What is the minimum income requirement for having sex?

2456789

Comments

  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,327
    _ wrote:
    For those of you who copped out by saying to use contraception, you're missing the point. NO CONTRACEPTION IS 100% EFFECTIVE. None. Period. (Condoms & pulling out particularly.) For instance, I know of a couple right now where the woman had her tubes tied AND the man had a vasectomy and they are now pregnant with twins!

    So let's get serious and hear a number - especially from you, HeidiJam.
    I think the magic number depends on how well you at saving and how well you can scale down your lifestyle to accommodate a kid. Cost of living varies but if you are able to save $500 a month over your expenses before having a kid then I think you have a shot. If you are in currently in debt and have scaled your lifestyle down as much as possible, a kid is not going to make things any easier.

    As FiveB also noted, you need to be mature and mentally prepared as well.

    Then again, I don't have any kids so what the hell do I know. :D
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    Personally, I thought it was glaringly obvious that the OP was being facetious.

    The government has no right to say, "well you're a dumbass for having a kid at 19 years with $300 in your bank account so we're withholding all benefits you'd otherwise be entitled to."

    WE have no right to judge someone for having a kid with little previous financial success. I guess you could conceivably judge if you didn't ever have sex until you were financially secure (whatever that means).

    If I'm interpreting this correctly, and I think I am, the OP is saying that you are being obnoxious, arrogant, and pretentious by judging people who aren't finacially secure that decide not to kill the baby. Is it ideal? FUCK no!!! But let me tell you guys something that have never had a kid... it is NEVER the ideal time to have a kid. You can NEVER be completely ready.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    _ wrote:
    For those of you who copped out by saying to use contraception, you're missing the point. NO CONTRACEPTION IS 100% EFFECTIVE. None. Period. (Condoms & pulling out particularly.) For instance, I know of a couple right now where the woman had her tubes tied AND the man had a vasectomy and they are now pregnant with twins!

    So let's get serious and hear a number - especially from you, HeidiJam.
    I can't believe this is a serious question...
    If you can't afford basic needs for yourself (food,clothes,shelter,shoes, etc.) then you should not be having children. Babies/children need double the basic needs that adults do.
    I don't understand how this concept is so hard to realize?
    I feel bad for the people like you ( _)who think poor people should be able to do whatever they want and continually to be funded by the Gov. Because in reality it only hurts the poor people. Children born to parents who can't provide for them usually follow the same path as their parents.
    Maybe we should teach personal responsibility in public school.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    HeidiJam wrote:
    _ wrote:
    For those of you who copped out by saying to use contraception, you're missing the point. NO CONTRACEPTION IS 100% EFFECTIVE. None. Period. (Condoms & pulling out particularly.) For instance, I know of a couple right now where the woman had her tubes tied AND the man had a vasectomy and they are now pregnant with twins!

    So let's get serious and hear a number - especially from you, HeidiJam.
    I can't believe this is a serious question...
    If you can't afford basic needs for yourself (food,clothes,shelter,shoes, etc.) then you should not be having children. Babies/children need double the basic needs that adults do.
    I don't understand how this concept is so hard to realize?
    I feel bad for the people like you ( _)who think poor people should be able to do whatever they want and continually to be funded by the Gov. Because in reality it only hurts the poor people. Children born to parents who can't provide for them usually follow the same path as their parents.
    Maybe we should teach personal responsibility in public school.

    so what are you proposing specifically?

    Forced abortion?

    No government entitlement programs for the poor, only the rich?

    :?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    he still stands wrote:
    Personally, I thought it was glaringly obvious that the OP was being facetious.

    The government has no right to say, "well you're a dumbass for having a kid at 19 years with $300 in your bank account so we're withholding all benefits you'd otherwise be entitled to."

    WE have no right to judge someone for having a kid with little previous financial success. I guess you could conceivably judge if you didn't ever have sex until you were financially secure (whatever that means).

    If I'm interpreting this correctly, and I think I am, the OP is saying that you are being obnoxious, arrogant, and pretentious by judging people who aren't finacially secure that decide not to kill the baby. Is it ideal? FUCK no!!! But let me tell you guys something that have never had a kid... it is NEVER the ideal time to have a kid. You can NEVER be completely ready.
    Why do we have this though that we have no right to tell people what they can and can't do, when they are using everybody elses money to support their lifestyle when they don't even pay back into the same system? I see welfare people like I see children. They are dependants and can't live or provide for themselves on their own.They need direction and need to take responsibilities for their actions. Being given money/clothes/shelter and letting them do whatever they want is not a good of helping them. For those you that are for not putting any restrictions on welfare recipiants, use the gov. template and see how that works on your teenagers.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Why do we have this though that we have no right to tell people what they can and can't do, when they are using everybody elses money to support their lifestyle when they don't even pay back into the same system?


    so, you are proposing that we don't allow them to have sex? How exactly are we going to enforce this?
    HeidiJam wrote:
    I see welfare people like I see children. They are dependants and can't live or provide for themselves on their own.


    Let me guess... are they all black, too?
    HeidiJam wrote:
    They need direction and need to take responsibilities for their actions. Being given money/clothes/shelter and letting them do whatever they want is not a good of helping them. For those you that are for not putting any restrictions on welfare recipiants, use the gov. template and see how that works on your teenagers.

    woohoo... social engineering! Sig Heil!
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    he still stands wrote:
    so what are you proposing specifically?

    Forced abortion?

    No government entitlement programs for the poor, only the rich?

    :?
    I don't know, maybe use all that added money that welfare recipiants get when they have another child, put that into a public housing care system, put children in the housing system so they can be provided for properly by people who want children. Then deduct money (child care costs) from said recipiant who had the child. That way they are paying some sort of consequence for their actions and at the same time the money is going right back to the children (housing system) who originally would have no future. I think if people start seeing money disappearing from their welfare checks it would hopefully change their thought process/decision making.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    he still stands wrote:

    so, you are proposing that we don't allow them to have sex? How exactly are we going to enforce this?

    Let me guess... are they all black, too?

    woohoo... social engineering! Sig Heil!

    So, you are proposing that we allow them to have as many children that they want? Who exactly is going to pay for this?

    Let me guess... your are racist?

    woohoo.... No personal responsibility.
    So, please tell me again why is it ok to force me to pay into the welfare system?
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    HeidiJam wrote:
    he still stands wrote:
    so what are you proposing specifically?

    Forced abortion?

    No government entitlement programs for the poor, only the rich?

    :?
    I don't know, maybe use all that added money that welfare recipiants get when they have another child, put that into a public housing care system, put children in the housing system so they can be provided for properly by people who want children. Then deduct money (child care costs) from said recipiant who had the child. That way they are paying some sort of consequence for their actions and at the same time the money is going right back to the children (housing system) who originally would have no future. I think if people start seeing money disappearing from their welfare checks it would hopefully change their thought process/decision making.

    jesus christ so now you're proposing that we take kids away from their parents simply because they aren't financially successful? WOW I just don't know what to say... :shock:
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,327
    he still stands wrote:
    Personally, I thought it was glaringly obvious that the OP was being facetious.

    The government has no right to say, "well you're a dumbass for having a kid at 19 years with $300 in your bank account so we're withholding all benefits you'd otherwise be entitled to."

    WE have no right to judge someone for having a kid with little previous financial success. I guess you could conceivably judge if you didn't ever have sex until you were financially secure (whatever that means).

    If I'm interpreting this correctly, and I think I am, the OP is saying that you are being obnoxious, arrogant, and pretentious by judging people who aren't finacially secure that decide not to kill the baby. Is it ideal? FUCK no!!! But let me tell you guys something that have never had a kid... it is NEVER the ideal time to have a kid. You can NEVER be completely ready.
    I don't think the OP was being facetious. Otherwise that would just be baiting someone into an ambush rather then to discuss and debate. ;)
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    HeidiJam wrote:
    So, you are proposing that we allow them to have as many children that they want? Who exactly is going to pay for this?

    Let me guess... your are racist?

    woohoo.... No personal responsibility.

    So, please tell me again why is it ok to force me to pay into the welfare system?

    YES!!! Who are "we" to say "you" can't have kids simply because of your financial success?

    Drugs? Abuse? YES... the state can take away the kid because he/she is in immediate danger.

    Otherwise, thinking that the government should make this sort of decision is fascist, dangerous, and takes away the sort of freedoms that we've supposedly been fighting for for the past 235 years. It sounds an awful like an authoritarian position, whether it be fascist or communist.

    Why is it ok for you to pay welfare? Because that is one of the basic functions of any government, along with an infrastructure, access to food and health care, and maintaing a small army to protect those things. Everything else is ancillary.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    edited February 2011
    he still stands wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    So, you are proposing that we allow them to have as many children that they want? Who exactly is going to pay for this?

    Let me guess... your are racist?

    woohoo.... No personal responsibility.

    So, please tell me again why is it ok to force me to pay into the welfare system?

    YES!!! Who are "we" to say "you" can't have kids simply because of your financial success?

    Drugs? Abuse? YES... the state can take away the kid because he/she is in immediate danger.

    Otherwise, thinking that the government should make this sort of decision is fascist, dangerous, and takes away the sort of freedoms that we've supposedly been fighting for for the past 235 years. It sounds an awful like an authoritarian position, whether it be fascist or communist.

    Why is it ok for you to pay welfare? Because that is one of the basic functions of any government, along with an infrastructure, access to food and health care, and maintaing a small army to protect those things. Everything else is ancillary.
    Its not about financial success... Its about being able to providing basic fucking needs for your fucking kids. I see this is lost on you because it seems you are advocating for poor children to fail because your afraid to give restrictions to a dependant who does not pay into the system.
    Its not a fascist decision of the GOV. because the Gov. is paying for their lifestyle. They should be allowed to put restrictions on what you do if they are giving you tax payers money. Is it fascits that the gov. makes their workers work 40 hours a week?
    Why is it a basic function for me to pay into the system the only benefits a certin group of people who don't pay anything back into the system, yet its not a basic function for them? Since they can't do it monetarily mybe they could do society a favor by not having fucking kids they can't afford to raise/cloath/feed, etc...
    Post edited by Blockhead on
  • BinauralJam
    BinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    guitar59 wrote:
    BinauralJam wrote:
    I pull out, it's free


    :lol: But it doesn't always work as a method to avoid pregnancy, we have 4 kids and 2 (the 1st and last) walk this Earth as living proff that it doesn't work!


    :shock: :D
    If it were to happen i would take it as a sign from God that it was ment to be.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    well, we're obviously at opposite ends of the spectrum (sympathetic v. Darwinian). I'm reading through this again and thinking that I'm advocating for 100% entitlement rights are you're advocating 0%, none.

    I'm not actually... there has to be checks and measures to make sure the system isn't abused and that it doesn't encourage behavior that anyone would agree isn't ideal (having kids so the government can pay for them).

    Thing is... we do have those checks and measures and the "safety hammock" as Rush coined it doesn't exist, as far as I can tell. If it does, then reform needs to be taken.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    Wanting to have sex is a naturally occurring urge; it’s not based on income or the fact that someone may get pregnant. However,

    --if it was just about money, why do people keep mentally or physically disabled children?

    --if it was just about the money, why do people keep children with chronic/terminal conditions?

    --If it’s just about money why do working people who struggle financially have more children?

    --if it’s just about money why do politicians cut education and social programs that would help prevent the so-called irresponsible pregnancies?

    --if it’s just about money why do politicians push laws to force women to have a child?

    --if it’s just about money why do religious institutions and organizations oppose programs that would help prevent the so-called irresponsible pregnancies? Instead they’re policy is to abstain from sex before marriage; funny when you think of how God and in God’s name women were passed around like free beer for the sole purpose to bear children.

    --if it’s just about money, make it easy to get abortions since it’s cheaper than raising a child; then people with issues wouldn’t have to complain about how ‘their’ taxes go to welfare recipients.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    he still stands wrote:
    WE have no right to judge someone for having a kid with little previous financial success. I guess you could conceivably judge if you didn't ever have sex until you were financially secure (whatever that means).

    Exactly.
    HeidiJam wrote:
    If you can't afford basic needs for yourself (food,clothes,shelter,shoes, etc.) then you should not be having children.

    Ensuring that you don't have children means not having sex. There's no two ways about it. So you are saying, then, that if you can't afford basic needs for yourself (and potential children), you have no right to have sex, right?

    If so, noting the quote from he still stand above, I want to know if you practice what you preach and if you are committed to practicing this if your income ever drops. If not, then you're a hypocrite and you can't expect others to follow guidelines for "personal responsibility" that you, yourself, would not follow.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    I like this thread :thumbup:
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    he still stands wrote:
    well, we're obviously at opposite ends of the spectrum (sympathetic v. Darwinian). I'm reading through this again and thinking that I'm advocating for 100% entitlement rights are you're advocating 0%, none.

    I'm not actually... there has to be checks and measures to make sure the system isn't abused and that it doesn't encourage behavior that anyone would agree isn't ideal (having kids so the government can pay for them).

    Thing is... we do have those checks and measures and the "safety hammock" as Rush coined it doesn't exist, as far as I can tell. If it does, then reform needs to be taken.
    They are given something that is not theirs without any consequences for their actions.
    What checks and measures do we have, they get "bonuses" with each kid.
    Do you have children of your own.
    Its hard for me to just sit back and watch people use having children as a way to get more money/foodstams/entitlements. I do have children and it really breaks my heart that there are children out there my kids age who's only meals are the ones they get at school, or who's only clothes are the ones the we donate. I see children who are my kids age (4) roaming the streets when I am driving home late firday night. (when i say late i mean 11pm and later) People on here think I am anti-poor but thats not the case, I understand reality and human nature, and your not going to change people by throwing money at them with no consequences. In reality your just continually making those people more and more depandant and their children grow up the same way.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    _ wrote:
    Ensuring that you don't have children means not having sex. There's no two ways about it. So you are saying, then, that if you can't afford basic needs for yourself (and potential children), you have no right to have sex, right?

    If so, noting the quote from he still stand above, I want to know if you practice what you preach and if you are committed to practicing this if your income ever drops. If not, then you're a hypocrite and you can't expect others to follow guidelines for "personal responsibility" that you, yourself, would not follow.
    Ensuring that you don't have a car wreck mean not driving a car. Am I doing this right?
    I wasn't aware that people got pregnant every time they had sex? please reference link.
    I practice what i preach and its not very hard either. Its called living below your means and saving for a rainy day.
  • FiveB247x
    FiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Heijam, your disdain for the "poor" is mind boggling. The pseudo-American dream for all to base their lives around, which consists of a family of 4, a house, 2.5 kids and 2 cars is environmentally, socially and culturally harmful to ourselves and the world as a whole. But I guess you have it all figured out with sex restrictions based on W-2's? haha
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis

Categories