The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

is it immoral for poor people to have lots of kids?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by le_darkhorse
what i can't get my head around is all these mid twnty something people having kids. It has become normal to have a child at 23 or 24. I think that's too early. Nothing wrong with waiting till abuot 30 or so or even 35 at a late stage.


I agree but it's the hip thing to do though isn't it? Doesn't matter if you don't have a house or a steady income. Why not have some kids? great way to pass the time.
fertility starts to decline after the age of 35. so if you want multiple children waiting till this late stage may not be such a good idea
Original post by Asurat
In poorer countries kids are economic assets though.


Also in poorer countries children may be less likely to survive to become adults. having more will increase the chance of a couple surviving. On top of that, in those countries it is common that boys are favoured, thus a family who for example has three girls will continue to reproduce with the hopes of a boy.
Original post by seventwelve
Also in poorer countries children may be less likely to survive to become adults. having more will increase the chance of a couple surviving. On top of that, in those countries it is common that boys are favoured, thus a family who for example has three girls will continue to reproduce with the hopes of a boy.


they just won't stop till they get that boy brah!
Reply 24
Avatar for Asurat
Asurat
17
Original post by seventwelve
Also in poorer countries children may be less likely to survive to become adults. having more will increase the chance of a couple surviving. On top of that, in those countries it is common that boys are favoured, thus a family who for example has three girls will continue to reproduce with the hopes of a boy.


I can think of a lot of places like that, but I doubt that many people think "I only have one child, let me try for another 7 more just in case they all die". From personal experience infant mortality isn't a major contributing factor to my monster family tree. My paternal grandparents are farmers and because they have many children and grandchildren everybody gets to eat...........
But to be quite honest that's just anecdotal evidence. My point is that those who have always lived without the same luxuries that we have would be happy with a lower quality of life, it's all relative IMO.
Original post by le_darkhorse
what i can't get my head around is all these mid twnty something people having kids. It has become normal to have a child at 23 or 24. I think that's too early. Nothing wrong with waiting till abuot 30 or so or even 35 at a late stage.

That has its problems if the majority think like that.

Look at Japan with its declining population and birthrate yet at the same time booming OAP population.
Original post by le_darkhorse
what i can't get my head around is all these mid twnty something people having kids. It has become normal to have a child at 23 or 24. I think that's too early. Nothing wrong with waiting till abuot 30 or so or even 35 at a late stage.


I know of two girls both have three kids and both 23-24.
Not really, once they reach their own success or failures will dictate their success in life.

In countries where people starve there's a bigger case.
Ill advised and a bad decision. I don't think you should have children until you can pay for them.
Have children at a young age. It encourages the parents to succeed. You now have a stake in this world and desire money and a future worth living for your child. You will care more about pokitics and be more screwed on with your finances. Having a kid is the best thing that can happen to a poor couple.

Having nothing and deciding that because you have nothing you will do nothing is a self-fulfilling prophecy and encourages mediocrity.
Original post by Mister Morality
Have children at a young age. It encourages the parents to succeed. You now have a stake in this world and desire money and a future worth living for your child. You will care more about pokitics and be more screwed on with your finances. Having a kid is the best thing that can happen to a poor couple.

Having nothing and deciding that because you have nothing you will do nothing is a self-fulfilling prophecy and encourages mediocrity.


LOL more like you will start to enjoy the comforts of welfare.
Reply 31
Avatar for moggis
moggis
18
In a rich country no,in a poverty-stricken country yes,of course.
Original post by moggis
In a rich country no,in a poverty-stricken country yes,of course.


even one with little or no welfare in place?
Reply 33
Avatar for moggis
moggis
18
Original post by Bill_Gates
even one with little or no welfare in place?


A rich country with little or no welfare in place?

People who have lots of kids in such countries tend to be religious don't they?


Are religious people immoral to have lots of kids?


Not according to their religion one presumes.
Original post by moggis
A rich country with little or no welfare in place?

People who have lots of kids in such countries tend to be religious don't they?


Are religious people immoral to have lots of kids?


Not according to their religion one presumes.


Well yeah in terms of how inequality has affected developed countries. I'd say money is much more important. We hear of less rags to rich stories in the US now than before. I would not say it always has to do with religion.
Original post by Bill_Gates
LOL more like you will start to enjoy the comforts of welfare.


If you as a couple are poor, the family will be expected to shoulder thw burden too. We don't need welfare benefits. Judging by your attitude you don't actually want a serious discussion about this. Your position is clear: stop having so many children!
Original post by Mister Morality
If you as a couple are poor, the family will be expected to shoulder thw burden too. We don't need welfare benefits. Judging by your attitude you don't actually want a serious discussion about this. Your position is clear: stop having so many children!


did not make any sense, sorry.
Original post by Bill_Gates
is it immoral for poor people to have lots of kids?

considering they will have a harder time in life? This is for the UK and the world.


Yes, it is. The stats show that you are highly likely to give your child a poorer future. Knowing this, it is immoral to give them a poorer future when you can avoid it.

Original post by minor bun engine
Most definitely, and equally immoral to force the rest of society to fund their poor life decisions

+1

Original post by Arkasia
Immoral, no. Irresponsible? Possibly.


It is immoral and definitely (not possibly) irresponsible.

Original post by Danny the Geezer
social mobility OP, social mobility.


The statistical data on the academic achievement of poor students does not support the notion of social mobility.
Original post by moggis
In a rich country no,in a poverty-stricken country yes,of course.


Why not? A poor person is in a way, using other people's money to fund his child's future. That money could go on to people who need more. Like children whose parents are dead (see orphan children).
Reply 39
Avatar for moggis
moggis
18
Original post by Juichiro
Why not? A poor person is in a way, using other people's money to fund his child's future. That money could go on to people who need more. Like children whose parents are dead (see orphan children).



Why isn't it immoral for someone to bring children into a rich country?

Because bestowing life on someone is apparently the most valuable thing you can do isn't it?

( I say apparently because personally I've never wanted to be here and think the world is unbelievably **** and can't believe any intelligent person would want to be here but I accept that the overwhelming majority think life is precious).


So what if a poor person uses other people's money ( lawfully) to help raise a child.Especially a child that wouldn't otherwise exist?

What's immoral/ wrong about that!? Personally I can't think of many better uses of another persons money.

Your point about orphans is irrelevant as rich countries can easily pay for orphans.
(edited 8 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you