in the room, so please explain it to me, if you have a moment to summarize.0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Well...I come here to discuss different ideas, not to be called stupid. You are plain wrong and I think the 'I got mine, screw you' mentality is disgusting. Have a nice life.
Wrong, my mentality is "I worked for mine. I might help you if I think you really need it. And, then it's time for you to work for yours." That's my mentality. Now you have a nice life forcing others to do your charitable bidding because you think you've got the moral high ground.5 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Well...I come here to discuss different ideas, not to be called stupid. You are plain wrong and I think the 'I got mine, screw you' mentality is disgusting. Have a nice life.
Wrong, my mentality is "I worked for mine. I might help you if I think you really need it. And, then it's time for you to work for yours." That's my mentality. Now you have a nice life forcing others to do your charitable bidding because you think you've got the moral high ground.
I live in Canada, so I will enjoy it, thank you
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?
Nope, you definitely left out some steps, and I promise you, nobody ends up with a McMansion. Look up the crisis in Venezuela and see how that all started and progressed, and what is happening now because of the "fairness" doctrine.
I asked if your argument was the "thin edge" argument because you said all workers getting paid the same is where forced charity and "fairness" leads to. So I was trying to find out more, as in what "forced charity" for health care leads to, in your opinion.
Venezuela. That's where it leads to.
I simply don't see the connection between the ACA, obesity and Venezuela. Are you able to elaborate? Are Australia and Germany on a path to Venezuela?
Let me make sure I say this, so you don't overreact. I'm in NO WAY saying you're dumb or haven't worked hard for your money. I'm only asking you to explain how paying for public health leads to Venezuela, in your opinion. I may not be the smartest person in the room, so please explain it to me, if you have a moment to summarize.
I'm done discussing this with you as well. I realize this post started about obesity. But it has devolved or evolved, depending on your perspective, into something else. Venezuela has nothing to do with obesity. Absolutely nothing. Have a nice day.0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Well...I come here to discuss different ideas, not to be called stupid. You are plain wrong and I think the 'I got mine, screw you' mentality is disgusting. Have a nice life.
Wrong, my mentality is "I worked for mine. I might help you if I think you really need it. And, then it's time for you to work for yours." That's my mentality. Now you have a nice life forcing others to do your charitable bidding because you think you've got the moral high ground.
I live in Canada, so I will enjoy it, thank you
Once again, since you apparently think I'm stupid, I was well aware that you did not live in the U.S. vis a vis your comment about "your government". Now *kitten off.
-3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?
Nope, you definitely left out some steps, and I promise you, nobody ends up with a McMansion. Look up the crisis in Venezuela and see how that all started and progressed, and what is happening now because of the "fairness" doctrine.
I asked if your argument was the "thin edge" argument because you said all workers getting paid the same is where forced charity and "fairness" leads to. So I was trying to find out more, as in what "forced charity" for health care leads to, in your opinion.
Venezuela. That's where it leads to.
I simply don't see the connection between the ACA, obesity and Venezuela. Are you able to elaborate? Are Australia and Germany on a path to Venezuela?
Let me make sure I say this, so you don't overreact. I'm in NO WAY saying you're dumb or haven't worked hard for your money. I'm only asking you to explain how paying for public health leads to Venezuela, in your opinion. I may not be the smartest person in the room, so please explain it to me, if you have a moment to summarize.
I'm done discussing this with you as well. I realize this post started about obesity. But it has devolved or evolved, depending on your perspective, into something else. Venezuela has nothing to do with obesity. Absolutely nothing. Have a nice day.
There truly is no need to get so defensive. I have never once attacked your beliefs, I've only asked for more information because I believe a healthy discussion where everyone hears all sides is beneficial to a free state. I wish you well.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
No, most people are perfectly able to make distinctions and believe in a safety net (even one that includes health care) without thinking that we should impose equally in all things. In fact, we've done it for ages, and there's yet to be any threat that we will by mandate wipe out all income inequality.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?
Nope, you definitely left out some steps, and I promise you, nobody ends up with a McMansion. Look up the crisis in Venezuela and see how that all started and progressed, and what is happening now because of the "fairness" doctrine.
I asked if your argument was the "thin edge" argument because you said all workers getting paid the same is where forced charity and "fairness" leads to. So I was trying to find out more, as in what "forced charity" for health care leads to, in your opinion.
Venezuela. That's where it leads to.
Health care leads to Venezuela. Better tell the many other countries that have much more truly universal coverage than we do.
Also, since you didn't answer when I asked this before -- if you hate government benefits so, shouldn't we get rid of the inequity that McCain was pointing out in his health care plan? Employer-based health care is by NO means the product of the free market.1 -
Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.6
-
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....0 -
terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
Who's wedded to the insurance model? I'd rather neither exist. It's done nothing but enable chargemasters, and backroom dealings in the medical industry, where the end user is the one who gets screwed.1 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »First, the specific quote about poor people having children came from mommanurse who said that responsible people should wait to have children until they have a job with benefits like she did. Since not everybody CAN have an "appropriate"job, the reasonable outcome would be to not have children.
And the spirit of her comment was completely reasonable and spot on. To expand on it a little:
Some people of modest means and no post secondary education become self employed through hard work and delayed gratification. They are able to earn enough to insure themselves and a dependent or two. That seems to work out alright.
Some people of modest means and limited post secondary education choose to subcontract or freelance and pay out of pocket for insurance for themselves and a dependent or two. It's a compromise and sometimes a big one, but it also seems to work out alright.
Some people inherit, share in the good fortune of a wealthy family or extended family, some win the lottery or receive huge insurance payouts for one reason or another.
So, as the examples above illustrate, not everyone wants to apply for safe grunt jobs with insurance, yet they earn (or are bequeathed) with enough to support a family. Especially when they're married and operate as a team, and have planned out their strategy in advance.
The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world.
I'm in the Making Babies Is A Responsibility Not A Right camp. I'm also childless because I was never savvy enough to choose good husband material when I was young and of childbearing age. Also I was not independently wealthy enough to go it alone and pay for it myself. I had no interest in becoming an unmarried mother dependent on government subsidy, so I didn't. I think it was for the best.
I'm curious where you draw the line? Can you afford to pay your child's college tuition in cash? Should you have to prove that before you are allowed to procreate? If your financial situation changes should you lose custody?0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
Who's wedded to the insurance model? I'd rather neither exist. It's done nothing but enable chargemasters, and backroom dealings in the medical industry, where the end user is the one who gets screwed.
I really do admire your sense of fairness and justice and idealism. Describe your plan for a way for the US under its current economic model to pay for obesity. Even if we let people die in the street, you have to pay for disposal somehow.0 -
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
This. Fortunately my ex-wife wasn't an idiot, and we realized that we screwed up. Off to private adoption he went, and all three of us are the better for it. Well, the child and I are. Pretty sure she's still wallowing as a druggie burnout though.0 -
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
And if they are planning to adopt, who pays for their prenatal? Remind me.0 -
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
0 -
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
And if they are planning to adopt, who pays for their prenatal? Remind me.
Usually a contract is signed and agreed to between birth mother and adoptive parents. So, it would be the adoptive parents or the agency that finds the adoptive parents.
They pay the mother's back prenatal costs? They reimburse the local health department? Who pays for the woman to get online to find the adoption services? Who drives her to her appointments before there's a contract?0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »First, the specific quote about poor people having children came from mommanurse who said that responsible people should wait to have children until they have a job with benefits like she did. Since not everybody CAN have an "appropriate"job, the reasonable outcome would be to not have children.
And the spirit of her comment was completely reasonable and spot on. To expand on it a little:
Some people of modest means and no post secondary education become self employed through hard work and delayed gratification. They are able to earn enough to insure themselves and a dependent or two. That seems to work out alright.
Some people of modest means and limited post secondary education choose to subcontract or freelance and pay out of pocket for insurance for themselves and a dependent or two. It's a compromise and sometimes a big one, but it also seems to work out alright.
Some people inherit, share in the good fortune of a wealthy family or extended family, some win the lottery or receive huge insurance payouts for one reason or another.
So, as the examples above illustrate, not everyone wants to apply for safe grunt jobs with insurance, yet they earn (or are bequeathed) with enough to support a family. Especially when they're married and operate as a team, and have planned out their strategy in advance.
The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world.
I'm in the Making Babies Is A Responsibility Not A Right camp. I'm also childless because I was never savvy enough to choose good husband material when I was young and of childbearing age. Also I was not independently wealthy enough to go it alone and pay for it myself. I had no interest in becoming an unmarried mother dependent on government subsidy, so I didn't. I think it was for the best.
I'm curious where you draw the line? Can you afford to pay your child's college tuition in cash? Should you have to prove that before you are allowed to procreate? If your financial situation changes should you lose custody?
Like I said, I don't have children because I couldn't afford to have them and my filter was broken - meaning - I wasn't good at choosing good provider material when men expressed interest in me romantically.
Even if I did have children, the likelihood of being able to pay for tuition in cash to a private university would be pretty much nil. I'm working class as are all my current and former friends and lovers. We don't do that unless we're willing to go into severe debt until we're 110 years old and have the collateral to pull that off. Our kids are free to pursue grants and scholarships to private schools. Our kids are welcome to self pay affordable state tuition at reputable state schools while working part time and living at home with us. It happens all the time and it's not that big of a deal.
You're presenting a hypothetical scenario which has legal and political undertones. None of that stuff is ever going to happen.
I'm saying the choice to make babies under the right social and financial circumstances is a common sense choice. Also it's a moral choice. One doesn't have to be white and of privileged status to employ common sense and have a moral compass.
You're right. My point was exactly that telling people having children is a responsibility, not a right has legal and political undertones. Just making sure everybody knows which side of the fence they are standing on.
Everybody's opinion of who should 'keep their legs closed' is different and we all need to be cautious and remember that the ruling class might decide that you are not worthy of raising children...especially in a working class household.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 985 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions