What is the minimum income requirement for having sex?

g under p

_ wrote:

g under p wrote:

Back to the subject at hand....I'm just curious does anyone know what is the percentage of people whether poor, middle rich, or just plain rich plan on and implement trying to have a child? Is that percentage high or low and if it is high are all those people irresponsible?

Peace

In the United States, 51% of pregnancies are intended & 49% of pregnancies are unintended. I know that's a percentage of pregnancies & not of people, but hopefully that kind of answers your first question.

As for your second question, that obviously depends on who you ask. I don't think it's my place to judge. But for those who think it's their place to judge whether a person/couple is irresponsible for having children under less than ideal conditions, I'll have to agree with the posters here who have already noted that practically no one is able to bring children into this world under ideal conditions.

Thank you, I was guessing that it was going to be average or medium ground. I'm in the unintended group but I was beyond ecstatic....my other half at the time not so much.

I gather I don't think of myself as irresponsible in having a pregnancy which was unplanned. Things weren't perfect and they were many struggles, I almost had my car repossessed, fell behind on some bills etc. My daughter's birth now 14 was not under ideal situation but it made strong and more focused as a father.

I took a 5 week maternity leave and it was a good thing I did in that my wife at the time of our daughter's birth went into a depression. I jumped into action by prepping the bottles, giving baths, playing and reading stories..etc. I did all what was needed to be done and more as a Dad.

Peace

_

We certainly struggled with money when I was growing up too. My parents had a child they couldn't afford - me - through absolutely no fault of their own. They could afford one child, not two. But we don't always have complete control over our reproductivity and two eggs were fertilized. My dad chose to solve this problem by joining the military against the wishes of my mom, thereby altering the course of all of our lives forever. Some might say he did the right thing to avoid having his children paid for by the taxpayers (oh wait - but the taxpayers still ended up paying for us though, just through the military budget instead of the welfare one!), but in a way it tore my mom's family apart. My point is that neither decision would have been right or wrong and it was certainly not anyone's place to judge.

Then, after he got out of the service, both my parents had trouble finding jobs when we moved here. We never lost our home or had to get food stamps, but that's only because we were FORTUNATE enough to have family members who could help us pay the bills until my parents were able to secure better incomes. Not everyone is so fortunate. We did, however, have to use public funding for healthcare. Would any of you, with children & no health insurance, hesitate for a second to use public assistance to provide healthcare for your child? I hope not.

I used this "welfare" funding for healthcare again when I was in college, working 50 hours/week at $4.25/hour with no option to buy health insurance. Was I a lazy, irresponsible person taking taxpayers' money & giving nothing back? Absolutely not. My taxes have paid and continue to pay into that system and I wouldn't hesitate to use it again if I needed to.

Not only is there no ideal time to have a child, but you can't even always control how many children you have. And you never, ever know when, 15 years later, your circumstances might change and you might need public assistance to help care for your children - no matter how responsible your choices have been.

_

g under p wrote:

_ wrote:

g under p wrote:

Back to the subject at hand....I'm just curious does anyone know what is the percentage of people whether poor, middle rich, or just plain rich plan on and implement trying to have a child? Is that percentage high or low and if it is high are all those people irresponsible?

Peace

In the United States, 51% of pregnancies are intended & 49% of pregnancies are unintended. I know that's a percentage of pregnancies & not of people, but hopefully that kind of answers your first question.

As for your second question, that obviously depends on who you ask. I don't think it's my place to judge. But for those who think it's their place to judge whether a person/couple is irresponsible for having children under less than ideal conditions, I'll have to agree with the posters here who have already noted that practically no one is able to bring children into this world under ideal conditions.

Thank you, I was guessing that it was going to be average or medium ground. I'm in the unintended group but I was beyond ecstatic....my other half at the time not so much.

I gather I don't think of myself as irresponsible in having a pregnancy which was unplanned. Things weren't perfect and they were many struggles, I almost had my car repossessed, fell behind on some bills etc. My daughter's birth now 14 was not under ideal situation but it made strong and more focused as a father.

I took a 5 week maternity leave and it was a good thing I did in that my wife at the time of our daughter's birth went into a depression. I jumped into action by prepping the bottles, giving baths, playing and reading stories..etc. I did all what was needed to be done and more as a Dad.

Peace

I'm glad you (and your family) were fortunate enough to have the option to take paternity leave to jump in to care for your family when needed. Unfortunately (as you know), many, many people in this country aren't so fortunate. :(

Loulou

I grew up being looked after by a single mother and without going into my private life too much things went down hill and we ended up with nothing. When I say nothing, I mean...NOTHING! My mother made the very best of the situation and just made most of it seem like a big adventure and didn't let on just how bad it really was. I loved my childhood but if my mum had turned around at that time in our life and said, "I really want a child so I'm gonna have one", I would have thought she'd lost her marbles. I agree that there is no perfect time to have children but there can certainly be a wrong time. I know shit happens in life that you can't prepare for and you just have to ride that wave out until it gets a little smoother.

haffajappa

BinauralJam wrote:

I pull out, it's free

*like*

haffajappa

You don't need a magic number if you do it safely!
I don't feel guilty for thinking having a zillion babies that you can't take care of is just plain silly.

he still stands

We should also implement an IQ test in addition to a minimum income requirement. And more importantly, a BMI requirement, cause we don't need those fat people reproducing either.

Instead of waiting for the stupid, fat, and poor people to die off slowly, can we just go into their homes and kill them? They aren't going to have kids to give their homes and other assets to, so we may as well take that stuff now.

Okay, so that might be a bit much. Instead, let's build concentration camps and put them all there. With this food shortage we may need some Soylent Green in the next few years (and we all know what IT is made of).

The world is going to be such a more pleasant place once we get rid of those dregs to society. Next step after social engineering; genetic engineering!

catefrances

pandora wrote:

just the quick def search here and then I'm off for a lovely dinner and red carpet viewing of the rich and famous
haughty attitude or temper; a contemptuous manner

this was your post....hate is such a strong word pandora. i dont hate anybody.. but there are people i have no time for. and i dont feel that patronising them is constructive, so they tend to figure out quick how i feel.

sounding a bit high horse...ish to me..... in my opinion though

enjoy your the rest of your day cate

:roll:

KDH12

don't worry Republicans are trying to cut out funding to planned parenthood so there will be more expensive children running around unpaid for

zarocat

_ wrote:

In the United States, 51% of pregnancies are intended & 49% of pregnancies are unintended. I know that's a percentage of pregnancies & not of people, but hopefully that kind of answers your first question.

Source for that statistic ?

Those numbers don't add up to me. It's common sense to know that unintended pregnancies are higher than planned pregnancies. Don't you agree ?

Pregnancies in people can't be done without people so how is your percentage information not about people ?

arthurdent

I don't know about minimum income requirements, but I definitely think there should be IQ tests for having sex
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo

GTFLYGIRL

zarocat wrote:

Those numbers don't add up to me. It's common sense to know that unintended pregnancies are higher than planned pregnancies. Don't you agree ?

I don't agree... and I don't really understand why you think that it would be so likely to be that way.... could you please share your thoughts on it?

_

zarocat wrote:

_ wrote:

In the United States, 51% of pregnancies are intended & 49% of pregnancies are unintended. I know that's a percentage of pregnancies & not of people, but hopefully that kind of answers your first question.

Source for that statistic ?

Those numbers don't add up to me. It's common sense to know that unintended pregnancies are higher than planned pregnancies. Don't you agree ?

Pregnancies in people can't be done without people so how is your percentage information not about people ?

Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2006;38:90–96.

I'm not really sure I'm following your common sense. We (the U.S.) actually have the highest unintended pregnancy rate in the "developed" world. I think this has something to do with our access to contraception, which is good enough for our unintended pregnancies to not be higher than intended ones, but bad enough that they're still higher than the rest of the world with decent access to contraception.

My percentage is ABOUT people; I just meant that it's not a percentage OF people. g under p asked what percentage OF PEOPLE plan on & implement trying to have a child. I didn't exactly answer his question because I told him what percentage OF PREGNANCIES were planned vs. unplanned. But since not all people have pregnancies, it's not a percentage of total people. (I'm not sure I explained that well.)

Of course, now that I re-read the article, I see that it actually does have an answer to g under p's question. The rate of intended pregnancies in the U.S. in 2001 was 53 per 1,000 women of reproductive age (15-44). So 5.3% of reproductive-age women had a planned pregnancy that year. (Of course that still doesn't exactly answer the question because he asked about people, not just reproductive-age women over a one-year period.)

So, percentage of pregnancies that are intended = 51%.
Percentage of women who had intended pregnancies = 5.3%.

zarocat

_ wrote:

zarocat wrote:

_ wrote:

In the United States, 51% of pregnancies are intended & 49% of pregnancies are unintended. I know that's a percentage of pregnancies & not of people, but hopefully that kind of answers your first question.

Source for that statistic ?

Those numbers don't add up to me. It's common sense to know that unintended pregnancies are higher than planned pregnancies. Don't you agree ?

Pregnancies in people can't be done without people so how is your percentage information not about people ?

Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2006;38:90–96.

I'm not really sure I'm following your common sense. We (the U.S.) actually have the highest unintended pregnancy rate in the "developed" world. I think this has something to do with our access to contraception, which is good enough for our unintended pregnancies to not be higher than intended ones, but bad enough that they're still higher than the rest of the world with decent access to contraception.

My percentage is ABOUT people; I just meant that it's not a percentage OF people. g under p asked what percentage OF PEOPLE plan on & implement trying to have a child. I didn't exactly answer his question because I told him what percentage OF PREGNANCIES were planned vs. unplanned. But since not all people have pregnancies, it's not a percentage of total people. (I'm not sure I explained that well.)

Of course, now that I re-read the article, I see that it actually does have an answer to g under p's question. The rate of intended pregnancies in the U.S. in 2001 was 53 per 1,000 women of reproductive age (15-44). So 5.3% of reproductive-age women had a planned pregnancy that year. (Of course that still doesn't exactly answer the question because he asked about people, not just reproductive-age women over a one-year period.)

So, percentage of pregnancies that are intended = 51%.
Percentage of women who had intended pregnancies = 5.3%.

I gotcha ya

zarocat

GTFLYGIRL wrote:

zarocat wrote:

Those numbers don't add up to me. It's common sense to know that unintended pregnancies are higher than planned pregnancies. Don't you agree ?

I don't agree... and I don't really understand why you think that it would be so likely to be that way.... could you please share your thoughts on it?

Well, people are fucking all the time without wanting to get pregnant but they do get pregnant. I wouldn't think the number of people having sexual intercourse to get pregnant would be higher than those fucking and becoming pregnant. Am I making sense because it sure sounds right in my head ?

pickupyourwill

_ wrote:

People around here are always saying that you shouldn't have a kid if you can't afford to pay for him/her. We all know that the ONLY way to certainly avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. So I'm wondering, how much money should a person have - in income AND savings - before he or she gets to have sex? What is this magic number that would pull someone with kids off your list of irresponsible people? How much money should YOU have before you get to have sex (or DID you have when you started)? And if you've ever dropped below this magic number, did you STOP having sex immediately? Would you? How would your spouse/partner feel about this?

see below

pickupyourwill

pickupyourwill wrote:

_ wrote:

People around here are always saying that you shouldn't have a kid if you can't afford to pay for him/her. We all know that the ONLY way to certainly avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. So I'm wondering, how much money should a person have - in income AND savings - before he or she gets to have sex? What is this magic number that would pull someone with kids off your list of irresponsible people? How much money should YOU have before you get to have sex (or DID you have when you started)? And if you've ever dropped below this magic number, did you STOP having sex immediately? Would you? How would your spouse/partner feel about this?

You should have atleast a few thousand dollars saved up just for the possibility of a baby, if you live in the midwest. Income? As long as it allows for those extra few thousand just for the baby.

_

zarocat wrote:

GTFLYGIRL wrote:

zarocat wrote:

Those numbers don't add up to me. It's common sense to know that unintended pregnancies are higher than planned pregnancies. Don't you agree ?

I don't agree... and I don't really understand why you think that it would be so likely to be that way.... could you please share your thoughts on it?

Well, people are fucking all the time without wanting to get pregnant but they do get pregnant. I wouldn't think the number of people having sexual intercourse to get pregnant would be higher than those fucking and becoming pregnant. Am I making sense because it sure sounds right in my head ?

Yeah, I see what you're saying & it does make sense. Only, the vast majority (93%, if my memory serves me) of women who are fucking without wanting to get pregnant use contraception.

_

pickupyourwill wrote:

pickupyourwill wrote:

_ wrote:

People around here are always saying that you shouldn't have a kid if you can't afford to pay for him/her. We all know that the ONLY way to certainly avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. So I'm wondering, how much money should a person have - in income AND savings - before he or she gets to have sex? What is this magic number that would pull someone with kids off your list of irresponsible people? How much money should YOU have before you get to have sex (or DID you have when you started)? And if you've ever dropped below this magic number, did you STOP having sex immediately? Would you? How would your spouse/partner feel about this?

You should have atleast a few thousand dollars saved up just for the possibility of a baby, if you live in the midwest. Income? As long as it allows for those extra few thousand just for the baby.

Thanks. You might be the only person who actually answered.

he still stands

_ wrote:

Thanks. You might be the only person who actually answered.

wait... I'm confused. You asked "what is the.... REQUIREMENT", which connotates that there is a legal stipulation provided by some sort of government body (state? federal?) that would penalize someone who doesn't abide by the law. If the question was "what is the minimum income/savings people should aim for if they're responsible and thinking about having a baby" then yeah... let's all throw out arbitrary numbers. I assumed the question meant that there should be some 3rd party involved...

you know... like Mike Huckabee if he were president, he'd throw Natalie Portman in jail for having a kid whilst being unmarried. THAT sort of fascism.