If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
Perhaps, in antiquity, having children one couldn't afford was never a problem. There was probably always room for the extra, unkept children in the slave markets, the streets, the sex mongers, or, hopefully, the families who were afluent enough to properly raise them. It still would have been advantageous if this were the eleventh commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a footnote in a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn't see it then, or now.
The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation, child prostitution, poverty, crime, human suffering, all these things could be drastically reduced if this simple rule were shouted from every religous and secular media till it became common sense and reached the mind of every human on earth.
People will say that this goal is impossible. If one imagines the population on earth to be little better than animals with overpowering sexual demands, they may be right.
Other people will say this is descriminatory toward the poor. What? Poor people don't have the right to have children? Unless you wish to watch children shuffling and suffering through the garbage dumps of the world, then, no, they don't.
RFHall wrote: >If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
>This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems >extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
>Perhaps, in antiquity, having children one couldn't afford was never a >problem. There was probably always room for the extra, unkept >children in the slave markets, the streets, the sex mongers, or, >hopefully, the families who were afluent enough to properly raise >them. It still would have been advantageous if this were the eleventh >commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a footnote in >a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn't see it then, or now.
>The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation, child >prostitution, poverty, crime, human suffering, all these things could >be drastically reduced if this simple rule were shouted from every >religous and secular media till it became common sense and reached the >mind of every human on earth.
>People will say that this goal is impossible. If one imagines the >population on earth to be little better than animals with overpowering >sexual demands, they may be right.
>Other people will say this is descriminatory toward the poor. What? >Poor people don't have the right to have children? Unless you wish to >watch children shuffling and suffering through the garbage dumps of >the world, then, no, they don't.
> If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
> This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems > extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
> Perhaps, in antiquity, having children one couldn't afford was never a > problem. There was probably always room for the extra, unkept > children in the slave markets, the streets, the sex mongers, or, > hopefully, the families who were afluent enough to properly raise > them. It still would have been advantageous if this were the eleventh > commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a footnote in > a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn't see it then, or now.
> The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation, child > prostitution, poverty, crime, human suffering, all these things could > be drastically reduced if this simple rule were shouted from every > religous and secular media till it became common sense and reached the > mind of every human on earth.
> People will say that this goal is impossible. If one imagines the > population on earth to be little better than animals with overpowering > sexual demands, they may be right.
> Other people will say this is descriminatory toward the poor. What? > Poor people don't have the right to have children? Unless you wish to > watch children shuffling and suffering through the garbage dumps of > the world, then, no, they don't.
My friend, if everyone waited till they thought they could truly afford children, there would be very few who had any.
Child prostitution exists not only because of poverty, but because of sleazy and disturbed individuals who are attracted sexually to children.
Improperly cared for children foraging through garbage, exists not only through poverty, but also from the immaturity of adults, who should be caring for them better, but who are barely able to take care of themselves emotionally and practically, thus find the challenges of parenting to be too daunting a task.
There is no one cause of anything of course. It is too complex a problem. I agree that birth control would solve a great deal of it, but there is no way that it would end the suffering of children in general, nor would it stop those who are so immature and selfish that they never even consider the dangers of having unprotected sex, much less about the possible children their actions could create.
Ignorance is probably the root of a lot of it.
Do what you can in the world to help. Fix what you can, and be content that you have done something when others have turned away. It's really all you can do.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:25:30 GMT, realis...@seanet.com (RFHall) wrote: >If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
>This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems >extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
>Perhaps, in antiquity, having children one couldn't afford was never a >problem. There was probably always room for the extra, unkept >children in the slave markets, the streets, the sex mongers, or, >hopefully, the families who were afluent enough to properly raise >them. It still would have been advantageous if this were the eleventh >commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a footnote in >a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn't see it then, or now.
>The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation, child >prostitution, poverty, crime, human suffering, all these things could >be drastically reduced if this simple rule were shouted from every >religous and secular media till it became common sense and reached the >mind of every human on earth.
>People will say that this goal is impossible. If one imagines the >population on earth to be little better than animals with overpowering >sexual demands, they may be right.
>Other people will say this is descriminatory toward the poor. What? >Poor people don't have the right to have children? Unless you wish to >watch children shuffling and suffering through the garbage dumps of >the world, then, no, they don't.
Should people give others bad advice? Is it their job to tell others what to do? Perhaps if they had the power, they would make others take their advice by law on pain of punishment. This would be presumptuous, from a person who feels himself wiser and better than others to such a point that it were his business to correct others without first correcting himself.
How good you must be, so without fault that you presume to guide others. You must believe that. No doubt you wonder why others cannot also perceive your greatness. They must be stupid. Or something.
> If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
> This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems > extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
> Perhaps, in antiquity, having children one couldn't afford was never a > problem. There was probably always room for the extra, unkept > children in the slave markets, the streets, the sex mongers, or, > hopefully, the families who were afluent enough to properly raise > them. It still would have been advantageous if this were the eleventh > commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a footnote in > a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn't see it then, or now.
> The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation, child > prostitution, poverty, crime, human suffering, all these things could > be drastically reduced if this simple rule were shouted from every > religous and secular media till it became common sense and reached the > mind of every human on earth.
> People will say that this goal is impossible. If one imagines the > population on earth to be little better than animals with overpowering > sexual demands, they may be right.
> Other people will say this is descriminatory toward the poor. What? > Poor people don't have the right to have children? Unless you wish to > watch children shuffling and suffering through the garbage dumps of > the world, then, no, they don't.
You should expect a lot of knee jerk reactions to this bit of common sense but if enough people in positions of influence repeated it then it could eventually become the politically correct view and knees would jerk accordingly. -- RaaN
> RFHall wrote: > >If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
> >This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems > >extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
> >Perhaps, in antiquity, having children one couldn't afford was never a > >problem. There was probably always room for the extra, unkept > >children in the slave markets, the streets, the sex mongers, or, > >hopefully, the families who were afluent enough to properly raise > >them. It still would have been advantageous if this were the eleventh > >commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a footnote in > >a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn't see it then, or now.
> >The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation, child > >prostitution, poverty, crime, human suffering, all these things could > >be drastically reduced if this simple rule were shouted from every > >religous and secular media till it became common sense and reached the > >mind of every human on earth.
> >People will say that this goal is impossible. If one imagines the > >population on earth to be little better than animals with overpowering > >sexual demands, they may be right.
> >Other people will say this is descriminatory toward the poor. What? > >Poor people don't have the right to have children? Unless you wish to > >watch children shuffling and suffering through the garbage dumps of > >the world, then, no, they don't.
> On Jul 20, 4:25 pm, realis...@seanet.com (RFHall) wrote:
> > If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
> > This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems > > extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
> > Perhaps, in antiquity, having children one couldn't afford was never a > > problem. There was probably always room for the extra, unkept > > children in the slave markets, the streets, the sex mongers, or, > > hopefully, the families who were afluent enough to properly raise > > them. It still would have been advantageous if this were the eleventh > > commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a footnote in > > a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn't see it then, or now.
> > The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation, child > > prostitution, poverty, crime, human suffering, all these things could > > be drastically reduced if this simple rule were shouted from every > > religous and secular media till it became common sense and reached the > > mind of every human on earth.
> > People will say that this goal is impossible. If one imagines the > > population on earth to be little better than animals with overpowering > > sexual demands, they may be right.
> > Other people will say this is descriminatory toward the poor. What? > > Poor people don't have the right to have children? Unless you wish to > > watch children shuffling and suffering through the garbage dumps of > > the world, then, no, they don't.
> My friend, if everyone waited till they thought they could truly > afford children, there would be very few who had any.
> Child prostitution exists not only because of poverty, but because of > sleazy and disturbed individuals who are attracted sexually to > children.
> Improperly cared for children foraging through garbage, exists not > only through poverty, but also from the immaturity of adults, who > should be caring for them better, but who are barely able to take care > of themselves emotionally and practically, thus find the challenges of > parenting to be too daunting a task.
> There is no one cause of anything of course. It is too complex a > problem. I agree that birth control would solve a great deal of it, > but there is no way that it would end the suffering of children in > general, nor would it stop those who are so immature and selfish that > they never even consider the dangers of having unprotected sex, much > less about the possible children their actions could create.
> Ignorance is probably the root of a lot of it.
> Do what you can in the world to help. Fix what you can, and be > content that you have done something when others have turned away. > It's really all you can do.
> Evelyn
Also cut carbon emissions.. or do you suppose that to be another futile effort? -- RaaN
