Anything Forums

Bookworm wrote:

scherzo wrote:
As a father of children, why did you have children?

What difference does it make why I had chilfren?

I was in a stable, married relationshio with a full-time job. I was plenty able to take care of children.

You were in a stable, marriage with a full-time job and MAYBE you still are but to clearly answer the question, you opened the door when you said

"You are making the HAVING of the child to be more important than the caring for the child"

Why does anyone have children is the question I am presenting. These motives or reasons could be shared by others ( and I am not talking about 'sex' ) and whatever these reasons are should they not be enjoyed to everyone? Denying children I would take it is more than denying "the social, material, emotional" needs to ones self, In other words, IF children are such a burden, why have them in the first place? There must be a payoff, or benefit that outweighs the disadvantages one brings upon themselves by having children. If this is true, then as one approaches menopause NO ONE should be able to deny a woman procreation, Marriage test or otherwise.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69352

scherzo wrote: Why does anyone have children is the question I am presenting. These motives or reasons could be shared by others ( and I am not talking about 'sex' ) and whatever these reasons are should they not be enjoyed to everyone?

But sometimes the only reason that people have children is precisely BECAUSE those people had sex without taking into consideration the potential consequences of that activity or the responsibilty that would be thus demanded of them. My point is that people should be thinking of the responsibilty, the actual caring for the child, to a greater degree than they think about any benefits that "having" the child would entail. Therefore, if those people are not prepared for the responsibilty, they they should decide to NOT have children. The benefits or other reasons FOR having children cannot outweigh the considerations of provision for the children.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69405

Bookworm wrote: The benefits or other reasons FOR having children cannot outweigh the considerations of provision for the children.

Considerations are okay, but not guaranteed. Today you may have a full time job, and today you may be able to provide for the child, But tomorrow you may loose your job.

Or, today you have a full-time job @ 11.00 /hr. let us suppose this is enough to raise a healthy child to maturity. But what if your child is unhealthy? Should you wait until you are making $50.00/hr so you can provide additional health care to an unhealthy child?

The two above examples are considerations of providing for a child you say cannot outweigh the benefits of having a child, are these then satisfied by 'marriage'?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69406

scherzo wrote:

Bookworm wrote: The benefits or other reasons FOR having children cannot outweigh the considerations of provision for the children.

Considerations are okay, but not guaranteed.

And I have never once claimed that there would be any guarantee, so saying that there is not a guarantee is NOT disproving my point.

Today you may have a full time job, and today you may be able to provide for the child, But tomorrow you may loose your job.

Or, today you have a full-time job @ 11.00 /hr. let us suppose this is enough to raise a healthy child to maturity. But what if your child is unhealthy? Should you wait until you are making $50.00/hr so you can provide additional health care to an unhealthy child?

The two above examples are considerations of providing for a child you say cannot outweigh the benefits of having a child, are these then satisfied by 'marriage'?

They are certainly more satisfied by a married couple than by a single person who wants to have a child simply for the sake of having a child. If one spouse loses a job, then the other spouse can be working. A single person does not have that option.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69408

Bookworm wrote: And I have never once claimed that there would be any guarantee, so saying that there is not a guarantee is NOT disproving my point.

They are certainly more satisfied by a married couple than by a single person who wants to have a child simply for the sake of having a child. If one spouse loses a job, then the other spouse can be working. A single person does not have that option.

I haven't accused you of saying there was a guarantee, I was asking if having a job now satisfies your test for having a child, knowing you can loose your job later?

"simply for the sake of having a child" ignores the potential benefits of having a child in the first place, which we still have not established. A single person does not have the option of a spouse only because they are not married, but a child can certainly have a father

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69413

scherzo wrote: I haven't accused you of saying there was a guarantee, I was asking if having a job now satisfies your test for having a child, knowing you can loose your job later?

My test? I never said I had a test for having a child. I have been saying that there are certain conditions that make one MORE prepared for having children. Having a job definitely makes one more prepared for children than not having a job. Of course, if you know that your job is only a temporary position, than that would affect your consideration of whether that job is able to meet the needs of a child. The thing is, nobody can know the future. We don't even know if we'll be alive tomorrow. That is why I am speaking of these issues as considerations rather than as "tests.," and why I speak of being "more" prepared for children rather than being "absolutely" prepared.

"simply for the sake of having a child" ignores the potential benefits of having a child in the first place, which we still have not established. A single person does not have the option of a spouse only because they are not married, but a child can certainly have a father

You are right in that you haven't established any potential benefits of simply "having a child." If you think there are some, please list them, and we will discuss whether those benefits should be persued even if the child cannot be cared for.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69422

Bookworm wrote: My test? I never said I had a test for having a child. I have been saying that there are certain conditions that make one MORE prepared for having children. Having a job definitely makes one more prepared for children than not having a job. Of course, if you know that your job is only a temporary position, than that would affect your consideration of whether that job is able to meet the needs of a child. The thing is, nobody can know the future. We don't even know if we'll be alive tomorrow. That is why I am speaking of these issues as considerations rather than as "tests.," and why I speak of being "more" prepared for children rather than being "absolutely" prepared.


You are right in that you haven't established any potential benefits of simply "having a child." If you think there are some, please list them, and we will discuss whether those benefits should be persued even if the child cannot be cared for.

I use the word 'test' to establish an idea there was an effort in the process before having a child. Biology is a 'test', 'marriage' is a test, or 'biology and marriage' are a test.

Other tests I have seen are 'economic' tests, 'emotional tests', 'Social tests' and 'sliding scale test'

Furthermore even the process of weighing the advantages and disadvantages of having a child in any given situation can also be constructed as a test.

Biology is an absolute, either you can have a child or you cannot. Being married is irrelevant, or having a job, consequently when menopause occurs it makes no difference if you have passed all other tests because you simply cannot have a child.

With this in mind the possible 'tests' or 'considerations' are endless, if all variables are taken into consideration, "have a child on minimum wage", "have a child on minimum wage with good health care", "have a child on decent pay with no health care", "have a child on decent pay with health care", "have a child on minimum wage with a decent day care", "have a child on decent pay with no day care", "have a child on minimum wage where I'm guaranteed to return to my job", "have a child on decent pay, but not guaranteed to return to my job", "wait until I'm happy", "wait until I'm happy in my job", "wait until I'm happy in my job, with decent pay, with health care, and I'm married"

perhaps there are conditions where most of the consideration have been met except one. It doesn't matter which because we can change the variables,

I have a good job, good health care, I am happy, but I'm not married, or I am married, have a good job with day care, but no health care. At any given point in someones life they can say all considerations have been met except one, perhaps at times there were two, or sometimes 5 were met but not 3.

But as you age the absolute test is always there, either you can have a child or not. As you get closer to menopause, there is only one test that you have passed with flying colors, "Consideration test", at all areas of your life you have considered your situation and the possibility of having a child. With this in mind two tests have been met, "Biology and Consideration" and this is enough to satisfy the decision to have a child.






Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69448

scherzo wrote: But as you age the absolute test is always there, either you can have a child or not. As  you get closer to menopause, there is only one test that you have passed with flying colors,  "Consideration test", at all areas of your life you have considered your situation and the possibility of having a child. With this in mind two tests have been met, "Biology and Consideration" and this is enough to satisfy the decision to have a child.

This paragraph here comes pretty close to what I have been getting at all along. Your first comment in this thread was a response to flowergirl when she said her "consideration" was that she would not be prepared for a child until she was married. You said, "I find a certain amount of irony in the idea of not being prepared while the body is prepared." NOW you are saying that you DO accept "consideration" as well as "biology" in regards to a decision to have a child. Why did you find it so ironic then when flowergirl first mentioned her "consideration" aspects? She already had the biology "test" met, so the other point she needed to legitimately consider were the "considerations" of how else she would need to be prepared.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69457

Bookworm wrote:
This paragraph here comes pretty close to what I have been getting at all along. Your first comment in this thread was a response to flowergirl when she said her "consideration" was that she would not be prepared for a child until she was married. You said, "I find a certain amount of irony in the idea of not being prepared while the body is prepared." NOW you are saying that you DO accept "consideration" as well as "biology" in regards to a decision to have a child. Why did you find it so ironic then when flowergirl first mentioned her "consideration" aspects? She already had the biology "test" met, so the other point she needed to legitimately consider were the "considerations" of how else she would need to be prepared.

The irony is everyone is convinced no one is prepared, this is a view that ignores facts. Facts are replaced with Subjectivity on when someone is prepared, married, job, health care, etc. Consequently no one can say for sure when someone is prepared, there is no standard.

I have always accepted Consideration, and I even said, her choice is a good one, the problem arises if someone does not get married, can they have a 'child'? my answer is 'yes' as I used two objective tests, 'biology' and 'consideration' though the sliding scale test. This test can be considered to be one test, biology with time.

Having a child outside marriage may not be desirable, however the only alternative is to not allow someone to have a child outside marriage, and this is a punishment for what?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69492

scherzo wrote: The irony is everyone is convinced no one is prepared, this is a view that ignores facts. Facts are replaced with Subjectivity on when someone is prepared, married, job, health care, etc. Consequently no one can say for sure when someone is prepared, there is no standard.

So are you saying that everyone is absolutely prepared as soon as they are biologically ready? Is that the FACT that you are refering to? If you are saying that there really is no standard, then I would agree. I would still assert, however, that even though there is no absolute standard as to when one is prepared, being married makes one generally MORE prepared than not being married. This is not to say that every married person is automatically prepared, but it is a pretty good basic first step to being prepared.

I have always accepted Consideration, and I even said, her choice is a good one, the problem arises if someone does not get married, can they have a 'child'? my answer is 'yes' as I used two objective tests, 'biology' and 'consideration' though the sliding scale test. This test can be considered to be one test, biology with time.

Sure they can have a child. Who would have the authority to stop them? However, they would have a child while not being as prepared as they could be.

Having a child outside marriage may not be desirable, however the only alternative is to not allow someone to have a child outside marriage, and this is a punishment for what?

No, that's not the only alternative. The other alternative is to have a child while being unprepared. People do that all the time.

Also, I think your use of the word punishment is overblown.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69496

Bookworm wrote: So are you saying that everyone is absolutely prepared as soon as they are biologically ready? Is that the FACT that you are refering to? If you are saying that there really is no standard, then I would agree. I would still assert, however, that even though there is no absolute standard as to when one is prepared, being married makes one generally MORE prepared than not being married. This is not to say that every married person is automatically prepared, but it is a pretty good basic first step to being prepared.

Sure they can have a child. Who would have the authority to stop them? However, they would have a child while not being as prepared as they could be.

No, that's not the only alternative. The other alternative is to have a child while being unprepared. People do that all the time.

Also, I think your use of the word punishment is overblown.

So you know I'm not avoiding the question, Yes, I would say they are prepared as soon as they are biologically ready. It is not their fault they cannot provide the economics, but they are ready to give birth and support to their child.

if my statement of punishment is overblown, I can say the same to your comment of having the authority to stop them. I can rephrase it to say, "who has the authority to empower them"?


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69497

scherzo wrote: So you know I'm not avoiding the question, Yes, I would say they are prepared as soon as they are biologically ready. It is not their fault they cannot provide the economics, but they are ready to give birth and support to their child.

Your statement is contradictory. You can't have it both ways. You are admitting that "they cannot provide the economics," but then you say they are ready to give support to the child. Support would have to include economics which they cannot provide.

if my statement of punishment is overblown, I can say the same to your comment of having the authority to stop them. I can rephrase it to say, "who has the authority to empower them"?

That's easy. They themselves have the ability to empower themselves. They have the ability to order their lives in the direction that would enhance their preparedness.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69498

Bookworm wrote:

scherzo wrote: So you know I'm not avoiding the question, Yes, I would say they are prepared as soon as they are biologically ready. It is not their fault they cannot provide the economics, but they are ready to give birth and support to their child.

Your statement is contradictory. You can't have it both ways. You are admitting that "they cannot provide the economics," but then you say they are ready to give support to the child. Support would have to include economics which they cannot provide.

if my statement of punishment is overblown, I can say the same to your comment of having the authority to stop them. I can rephrase it to say, "who has the authority to empower them"?

That's easy. They themselves have the ability to empower themselves. They have the ability to order their lives in the direction that would enhance their preparedness.

I said it was not their fault they couldn't provide economics, not "they cannot provide the economics". They can easily provide the economics if they had it. They can easily have it, if they, "make it up" like everyone else. America lost trillions of dollars in 2008, this money didn't exchange hands i.e. Americas loss was someone's gain, this money simply disappeared because it never existed. "it was made up" Money is continued to be 'made up' in relief packages and bail outs.

Empowering oneself to not take a selected course of action, is not empowerment, it is containment

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69499

scherzo wrote: I said it was not their fault they couldn't provide economics, not "they cannot provide the economics".

But one includes the other, so yeah, you are saying it. I realize you are trying to make some point about the fault or lack of fault of those who cannot provide the economics, but no matter who is untimately at fault or not at fault for the lack of economics, you are still presenting a point about someone with an lack of economics.

They can easily provide the economics if they had it.

That's obvious, but since they don't, then their decisions about children need to reflect the reality that they live in.

Empowering oneself to not take a selected course of action, is not empowerment, it is containment

I don't think empowerment and containment are mutually exclusive terms. The are many instances where containment is a worthy end result of empowerment. We all practice containment to a certain extent. Suppose someine insults me. Should I strike out at them, or should I feel empowered myself to NOT take that course of action? To refrain from striking out is both empowerment and containment.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69505

Bookworm wrote: then their decisions about children need to reflect the reality that they live in.

I believe this is where we disagree about the discussion. It sounds like you are talking about children having children?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69506

scherzo wrote:

Bookworm wrote: then their decisions about children need to reflect the reality that they live in.

I believe this is where we disagree about the discussion. It sounds like you are talking about children having children?

I am talking about anyone who is biologically capable of having children.

Which would include children having children but is not limited to just that group.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69516

Bookworm wrote:

I am talking about anyone who is biologically capable of having children.

their decisions about children need to reflect the reality that they live in.

And if the reality is that soon they will no longer be able to have children what then?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69518

scherzo wrote:

Bookworm wrote:

I am talking about anyone who is biologically capable of having children.

their decisions about children need to reflect the reality that they live in.

And if the reality is that soon they will no longer be able to have children what then?

Then I would have to ask what they have been doing with their whole lives, if, at that point in time, they are still so unprepared that they must keep deciding to not have children.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69527

Bookworm wrote: Then I would have to ask what they have been doing with their whole lives

Bookworm wrote: Who would have the authority to stop them?

Well it would seem you do


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69528

scherzo wrote:

Bookworm wrote: Then I would have to ask what they have been doing with their whole lives

Bookworm wrote: Who would have the authority to stop them?

Well it would seem you do

In what way?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69529

Bookworm wrote:
In what way?

I would have to ask what they have been doing

That is the way


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69532

scherzo wrote:

Bookworm wrote:
In what way?

I would have to ask what they have been doing

That is the way

Are you insinuating that asking a person a question is the same as having the authority to stop someone from procreating? How would that question give me such authority? It wouldn't.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69538

Bookworm wrote:
Are you insinuating that asking a person a question is the same as having the authority to stop someone from procreating? How would that question give me such authority? It wouldn't.

If that is true, why ask the question?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69541

scherzo wrote:

Bookworm wrote:
Are you insinuating that asking a person a question is the same as having the authority to stop someone from procreating? How would that question give me such authority? It wouldn't.

If that is true, why ask the question?

There are many reasons for asking questions that have nothing to do with trying to exert authority over someone.

I still need to know why you think that asking a question would be the same as having authority to stop someone from procreating.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69542

Bookworm wrote:
There are many reasons for asking questions that have nothing to do with trying to exert authority over someone.

I still need to know why you think that asking a question would be the same as having authority to stop someone from procreating.

There maybe 'many' reasons, but do those reasons fall withing our discussion? I cannot know because you have failed to explain them

the reason asking a question would be the same as having the authority, is because you require an answer before judgment, when you have all the facts you already need

you believe that because you do not have a shotgun that you do not have authority, you believe that because you do not write the laws that you do not have authority, This is true in a Dictatorship, but the United States isn't a Dictatorship therefore the fact you have no shotgun or do not write the laws do not apply to your belief of authority and do not apply to the definition of authority in this discussion.

You do have authority of your opinions, and if someone sought your council on this very issue, would you still demand an answer to your question, would it make a difference? would it matter if the person smoked crack all there days and wished to make a turn for the better? or would it matter that they were an immigrant? or they had a debilitating disease? None of these changes the fact that soon they will not be able to have a child.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69544