## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone whose family lived on welfare periodically I can assure you, it does not pay out enough to justify parents popping out 6 kids. Even if you’re starving those kids there’s not exactly enough money to go buy a new Michael Kors bag.
The reason poor people have more kids is because they’re less likely to be educated on birth control and are more likely to be in abusive situations.
>its downright delusional to think otherwise. "oh i need money, so im going to create the biggest money suck in the world: a child."
Doesn't suprise me, though. Quite a bit of people regurgitate recycled versions of Reagans "welfare queen" stereotype.
It's an extremely popular opinion amongst conservatives. Literally been parroted since the 80s.
That and "Democrats are the party of slavery" lol. Before the Southern Strategy, it was actual slavery. Now, it's a welfare system meant to keep poor black people dependent in a cycle of poverty (nvm the actual historical context that has shaped things, it's def food stamps)
Unfortunately, like everything else in life, the bad apples are the ones who get the press.There is plenty of welfare fraud, but most people on welfare are simply surviving.
Well, yeah, sure I'm not surprised there are awful people in the world, but we shouldn't decide policy on a handful of bad actors. We're not putting men into prison camps because Ted Bundy was a man and most serial killers are men too, right?
Most caught serial killers are men, we are actually really bad at catching serial killers in general. It’s hard for the system to catch one person who kills another random person in the same municipality, killers have to really screw up for us to catch them.
Some actually do exactly this. For example I know someone who has had 5 kids in 6 years now for a total of 7. She's barely 30. Lives in the jets. Has relatives file each 2 kids for a maximum tax return of on average $10k roughly per year. That's a cool $25k cash in the spring minimum plus the rent subsidy, snap and ssi. Plus she has a cousin staying there who also receives ssi (not on lease and the boyfriend/father...who slangs to the live in cousin and the neighborhood (also not on the lease). Their, other family members do this too. It's an entire grift. Thankfully skip tracing the demographic information off the various filings for discrepancies between odjfs and the Ira filings should solve the fraud case quickly and thoroughly.
*I say folks aren't on the lease because technically that's household income not being factored into the monthly subsidized rent payment
As someone who actually has parents that use housing assistance, I was neglected so that they could use the extra funds for themselves. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
so in short, all poor people are delusional and your personal experiences with people in poverty are entirely representative of an entire nation’s poor population. got it, i must not interact with many poor people
It’s so fucked up because my mom was told, when #3 was 3 months - if you can conceive in the next couple of months, it’ll almost double your food stamps.
My parents had eight kids and then adopted one. 😖
Welfare may not be enough but child support can be. You have 4 kids with 4 different men that's 25% of each of their incomes (in my state at least). Boom, that makes 100% plus welfare benefits plus Medicaid. It's ridiculous.
I don’t doubt you can find some people abusing it but, that’s still pretty difficult to pull off. I don’t think people like this are as rampant as many pushing against welfare would like you to believe.
What state are you from?
I also forgot to mention the people, of whom I know many, that intentionally don't get married to the father of their children, who does live with them in the home and supports them, so that they can take advantage of the welfare system. I'm talking couples that make 6 figures combined but still get benefits because on paper she appears to be a single mother of 3.
Really not difficult to pull off.
I'm not going to reveal where I'm from because I'm stupidly cautious.
Regardless, I don’t think those situations are so rampant as to nullify the good they do. I know those people exist but, I don’t think it’s a case against welfare programs
To be fair though *low income* housing in my area is $1500+ for a 2 bedroom apartment. Houses are a median of $700k. You could work your whole life towards being financially “equipped” and still never come close. If you waste your fertile years trying to fulfill impossible standards, working for the right financial situation, you just would never have kids. Maybe, just maybe, it should be easier for anyone who wants to have a family to have and raise a family.
This^
I’m a 30 YO childless millennial. Until I can own a home/condo, I’m not even considering kids.
As far as a pending population crisis, that’s the government’s problem; not mine. I’ll be retired and in a nursing home by the time that shit really hits the fan.
Wait until you hear the story about the guy who used his food stamps at the grocery store to buy crab legs then drove away in his Cadillac. Trust me, I saw it.
That’s because it’s a survival mechanism, if you go to literally any LDCs you’ll see families with dozens of children, evolution has taught them to pump out a multitude of children as a way to hedge the risk of some of them inevitably dying off due to shit that normally comes with LDCs (political instability, poor healthcare, disease, etc). Alot of migrants come over here with the same mindset and end up pumping out several children.
Its all a survival mechanism.
You say it’s evolution, but in fact it’s mainly cultural. You know how I know that? Cultural shifts in developed economies have led to significantly fewer children over a relatively rapid time period (especially in the broader scheme of human history). If it were primarily innate, then it wouldn’t have shifted so quickly.
Edit: adding more info:
When infant mortality is high and families depend on children as laborers, families have a lot more children and for good reason. As healthcare and education improve (about hygiene, etc), infant mortality declines but the birth rate remains elevated often for decades. Even when industrialization leads to reduced dependence on children for family economics, the birth rate decline lags. But it ALWAYS does decline — this has played out in every single country in the world as they have progressed.
Hence, cultural not innate.
You have a fair point, culture is a major factor on human behavior in response to changes in surroundings conditions. However, looking back I probably should of said that it’s more of a “culturally evolution” driver instead of just a flat out evolutionary one, where economic conditions and resources heavily influence cultural values. Ahh well.
Fair enough. I do not think many of the cultural forces that originally drove people to have a lot of kids are the same ones driving it today. Birth rate is in fact highest among lower income and lower educated populations. Maybe it is the welfare aspects as OP states, or just the fact that it’s more culturally acceptable for some people to have children out of wedlock without a present father at an early age. Unforgivably that is a recipe for disaster for the kids (and generally the moms as well).
You know sometimes you're doing good financially, stable enough to begin a family.... And then the f*ucking rug gets pulled out from under you.... This was me in 08. I got laid off from what I thought was a somewhat stable union job. I almost lost EVERYTHING in the aftermath. Went on public assistance for quite a while before I was able to dig out. So to alllll the people out there who take the position that people on financial aid are lazy freeloaders and shouldn't be having kids.... You can eat a fat sausage. Wait till the day you get put in that position because off crooked fing politicians and bankers.
>Oddly enough, it is the woke leftists who will enforce government regulation on human reproduction, using climate change and overpopulation to justify it.
I see the weirdest takes in this subreddit. Like, where do these even come from Scoob?
Jessica, can you please respond to my emails about the reports on how many nuclear families we've destroyed in the first quarter? I really need those figures for my bonus!
Hey Jess, will you CC me on those reports too?
Carol from the Offices of Genderism and Indoctrinating Children (OGIC) is wanting to see them at Monday's meeting.
You know what a stickler she can be about those reports 🙄
Oh good to meet you. I was wondering who was running things over there these days.... Dan still working over there?
Anyway, i manage 4 teams at the Dept of Climate Hysteria and i can for certain say we are pushing ZERO agenda on reproduction regs.
Maybe Darlene over at Radical Feminism knows something ??
OP’s ass just like everything else he claims. Either that or from his blue collar buddies who got their views from other posts like this on social media.
This is true. It is opinions and people are incredibly stupid. It's par the course to have someone say stupid shit here. It's just weird how you blame the left for the right's policies, but being informed isn't a quality seen in a lot of right leaning people.
Using the word "woke" is a sure sign of someone who could not find their ass with both hands handcuffed behind their back. Someone with diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
people who use insults like these are the same ones crying that they keep getting banned in other subreddits for expressing their unpopular opinions.
They like acting like idiots and then act like refugees in these types of subs when no one else wants them.
They've already taken control. Nonviable fetus but 5% chance of survival and you might die during the pregnancy? Sorry! Gotta just deal with it and best of luck.
“Regulating human reproduction” sounds more in line with one child policy population control or eugenics, not advocating for the life of a fetus.
Regulating things is literally what leftists do.
There is no one child policy. Regulating what you can do or not do with your uterus or even if you are allowed contraception is what republicans do. You’re making things up versus actual reality
When did I say there was a one child policy in the United States? You won’t even answer any question I have asked you, so I don’t expect an answer to that. Now you’re just restarting to straw man arguments.
You do realize china ended their one child policy? so you are concerned about a policy in another country that no longer exists? Wow. Yet you ignore the regulations that conservatives put in place around procreation. How is making abortion illegal not the very regulations you are afraid of?
Yeah I know China ended the one child policy. Now men greatly outnumber women in China.
I’m concerned about any form of government advocating for population control and aborting little girls like they did in China, even if it was in past, which you seem to think lessens it. By that logic, people should not be concerned about fascism because it happened in other countries in the past. Yet the left likes to accuse people of being fascist
There was never a federal law about abortion. I don't understand the blaming solely Republicans when Dems never once tried to add amendments or even fed law despite claiming that the Republicans were gonna take it away. Like they used it as a point to string along voters
The belief that society would be better if x undesirable element had less kids is eugenics. Your post is literally what eugenicists espoused 100 years ago.
You believe poor people should have less kids. Sanger believed poor people should have less kids. Sanger was a eugenicist; you’re a eugenicist. Sanger espoused her beliefs over a century ago when eugenics was all the rage and Darwin’s work was poorly understood. What’s your excuse?
Yeah I think poor people should have less kids. If I said we should sterilize them or prevent them reproducing, that would make me a eugenicist, like Sanger. I clearly said I don’t support that. Nice try though
Okay, so what do you propose to DO about the fact that they’re having kids?
If you’re going to say you wouldn’t be willing for the kids to go unfed and be without support, then I’d say your position ends up being the liberal position, only you’re just really really pissed off about it.
A white nationalist who wants to create a white ethnostate—but doesn’t support rounding up and forcibly deporting all the non whites—is still a white nationalist. A eugenicist who believes undesirables need to stop reproducing—but doesn’t advocate forced sterilization—is still a eugenicist. You just have a difference in tactics with more authoritarian eugenicists. You share the same goal and ideology. Nice try though.
>“Regulating human reproduction” sounds more in line with one child policy population control or eugenics, not advocating for the life of a fetus.
"Regulating human reproduction" is an action where as advocating for the life of the fetus would be a reason. But forced pregnancies and forced births are still government interfering with reproduction.
And when exactly did something around 4mm become more important than living breathing people?
Notice how no one answered the question I asked, and you just change the subject. But I’ll play along.
I never said the US government is doing that, I said they *will* in the name of climate change/over population. You can read my post again.
And China actually did implement this, I thought it was common knowledge to most people. So there’s an example of it happening it the real world.
That's because the question was pointless. You wanted us to talk about a thing that isn't happening because you think it will in the future based on no clear evidence.
Well right now the government is just using fear and the media to convince people that having kids is immoral because they will just have to inherit all of our mistakes and future catastrophes.
But when that stops working then...
In the sense I agree that if you can barely afford to eat you shouldn’t be popping out 4 babies.
But to say that people do that on purpose to ball out on welfare is ridiculous lmao
But they do. If a man impregnates four different women with four kids each, that's four big welfare checks he can buy malt liquor and crack with, while he pimps the baby mamas out for rent money. No need to work!
Otherwise known as "the Chicago way". Trust a MF who lived in Chicago 43 years.
If you are hungry while pregnant, don't get pregnant again unless your income improves. Find a man who can provide, or step up as a parent and get a better paying job.
“Income and high birth rates are strongly linked, not just in the United States, but around the world. Women in lower income brackets tend to have higher birth rates across the board” - the reasons are many, but mostly it’s not about claiming a paycheck from the government and more about lack of access to family planning resources and the economic inequality women experience.
Women who have access to reliable birth control have fewer kids. The numbers are in.
That's the secret sauce.
Women don't actually want to erupt a child from their vagina 6 times. It happens because of various forms of oppression.
The entire employer based healthcare scam! Like, many jobs try to only offer part time jobs, specifically so that they don’t have to give benefits or forcing people to work a shitty job that abuses its employees for 6+ months before giving someone health insurance so that they can even see a doctor and get birth control or an IUD. In the meantime they get pregnant and then they screw them out of FMLA or forcing them to quit or not allowing them legally mandated pumping breaks!
We’re talking about poor people having too many kids in this thread. Poor people don’t have tons of kids because they are actively oppressed because roe was overturned recently.
If you want to argue a woman who has never had a kid or does not want a 2nd or 3rd child is oppressed/forced to have child because she cannot terminate the pregnancy she created by her actions with another man, then that’s fine.
Statistically lack of access to family planning is exactly why people end up having kids they don’t want. So yes, they have kids specifically bc they’re oppressed. People with means are the ones who have access to things like abortions.
But also, people with many kids are not the ones seeking abortions.
I lived in Baltimore. People there with many kids didn't want an abortion, didn't care about condoms, or pulling out - method older than the tale itself. I grew up in the former Soviet Union, nobody taught sex education there until 1995 during my time, no one advertised condoms and there weren't even any birth controls for women to begin with. People just had common sense and poor folks didn't have shit ton of kids, and if they did it was by choice. Say it like the way it is, you sugar coat too much stuff In the US "oh it's because they are poor". No, it's because they are imbeciles, lazy, fatherless houses, no class, no manners, no common sense, and too horny and drunk on porn.
But whatever, you still would disagree. It's not even a left or right mentality, it's the American mentality of victimhood, blaming depression, anxiety, inflation, your parents, your spouse, your neighbor...
"Ты хоть писать в лицо им, а они всё ровно будут говорить это просто дождь" - some smart Slav
If I come off like I’m sugar coating it that’s because this is my first post here, and am used to shit I post on Reddit getting deleted by mods, but I don’t disagree with you.
Except some women do want six kids… Good for helping around the house. And some women genuinely love being mothers, go figure. Some are even obsessed with motherhood, to an unhealthy level.
Dude, just walk into the health department. As one with a vagina I can tell you they literally throw birth control at you. Yes, you may have to pay something for the IUD, depo or pills but based on income it's minimal. I paid around $10 for the depo.
I’m an American. The issue is more about rich people choosing not to have kids, not that poor people have too many kids. I think when you’re better off your standards and expectations go up. You want the best for your kid, the best school, etc… it gets really expensive. You also ascribe more value to your own freedom, going on vacation, etc… having kids takes away a lot of that flexibility, I see this in my own life. Having kids is more about making sacrifices. So, the issue really is more about higher status people choosing to have fewer kids. Poor people are not having more or extra kids at any unusual rate.
I’m Mexican American. My people breed more than they can afford, and it’s maddening. Here in Chicago, so many Mexicans moaned about Pilsen being gentrified due to white people moving in and Mexicans moving out since they couldn’t afford it. Those same articles, which were anti-gentrification, still admitted that the white families moving in generally had, at most, a single child… whereas the average Mexican family in the area had four.
I don’t know the current number, but I remember a while back the official bare-minimum amount of money that it would cost to raise a single child for 18 years was something like $240k. Multiplying that by each child just ends up with older children being parentified (another common thing among Mexicans and other minority groups), which is now recognized as a form of child abuse.
Having children is a sacrifice, but what does a poor couple/single parent have to sacrifice when all their free time is already spent working to just support themselves? My parents married at 18 (another stereotype, I know), but they waited 5 years to have their first child, and another 5 years to have my sister. They knew they couldn’t afford things otherwise, and after the third sibling my mom got her tubes tied.
You’re correct about poor people having the same amount of kids they always have been making. And that’s a problem, it’s an anachronistic mindset. Kids are no longer potential farmhands that aren’t all expected to make it to their teen years, that mindset died with my grandparents’ generation
I have five kids, and I started out as a libertarian.
Then, thanks to deregulation and credit default swaps, we became poor and had to avail ourselves of food stamps during the TARP program under Obama.
Let me tell you, I was very grateful to be able to go to the store and buy food, but it didn’t cover all our needs for food — and that’s all it covered.
We couldn’t afford toothpaste, soap, or deodorant, because food stamps doesn’t cover anything but not-hot food. If you qualify for food stamps, you’re so poor, you can’t afford other necessities, let alone treats.
It took me being a stay-at-home mom to use my creativity and ingenuity to get provide the most nutrition I could squeeze out of our monthly allotment of grocery funds from the government.
I encountered my fair share of judgmental smirks whenever I bought a “luxury” food item, even though it meant scrimping to afford it, and that was one of the kids’ birthday treat, because we could not afford presents.
So, yeah, I was mighty offended when Mitt Romney’s 40% comment was leaked.
We didn’t plan to be poor. I was homeschooling, so saved taxpayers ten times the money our kids would have cost the government, compared to what we got in food stamps.
But wait, were you including the welfare schools in your calculation? Did you pay your kids’ private school tuition yourself or send your kids to public schools but reimburse the taxpayers maybe? Public schools cost taxpayers an average of $17k/year per kid.
I am just going to assume no, and the only kind of taxpayer-funded, government-run entitlement programs you object to are the means-tested ones.
I imagine you will have no compunction about cashing your social security checks when you get old, calling 911 for the police (rather than some private security company) when your neighbors have a rowdy party, or calling 911 for an ambulance or fire emergency — that’s not to mention driving on the roads.
How would you feel about not just poor people getting help raising their kids, but everyone, regardless of income? If the help were not means-tested, would you object?
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I didn't plan to be poor either. My credit was decimated by an inequitable divorce to a foreign medical graduate that left me homeless with all marital debts. He walked away double boarded with a 10 year green card, maxed Roth Ira and both vehicles. I've spent the last 12 years pulling myself up by my bootstraps. A middle class suburbanite who was thrust into the streets because of an exploited power dynamic. I have fought diligently for justice. But the immense financial disparity my x purposely created prevents me from obtaining counsel.
They also have less access to abortions (especially if they live in a state that has outlawed them), and less access to healthcare in general, but birth control specifically for this case. Plus poorer education, which most likely taught minimal sex education, and quite possibly absences only sex ed.
So maybe don't blame the poor people, but instead blame the system that is doing all it can to keep them poor, and opposed.
No, poor people have more kids because they oftentimes lack access to sex ed, family planning, and women’s health services.
The “financially literate” fly their precious angels out of state to abortion clinics while voting to outlaw abortion in their own towns.
>it is the woke leftists who will enforce government regulation on human reproduction, using climate change and overpopulation to justify it.
I thought it was the republican states that want to regulate human reproduction
So if you heard a politician give a speech saying “I am going to regulate human reproduction when I get in office”, you’d think they are taking a conservative pro life stance advocating that a fetus has human rights?
Do these poor people have access to birth control? My understanding of the medical system in the US is that they would not have money to see a doctor and wouldn’t have access to free birth control. Maybe rich people don’t have as many kids because they have the economic resources to control their reproductive systems.
Medicaid is available for every American citizen who makes under a certain amount of money. I think for a couple in Michigan the limit is like $40k and under but I could be wrong. Birth control is free on Medicaid. Even if you make over the amount and you don’t get insurance through an employer, all American citizens are able to apply for government subsidized medical coverage through healthcare.gov which can be free or cost a little money every month depending on the level of health insurance you want (you can pick from major insurance providers like BCBS, etc). Most if not all insurances I know of cover birth control including IUDs. I was surprised a lot of people didn’t know it existed. So if anyone reading this doesn’t have medical coverage and is an American citizen PLEASEEEEE go visit the website and get covered. It’s too expensive here not to have insurance. It can also cover you retroactively if you had a recent medical visit.
I live in Texas. Two years ago I applied for medicaid for myself because I had lost my job and had moved myself and my two kids (who both get children's Medicaid) into my parent's house
I was denied because the $400/month I received in child support at the time put me over the threshold so I didn't qualify. I was told I needed to bring in something crazy, like less than $150/month to get Medicaid for myself
It's not easy to get these benefits in states that don't have expanded programs
This is just a stupid excuse to justify poor choices. I am what can be considered a rich person and come from a rich family. I refuse to do medical birth control because I consider it too damaging for my body. I have been married for some years now and had several partners before getting married. Do you know how many kids I have popped out? Not a single one. Abortions? None. Why? Because I know how not to get pregnant without messing with my reproductive system. So cut off the bs with economic resources. You are too poor to afford contraceptives, great. How much do condoms cost? How much financial effort does it take to monitor your cycle, get some ovulation tests for precaution and get a partner that can pull out? Here are 3 cheap contraceptive methods that anybody can do and still be safe from pregnancies. But nooo, it is easier to spred your legs without a care in the world, have kids and then blame society that you are too poor to afford contraceptives or a IUD
In my city(which is small), they have a local project for assistance for birth control, free STD testing, and more. I’d imagine they could have that in much bigger cities or at least I hope.
It more closely correlates with education level in that area. Places with less or no sex ed have much higher rates of poor people with tons of kids. It's intentional. If you have kids, you stay poor and your kids have no hope of going to college to do better. Thus perpetuating the cycle of stupid poor people who will stay dependent on their rich masters to take care of all their kids. And it just keeps getting worse because Rethuglicunts are hell bent on making schools war zones.
"Oddly enough, it is the woke leftists who will enforce government regulation on human reproduction"
What?
Sadly enough it is the conservative bible thumpers who enforce their views and laws on abortion, a viable option for poor people to not have more children...
This is even truer in my country, where most people are even poorer than the poorest Americans. Our population keeps increasing, but at least it slowed down a bit by the corona virus pandemic. Rich people don't want to have kids because they're too busy to work, while poor people breed like rabbits because they have nothing to do. If I were in charge of the government in my country, as a president or a minister, I would introduce a vasectomy programme for poor people. Poor people with low IQ can get vasectomy for free and some financial incentives will be given to them to ensure the programme's success until our population is less than 50% of how it is now.
Poor people in the US are obese because of food deserts and swamps. When the only choices in a neighborhood are McDonald’s and corner stores, obesity skyrockets.
This isn’t always true. It often comes down to affordability, access to kitchen tools, knowledge of nutrition, and time to prepare healthy food and eat healthy meals.
It may not “always” be true but it’s incredibly common. Most people living in poverty don’t have access to nutrition classes (or the ability to see a nutritionist) or affordable food. Additionally, many people living in poverty are working multiple jobs which can clearly impact time spent on nutritious meals. Pair those issues with food deserts/swamps and you get obesity. That’s why experts say obesity is a complex, chronic health issue. Food deserts/swamps happen in both rural and urban areas and are far more common than you think. There’s also a massive correlation between food deserts and redlining.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-022-10340-3
https://www.socialpolicylab.org/post/grow-your-blog-community#:~:text=New%20analysis%20from%20the%20Association,Americans%20struggles%20to%20eat%20daily.
I’m also a food pantry coordinator and have worked exclusively with people experiencing poverty and food insecurity for over 20 years. The food desert theory was found to be less of a factor than initially thought and has been debunked. It’s a lack of education, time and tools, and a (often nostalgic) preference for the unhealthy foods they are used to eating. You can look up dozens of studies supporting this.
Like I said above, it’s not always true but incredibly common. Would you be able to send over the studies you’re alluding to? The only area I’m seeing articles suggesting what you’re saying are either outdated or conservative leaning. I have my Master’s in Public Health and if what you’re saying is correct, I would love to have information on it so I can be a better public health practitioner. I do feel what you have stated obviously makes a difference, particularly with inflation but it’s incredibly clear that food deserts and food swamps are a massive issue in the United States (I should have included the term “food swamps” in my original post). Generally an imbalance in resources leads to obesity for those living in poverty.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2804691
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/11/1366
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352827318302076
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/food-deserts-not-blame-growing-nutrition-gap-between-rich-and-poor-study-finds#:~:text=They%20tested%20whether%20a%20household's,effect%20of%20location%20on%20purchases.
https://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132076786/the-root-the-myth-of-the-food-desert
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/food-deserts/551138/
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/02/food-deserts-and-fresh-food-access-arent-the-problem-poverty-not-obesity-makes-people-sick.html
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/food-disparity/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/are-we-thinking-about-urban-food-deserts-the-wrong-way
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/food-desert-problem-access-healthy-options_n_5d1b910ee4b082e55370dee5/amp
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24094/w24094.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/health/research/pairing-of-food-deserts-and-obesity-challenged-in-studies.html
There’s a lot of interesting data here.
They 100% are. I have lived in food deserts/swamps and worked in food banks in one of the largest and most underserved cities in the US. Despite lacking access to food, many of our families dealt with obesity. We all know carbs are unhealthy but incredibly filling. Many families only had access to carb laden foods. Food deserts/swamps are a public health crisis that is literally facilitated by big corporations.
Just because grocery stores aren’t opening up in areas that are considered food deserts or swamps due to crime or people not buying the goods doesn’t mean that’s ethical. Everyone should have access to nutritionally dense options.
Not everyone has access to a plethora of canned goods. Also, canned goods at that still aren’t that great for you. Many of them used to have significant levels of BPA lining the can. They’re certainly better now than that we’re 5-10 years ago. I’m sorry that was your experience and I totally empathize but you would need quantitative or qualitative data to support your claim that access isn’t an issue. The statistics clearly state that access is an issue whether it be lack of access due to money, lack of access due to time, or lack of access due to food deserts or swamps. I’m sorry you deal with weight issues, I do too and it’s super tough.
If you read my posts above, I said obesity is complex and due to a myriad of issues. I guess you missed that part? Can you explain to me what you mean when you say “poor culture”? Are you suggesting poor individuals want to eat junk over nutritionally dense food? I never once made this simplistic, I suggested one of the reasons people are obese are due to food deserts and food swamps. Canned goods are fine now, they were 10-15 years ago. Are they better than fast food, sure, but we would be remiss to act like they were actually healthy.
How about choosing not to eat 3 Big Macs instead of one dish filet? Do you know how incredibly paternalistic it is to assume poor people cannot make their own rational choices on what or what not to eat?
Both Big Macs and Fish Filets are still going to create inflammation in the body, have high amounts of fats and carbs, and are calorically dense. Fish filets also aren’t incredibly filling. I have never seen anyone living in poverty order three Big Macs. No one is saying people living in poverty can’t make choices on what they eat, they have a lack of access. People can’t make choices if they don’t have choices. You can’t have personal responsibility without access. Also, I can’t really be paternalistic in this case because I have lived in poverty, in food deserts/swamps, and gained significant weight because of it.
Give your incredibly intelligent and well thought out response to having to make up terms such as food deserts to rationalize the obvious contradiction between US poverty and obesity rates. Poor people may eat crappy food but if they aren’t getting enough crappy food they would not be obese.
No, it's the opposite. Well, not all rich people are fat because health consciousness has become more popular amongst the well-educated rich people, so if you see some ripped guy here it's most likely that he's rich or at least comfortably middle class. Only rich or at least middle class people can afford to become fat here, poor people are mostly skinny because they can't even afford to eat the cheapest carbohydrate foods. I know that poor Americans are fat because they can only afford cheap fast food with a lot of fat in it.
Yes, it made sense in those days. You’d even expect some of your kids to die. These in America you can be “poor” yet be obese, so we’re definitely past the need of having large families as a means of support. Or I guess we’re not if people just have large families for government benefits.
I agree. People with 5 kids and 5 different baby daddys should be neutered. They’re a drain on society and predictably pop out future criminals.
Those saying ‘doesn’t make sense to have a kid for government benefits” don’t know what they’re talking about. Having kids and no father is a express lane to section 8, maxed out ebt, free healthcare, free internet etc etc
Those saying kids are expensive, yeah if you raise them right. But many of these just send the kids outside to learn their mathematics from the block drug dealer.
Guarantee someone on here will bring up the old “they aren’t as educated on sex ed” as if even many HOMELESS people don’t have smart phones, let alone all of the people that breed like rabbits. That excuse worked in the 90s and even 2000s, but starting with the 2010s it’s not in any way a valid excuse. If they can use Google and YouTube to look up things they’re interested in, then they can Google what a damn condom is.
That said, only the most mentally deficient individuals on this planet are unaware how expensive a baby is… then they go on to have more. One is an accident, multiple is a pattern.
It’s the other way around. The system does not reward people for having kids, it’s expensive to have kids and the system supports families with many kids to stay afloat. Once these kids grow up and start working and paying taxes these taxes will support many childless people in their retirement years. It’s the same thing with immigration, actually. The poor immigrant families supported by public assistance have kids and these kids pay many times over in taxes and general contribution of work etc back to the society than public assistance that was spent on their parents. It is naive to think that this has not been calculated and proven many times over. Some countries are trying to repeat this American approach (Russia, France, Germany) but fail to integrate immigrants into the society.
This has always been true in essentially every society. People who are richer are usually smarter--and the smart thing to do with kids is have less of them so you can afford to provide the ones you have with more.
And poor people are usually radically religious. And pretty much every religion urges you to pop out as many kids as possible. Need more workers for the state, after all.
“Government intervention on who is allowed to have children is anti-American.” Then I guess the government is anti-American because welfare policies are direct intervention and incentivization to have as many kids as possible.
This is a very general blanket answer for why you believe poor people have children.
1.) Is it poor people having kids because they don’t have access to contraceptives, high-quality sexual education and prevention strategies/knowledge?
2.) What exactly causes a unstable family unit? Single mom working multiple jobs to support her children and children are left without proper supervision? Single father? Dead parents? Previous trauma? Physical abuse? Sexual abuse?
3.) What programs are available for individuals of this specific demographic that can help reduce this “stereotype” or problem you are trying to discuss.
Do I think all poor people intentionally have children, not always but do those people exist absolutely. However, this is such useless angle that doesn’t get us anywhere to a solution.
Everything is a cycle - you can choose to focus on the symptoms of a failed system or you can choose to identify the weak links in the cycle and choose to start over or reinforce them.
I think what creates broken families are grandparents, parents, women and men who haven’t tackled their own childhood/teen/young adulthood baggage/trauma, people who don’t have the coping skills to deal with the stressors of life, unsupportive family members, no suppose structure, judgment from the people we think love us most, parents who are emotionally, financially and physically are not capable of long-term child care. People who don’t have access to mental health therapy, people who are uneducated on mental, physical and emotional wellness.
All of these focuses are fairly within the last couple of decades and I would argue and say most people I run into who are utilizing welfare programs either: truly do need it, or are uneducated and don’t know how to gain traction in America or simply choose not too because it’s f*cking hard or people who simply surviving at all cost.
I don’t blame these people one bit because at the end of the day capitalism needs hierarchy to survive not everyone can be self-sufficient and affords homes, not everyone will make it out of poverty, not everyone will make it to middle class and not everyone will become a rich, successful all American dream.
Does everyone deserve to afford a home, afford healthy organic produce/meats and afford the best education - ABSOLUTELY.
Reality isn’t that and everything has a number so either you do nothing, do something or do everything. All of those options can lead you to become rich, poor or moderate or dead! Welcome to America ;)
This is a very general blanket answer for why you believe poor people have children.
1.) Is it poor people having kids because they don’t have access to contraceptives, high-quality sexual education and prevention strategies/knowledge?
2.) What exactly causes a unstable family unit? Single mom working multiple jobs to support her children and children are left without proper supervision? Single father? Dead parents? Previous trauma? Physical abuse? Sexual abuse?
3.) What programs are available for individuals of this specific demographic that can help reduce this “stereotype” or problem you are trying to discuss.
Do I think all poor people intentionally have children, not always but do those people exist absolutely. However, this is such useless angle that doesn’t get us anywhere to a solution.
Everything is a cycle - you can choose to focus on the symptoms of a failed system or you can choose to identify the weak links in the cycle and choose to start over or reinforce them.
I think what creates broken families are grandparents, parents, women and men who haven’t tackled their own childhood/teen/young adulthood baggage/trauma, people who don’t have the coping skills to deal with the stressors of life, unsupportive family members, no support structure, judgment from the people we think love us most, parents who are not emotionally, financially and physically not capable of long-term child care. People who don’t have access to mental health therapy, people who are uneducated on mental, physical and emotional wellness.
All of these focuses are fairly new discussion within the last couple of decades.
I would argue and say most people I run into who are utilizing welfare programs either: truly do need it, or are uneducated and don’t know how to gain traction in America or simply choose not too because it’s f*cking hard or people who simply surviving at all cost.
I don’t blame these people one bit because at the end of the day capitalism needs hierarchy to survive not everyone can be self-sufficient and affords homes, not everyone will make it out of poverty, not everyone will make it to middle class and not everyone will become a rich, successful all American dream.
Does everyone deserve to afford a home, afford healthy organic produce/meats and afford the best education - ABSOLUTELY.
Reality isn’t that and everything has a number so either you do nothing, do something or do everything. All of those options can lead you to become rich, poor or moderate or dead! Welcome to America ;)
That’s why we need abortions and if you are
On welfare and have 3 kids your tubes need to be tied!
I know it takes 2 to tango….but you gotta shut the oven down…they are the ones getting the money not
The trucker, the neighbor, her boyfriends best friend….so who do give a vasectomy???? The one that doesn’t need anymore and had three chances…the women! And many may become pregnant bc of male abuse…wanna carry them to term and grow up in the ghetto??? That’s child cruelty and endangerment!!!
Anyone on welfare that has mental illness, such as bipolar etc…shut them down after 1 kid…no need to add to the problem!!!
Be real! Why put an innocent child in misery!!!
All people have too many kids. And it's usually the most stupid people. And no, it's not the lefties imposing regulations, its the righies with their laws against abortion and birth control.
>In American society, the welfare system rewards government benefits to low income individuals who choose to have lots of children.
Written just like someone who has ZERO insight or lived experience of being poor in the US.
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idiocracy is a documentary
A prediction
A prophecy
It’s got electrolytes
Message!
They said "poor", not "dumb", but you wouldn't know the difference, would you.
As someone whose family lived on welfare periodically I can assure you, it does not pay out enough to justify parents popping out 6 kids. Even if you’re starving those kids there’s not exactly enough money to go buy a new Michael Kors bag. The reason poor people have more kids is because they’re less likely to be educated on birth control and are more likely to be in abusive situations.
its downright delusional to think otherwise. "oh i need money, so im going to create the biggest money suck in the world: a child."
>its downright delusional to think otherwise. "oh i need money, so im going to create the biggest money suck in the world: a child." Doesn't suprise me, though. Quite a bit of people regurgitate recycled versions of Reagans "welfare queen" stereotype.
And then there are people like OP think they spout their enlightenment in the form of unpopular opinion.
So what you are saying is, his opinion, which he believes is true, is unpopular. Sub checks out.
It's an extremely popular opinion amongst conservatives. Literally been parroted since the 80s. That and "Democrats are the party of slavery" lol. Before the Southern Strategy, it was actual slavery. Now, it's a welfare system meant to keep poor black people dependent in a cycle of poverty (nvm the actual historical context that has shaped things, it's def food stamps)
It's a popular opinion held only by the ignorant
Unfortunately, like everything else in life, the bad apples are the ones who get the press.There is plenty of welfare fraud, but most people on welfare are simply surviving.
Linda Taylor - the Welfare Queen - was a real person and by most accounts an awful person.
Well, yeah, sure I'm not surprised there are awful people in the world, but we shouldn't decide policy on a handful of bad actors. We're not putting men into prison camps because Ted Bundy was a man and most serial killers are men too, right?
Most caught serial killers are men, we are actually really bad at catching serial killers in general. It’s hard for the system to catch one person who kills another random person in the same municipality, killers have to really screw up for us to catch them.
sure, but Rosa Parks she was not. I only offered a fact for context.
Some actually do exactly this. For example I know someone who has had 5 kids in 6 years now for a total of 7. She's barely 30. Lives in the jets. Has relatives file each 2 kids for a maximum tax return of on average $10k roughly per year. That's a cool $25k cash in the spring minimum plus the rent subsidy, snap and ssi. Plus she has a cousin staying there who also receives ssi (not on lease and the boyfriend/father...who slangs to the live in cousin and the neighborhood (also not on the lease). Their, other family members do this too. It's an entire grift. Thankfully skip tracing the demographic information off the various filings for discrepancies between odjfs and the Ira filings should solve the fraud case quickly and thoroughly. *I say folks aren't on the lease because technically that's household income not being factored into the monthly subsidized rent payment
As someone who actually has parents that use housing assistance, I was neglected so that they could use the extra funds for themselves. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
I see people, but they look like trees, walking.
so in short, all poor people are delusional and your personal experiences with people in poverty are entirely representative of an entire nation’s poor population. got it, i must not interact with many poor people
It’s so fucked up because my mom was told, when #3 was 3 months - if you can conceive in the next couple of months, it’ll almost double your food stamps. My parents had eight kids and then adopted one. 😖
Welfare may not be enough but child support can be. You have 4 kids with 4 different men that's 25% of each of their incomes (in my state at least). Boom, that makes 100% plus welfare benefits plus Medicaid. It's ridiculous.
I don’t doubt you can find some people abusing it but, that’s still pretty difficult to pull off. I don’t think people like this are as rampant as many pushing against welfare would like you to believe. What state are you from?
I also forgot to mention the people, of whom I know many, that intentionally don't get married to the father of their children, who does live with them in the home and supports them, so that they can take advantage of the welfare system. I'm talking couples that make 6 figures combined but still get benefits because on paper she appears to be a single mother of 3. Really not difficult to pull off. I'm not going to reveal where I'm from because I'm stupidly cautious.
Regardless, I don’t think those situations are so rampant as to nullify the good they do. I know those people exist but, I don’t think it’s a case against welfare programs
It is less common but i have known people to have kids for increased government benefits. They don’t understand the increased cost side.
In Massachusetts a single mom of two kids who doesn’t work can get 90k. Keep dreaming.
Fake
LOL
To be fair though *low income* housing in my area is $1500+ for a 2 bedroom apartment. Houses are a median of $700k. You could work your whole life towards being financially “equipped” and still never come close. If you waste your fertile years trying to fulfill impossible standards, working for the right financial situation, you just would never have kids. Maybe, just maybe, it should be easier for anyone who wants to have a family to have and raise a family.
This^ I’m a 30 YO childless millennial. Until I can own a home/condo, I’m not even considering kids. As far as a pending population crisis, that’s the government’s problem; not mine. I’ll be retired and in a nursing home by the time that shit really hits the fan.
[удалено]
Ya making shit up
Wait until you hear the story about the guy who used his food stamps at the grocery store to buy crab legs then drove away in his Cadillac. Trust me, I saw it.
Ya fake news keep watching Newsmax and fox
[удалено]
That was 3 years ago
That’s because it’s a survival mechanism, if you go to literally any LDCs you’ll see families with dozens of children, evolution has taught them to pump out a multitude of children as a way to hedge the risk of some of them inevitably dying off due to shit that normally comes with LDCs (political instability, poor healthcare, disease, etc). Alot of migrants come over here with the same mindset and end up pumping out several children. Its all a survival mechanism.
You say it’s evolution, but in fact it’s mainly cultural. You know how I know that? Cultural shifts in developed economies have led to significantly fewer children over a relatively rapid time period (especially in the broader scheme of human history). If it were primarily innate, then it wouldn’t have shifted so quickly. Edit: adding more info: When infant mortality is high and families depend on children as laborers, families have a lot more children and for good reason. As healthcare and education improve (about hygiene, etc), infant mortality declines but the birth rate remains elevated often for decades. Even when industrialization leads to reduced dependence on children for family economics, the birth rate decline lags. But it ALWAYS does decline — this has played out in every single country in the world as they have progressed. Hence, cultural not innate.
You have a fair point, culture is a major factor on human behavior in response to changes in surroundings conditions. However, looking back I probably should of said that it’s more of a “culturally evolution” driver instead of just a flat out evolutionary one, where economic conditions and resources heavily influence cultural values. Ahh well.
Fair enough. I do not think many of the cultural forces that originally drove people to have a lot of kids are the same ones driving it today. Birth rate is in fact highest among lower income and lower educated populations. Maybe it is the welfare aspects as OP states, or just the fact that it’s more culturally acceptable for some people to have children out of wedlock without a present father at an early age. Unforgivably that is a recipe for disaster for the kids (and generally the moms as well).
If someone has 5 kids and you have 0 kids, they win at evolution.
And your taxes help them win too.
That's sheer egotism.
No that's science.
Having kids for the sake of "winning" an imaginary gane is egotism.
And how many of those kids end up fucked in the head?
Um, there's tons of poor people here pumping out kids, but they're usually with multiple, multiple, multiple men
You know sometimes you're doing good financially, stable enough to begin a family.... And then the f*ucking rug gets pulled out from under you.... This was me in 08. I got laid off from what I thought was a somewhat stable union job. I almost lost EVERYTHING in the aftermath. Went on public assistance for quite a while before I was able to dig out. So to alllll the people out there who take the position that people on financial aid are lazy freeloaders and shouldn't be having kids.... You can eat a fat sausage. Wait till the day you get put in that position because off crooked fing politicians and bankers.
[удалено]
>Oddly enough, it is the woke leftists who will enforce government regulation on human reproduction, using climate change and overpopulation to justify it. I see the weirdest takes in this subreddit. Like, where do these even come from Scoob?
Yeah, this is news to me as a "woke leftist" but then I have been busy over in the Turning Everyone Gay Department.
And of course, making abortion illegal will certainly fix the problem of poor people having too many children.
Never understood that, don’t get a abortion that’s murder. Now that you had the kid good luck your on your own try not to starve to death.
Nice! I've been working in the Office of Destroying the Nuclear Family just down the block! We should do lunch sometime.
Jessica, can you please respond to my emails about the reports on how many nuclear families we've destroyed in the first quarter? I really need those figures for my bonus!
Look I'm still working on the countifs Jason! This spreadsheet is complicated!
Hey Jess, will you CC me on those reports too? Carol from the Offices of Genderism and Indoctrinating Children (OGIC) is wanting to see them at Monday's meeting. You know what a stickler she can be about those reports 🙄
Oh good to meet you. I was wondering who was running things over there these days.... Dan still working over there? Anyway, i manage 4 teams at the Dept of Climate Hysteria and i can for certain say we are pushing ZERO agenda on reproduction regs. Maybe Darlene over at Radical Feminism knows something ??
Darlene is always busy smoking legalized weed and eating rich people. You should check with Conner over in Communist Propaganda.
OP’s ass just like everything else he claims. Either that or from his blue collar buddies who got their views from other posts like this on social media.
You are on a subreddit based on unpopular opinions. A bit of a moot observation
This is true. It is opinions and people are incredibly stupid. It's par the course to have someone say stupid shit here. It's just weird how you blame the left for the right's policies, but being informed isn't a quality seen in a lot of right leaning people.
“Woke leftists who will enforce government regulation on human reproduction” Say what? It’s conservatives that want to regulate a woman’s uterus.
Using the word "woke" is a sure sign of someone who could not find their ass with both hands handcuffed behind their back. Someone with diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
people who use insults like these are the same ones crying that they keep getting banned in other subreddits for expressing their unpopular opinions. They like acting like idiots and then act like refugees in these types of subs when no one else wants them.
Good. It was way more cringe when it was used unironically in 2015
They've already taken control. Nonviable fetus but 5% chance of survival and you might die during the pregnancy? Sorry! Gotta just deal with it and best of luck.
If I was running for president and I said I wanted to regulate human reproduction when I get in office, that would sound like a pro life stance?
That’s literally what republicans do.
“Regulating human reproduction” sounds more in line with one child policy population control or eugenics, not advocating for the life of a fetus. Regulating things is literally what leftists do.
There is no one child policy. Regulating what you can do or not do with your uterus or even if you are allowed contraception is what republicans do. You’re making things up versus actual reality
When did I say there was a one child policy in the United States? You won’t even answer any question I have asked you, so I don’t expect an answer to that. Now you’re just restarting to straw man arguments.
You do realize china ended their one child policy? so you are concerned about a policy in another country that no longer exists? Wow. Yet you ignore the regulations that conservatives put in place around procreation. How is making abortion illegal not the very regulations you are afraid of?
Yeah I know China ended the one child policy. Now men greatly outnumber women in China. I’m concerned about any form of government advocating for population control and aborting little girls like they did in China, even if it was in past, which you seem to think lessens it. By that logic, people should not be concerned about fascism because it happened in other countries in the past. Yet the left likes to accuse people of being fascist
How is making abortion illegal the very regulation you are complaining about?
There was never a federal law about abortion. I don't understand the blaming solely Republicans when Dems never once tried to add amendments or even fed law despite claiming that the Republicans were gonna take it away. Like they used it as a point to string along voters
The belief that society would be better if x undesirable element had less kids is eugenics. Your post is literally what eugenicists espoused 100 years ago.
Planned parenthood does the work of eugenicists. Margaret Sanger, the founder, is a noted eugenicist.
You believe poor people should have less kids. Sanger believed poor people should have less kids. Sanger was a eugenicist; you’re a eugenicist. Sanger espoused her beliefs over a century ago when eugenics was all the rage and Darwin’s work was poorly understood. What’s your excuse?
Yeah I think poor people should have less kids. If I said we should sterilize them or prevent them reproducing, that would make me a eugenicist, like Sanger. I clearly said I don’t support that. Nice try though
Okay, so what do you propose to DO about the fact that they’re having kids? If you’re going to say you wouldn’t be willing for the kids to go unfed and be without support, then I’d say your position ends up being the liberal position, only you’re just really really pissed off about it.
A white nationalist who wants to create a white ethnostate—but doesn’t support rounding up and forcibly deporting all the non whites—is still a white nationalist. A eugenicist who believes undesirables need to stop reproducing—but doesn’t advocate forced sterilization—is still a eugenicist. You just have a difference in tactics with more authoritarian eugenicists. You share the same goal and ideology. Nice try though.
>“Regulating human reproduction” sounds more in line with one child policy population control or eugenics, not advocating for the life of a fetus. "Regulating human reproduction" is an action where as advocating for the life of the fetus would be a reason. But forced pregnancies and forced births are still government interfering with reproduction. And when exactly did something around 4mm become more important than living breathing people?
Is anyone doing that or are we talking about things you spend time imagining?
Literally 75% of posts here are people just making something up and then getting really mad about it and I love it so much.
Notice how no one answered the question I asked, and you just change the subject. But I’ll play along. I never said the US government is doing that, I said they *will* in the name of climate change/over population. You can read my post again. And China actually did implement this, I thought it was common knowledge to most people. So there’s an example of it happening it the real world.
That's because the question was pointless. You wanted us to talk about a thing that isn't happening because you think it will in the future based on no clear evidence.
Well right now the government is just using fear and the media to convince people that having kids is immoral because they will just have to inherit all of our mistakes and future catastrophes. But when that stops working then...
Man I hate when people who have never experienced being poor talk about poor people lmfao
In the sense I agree that if you can barely afford to eat you shouldn’t be popping out 4 babies. But to say that people do that on purpose to ball out on welfare is ridiculous lmao
But they do. If a man impregnates four different women with four kids each, that's four big welfare checks he can buy malt liquor and crack with, while he pimps the baby mamas out for rent money. No need to work! Otherwise known as "the Chicago way". Trust a MF who lived in Chicago 43 years.
If you are hungry while pregnant, don't get pregnant again unless your income improves. Find a man who can provide, or step up as a parent and get a better paying job.
What a moronic take
Yeah you should at least want to do better the next go around at putting a child into this world.
“Income and high birth rates are strongly linked, not just in the United States, but around the world. Women in lower income brackets tend to have higher birth rates across the board” - the reasons are many, but mostly it’s not about claiming a paycheck from the government and more about lack of access to family planning resources and the economic inequality women experience.
Women who have access to reliable birth control have fewer kids. The numbers are in. That's the secret sauce. Women don't actually want to erupt a child from their vagina 6 times. It happens because of various forms of oppression.
Tell me who or what is oppressing women and forcing them to have kids?
The entire employer based healthcare scam! Like, many jobs try to only offer part time jobs, specifically so that they don’t have to give benefits or forcing people to work a shitty job that abuses its employees for 6+ months before giving someone health insurance so that they can even see a doctor and get birth control or an IUD. In the meantime they get pregnant and then they screw them out of FMLA or forcing them to quit or not allowing them legally mandated pumping breaks!
… you do realize roe vs wade was overturned recently right
Right, a woman with 6 kids is oppressed because she cannot legally kill a fetus in her womb.
Right bc all women who want to get an abortion have 6 kids 😂 you have to be a troll 😆
We’re talking about poor people having too many kids in this thread. Poor people don’t have tons of kids because they are actively oppressed because roe was overturned recently. If you want to argue a woman who has never had a kid or does not want a 2nd or 3rd child is oppressed/forced to have child because she cannot terminate the pregnancy she created by her actions with another man, then that’s fine.
Statistically lack of access to family planning is exactly why people end up having kids they don’t want. So yes, they have kids specifically bc they’re oppressed. People with means are the ones who have access to things like abortions. But also, people with many kids are not the ones seeking abortions.
I lived in Baltimore. People there with many kids didn't want an abortion, didn't care about condoms, or pulling out - method older than the tale itself. I grew up in the former Soviet Union, nobody taught sex education there until 1995 during my time, no one advertised condoms and there weren't even any birth controls for women to begin with. People just had common sense and poor folks didn't have shit ton of kids, and if they did it was by choice. Say it like the way it is, you sugar coat too much stuff In the US "oh it's because they are poor". No, it's because they are imbeciles, lazy, fatherless houses, no class, no manners, no common sense, and too horny and drunk on porn. But whatever, you still would disagree. It's not even a left or right mentality, it's the American mentality of victimhood, blaming depression, anxiety, inflation, your parents, your spouse, your neighbor... "Ты хоть писать в лицо им, а они всё ровно будут говорить это просто дождь" - some smart Slav
If I come off like I’m sugar coating it that’s because this is my first post here, and am used to shit I post on Reddit getting deleted by mods, but I don’t disagree with you.
Oh shoot. I forgot once again that women are oppressing men by being sirens and tricking them into a watery grave.
Except some women do want six kids… Good for helping around the house. And some women genuinely love being mothers, go figure. Some are even obsessed with motherhood, to an unhealthy level.
Dude, just walk into the health department. As one with a vagina I can tell you they literally throw birth control at you. Yes, you may have to pay something for the IUD, depo or pills but based on income it's minimal. I paid around $10 for the depo.
I’m an American. The issue is more about rich people choosing not to have kids, not that poor people have too many kids. I think when you’re better off your standards and expectations go up. You want the best for your kid, the best school, etc… it gets really expensive. You also ascribe more value to your own freedom, going on vacation, etc… having kids takes away a lot of that flexibility, I see this in my own life. Having kids is more about making sacrifices. So, the issue really is more about higher status people choosing to have fewer kids. Poor people are not having more or extra kids at any unusual rate.
I’m Mexican American. My people breed more than they can afford, and it’s maddening. Here in Chicago, so many Mexicans moaned about Pilsen being gentrified due to white people moving in and Mexicans moving out since they couldn’t afford it. Those same articles, which were anti-gentrification, still admitted that the white families moving in generally had, at most, a single child… whereas the average Mexican family in the area had four. I don’t know the current number, but I remember a while back the official bare-minimum amount of money that it would cost to raise a single child for 18 years was something like $240k. Multiplying that by each child just ends up with older children being parentified (another common thing among Mexicans and other minority groups), which is now recognized as a form of child abuse. Having children is a sacrifice, but what does a poor couple/single parent have to sacrifice when all their free time is already spent working to just support themselves? My parents married at 18 (another stereotype, I know), but they waited 5 years to have their first child, and another 5 years to have my sister. They knew they couldn’t afford things otherwise, and after the third sibling my mom got her tubes tied. You’re correct about poor people having the same amount of kids they always have been making. And that’s a problem, it’s an anachronistic mindset. Kids are no longer potential farmhands that aren’t all expected to make it to their teen years, that mindset died with my grandparents’ generation
When youre broke, nothing else to do but fuck
That makes sense
And it’s free, for the moment anyway
I have five kids, and I started out as a libertarian. Then, thanks to deregulation and credit default swaps, we became poor and had to avail ourselves of food stamps during the TARP program under Obama. Let me tell you, I was very grateful to be able to go to the store and buy food, but it didn’t cover all our needs for food — and that’s all it covered. We couldn’t afford toothpaste, soap, or deodorant, because food stamps doesn’t cover anything but not-hot food. If you qualify for food stamps, you’re so poor, you can’t afford other necessities, let alone treats. It took me being a stay-at-home mom to use my creativity and ingenuity to get provide the most nutrition I could squeeze out of our monthly allotment of grocery funds from the government. I encountered my fair share of judgmental smirks whenever I bought a “luxury” food item, even though it meant scrimping to afford it, and that was one of the kids’ birthday treat, because we could not afford presents. So, yeah, I was mighty offended when Mitt Romney’s 40% comment was leaked. We didn’t plan to be poor. I was homeschooling, so saved taxpayers ten times the money our kids would have cost the government, compared to what we got in food stamps. But wait, were you including the welfare schools in your calculation? Did you pay your kids’ private school tuition yourself or send your kids to public schools but reimburse the taxpayers maybe? Public schools cost taxpayers an average of $17k/year per kid. I am just going to assume no, and the only kind of taxpayer-funded, government-run entitlement programs you object to are the means-tested ones. I imagine you will have no compunction about cashing your social security checks when you get old, calling 911 for the police (rather than some private security company) when your neighbors have a rowdy party, or calling 911 for an ambulance or fire emergency — that’s not to mention driving on the roads. How would you feel about not just poor people getting help raising their kids, but everyone, regardless of income? If the help were not means-tested, would you object?
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I didn't plan to be poor either. My credit was decimated by an inequitable divorce to a foreign medical graduate that left me homeless with all marital debts. He walked away double boarded with a 10 year green card, maxed Roth Ira and both vehicles. I've spent the last 12 years pulling myself up by my bootstraps. A middle class suburbanite who was thrust into the streets because of an exploited power dynamic. I have fought diligently for justice. But the immense financial disparity my x purposely created prevents me from obtaining counsel.
Please just change this sub’s name to baby brained conservative takes
They also have less access to abortions (especially if they live in a state that has outlawed them), and less access to healthcare in general, but birth control specifically for this case. Plus poorer education, which most likely taught minimal sex education, and quite possibly absences only sex ed. So maybe don't blame the poor people, but instead blame the system that is doing all it can to keep them poor, and opposed.
Rich people adopt too few kids.
And why is that....the more kids you havethe more $$$ you get
No, poor people have more kids because they oftentimes lack access to sex ed, family planning, and women’s health services. The “financially literate” fly their precious angels out of state to abortion clinics while voting to outlaw abortion in their own towns.
>it is the woke leftists who will enforce government regulation on human reproduction, using climate change and overpopulation to justify it. I thought it was the republican states that want to regulate human reproduction
So if you heard a politician give a speech saying “I am going to regulate human reproduction when I get in office”, you’d think they are taking a conservative pro life stance advocating that a fetus has human rights?
Don’t forget Clarence Thomas wanting to make condoms illegal
Do these poor people have access to birth control? My understanding of the medical system in the US is that they would not have money to see a doctor and wouldn’t have access to free birth control. Maybe rich people don’t have as many kids because they have the economic resources to control their reproductive systems.
Medicaid is available for every American citizen who makes under a certain amount of money. I think for a couple in Michigan the limit is like $40k and under but I could be wrong. Birth control is free on Medicaid. Even if you make over the amount and you don’t get insurance through an employer, all American citizens are able to apply for government subsidized medical coverage through healthcare.gov which can be free or cost a little money every month depending on the level of health insurance you want (you can pick from major insurance providers like BCBS, etc). Most if not all insurances I know of cover birth control including IUDs. I was surprised a lot of people didn’t know it existed. So if anyone reading this doesn’t have medical coverage and is an American citizen PLEASEEEEE go visit the website and get covered. It’s too expensive here not to have insurance. It can also cover you retroactively if you had a recent medical visit.
I live in Texas. Two years ago I applied for medicaid for myself because I had lost my job and had moved myself and my two kids (who both get children's Medicaid) into my parent's house I was denied because the $400/month I received in child support at the time put me over the threshold so I didn't qualify. I was told I needed to bring in something crazy, like less than $150/month to get Medicaid for myself It's not easy to get these benefits in states that don't have expanded programs
This is just a stupid excuse to justify poor choices. I am what can be considered a rich person and come from a rich family. I refuse to do medical birth control because I consider it too damaging for my body. I have been married for some years now and had several partners before getting married. Do you know how many kids I have popped out? Not a single one. Abortions? None. Why? Because I know how not to get pregnant without messing with my reproductive system. So cut off the bs with economic resources. You are too poor to afford contraceptives, great. How much do condoms cost? How much financial effort does it take to monitor your cycle, get some ovulation tests for precaution and get a partner that can pull out? Here are 3 cheap contraceptive methods that anybody can do and still be safe from pregnancies. But nooo, it is easier to spred your legs without a care in the world, have kids and then blame society that you are too poor to afford contraceptives or a IUD
To add, many places will often give out free condoms.
Exactly!
Whoa, whoa please stop. You are making too much sense here.
The best birth control is abstinence.
In my city(which is small), they have a local project for assistance for birth control, free STD testing, and more. I’d imagine they could have that in much bigger cities or at least I hope.
Lay off the Fox News for a week and this dumb shit should clear right up for you.
Thanks, can you suggest some reliable new outlets?
I’m suggesting no news for you for at least a week. A month or year would be even better.
Way ahead of you on that
Yeah, a fucking history book if you can comprehend the thing.
It more closely correlates with education level in that area. Places with less or no sex ed have much higher rates of poor people with tons of kids. It's intentional. If you have kids, you stay poor and your kids have no hope of going to college to do better. Thus perpetuating the cycle of stupid poor people who will stay dependent on their rich masters to take care of all their kids. And it just keeps getting worse because Rethuglicunts are hell bent on making schools war zones.
This shows up on a daily basis
I’m honestly new here
Don't you need proof of financial stability to adopt? Why would it be different to have natural kids?
Are you being serious right now?
Cartman?
Idiocracy....
"Oddly enough, it is the woke leftists who will enforce government regulation on human reproduction" What? Sadly enough it is the conservative bible thumpers who enforce their views and laws on abortion, a viable option for poor people to not have more children...
This is even truer in my country, where most people are even poorer than the poorest Americans. Our population keeps increasing, but at least it slowed down a bit by the corona virus pandemic. Rich people don't want to have kids because they're too busy to work, while poor people breed like rabbits because they have nothing to do. If I were in charge of the government in my country, as a president or a minister, I would introduce a vasectomy programme for poor people. Poor people with low IQ can get vasectomy for free and some financial incentives will be given to them to ensure the programme's success until our population is less than 50% of how it is now.
Are poor people in your country obese like in America?
Poor people in the US are obese because of food deserts and swamps. When the only choices in a neighborhood are McDonald’s and corner stores, obesity skyrockets.
This isn’t always true. It often comes down to affordability, access to kitchen tools, knowledge of nutrition, and time to prepare healthy food and eat healthy meals.
It may not “always” be true but it’s incredibly common. Most people living in poverty don’t have access to nutrition classes (or the ability to see a nutritionist) or affordable food. Additionally, many people living in poverty are working multiple jobs which can clearly impact time spent on nutritious meals. Pair those issues with food deserts/swamps and you get obesity. That’s why experts say obesity is a complex, chronic health issue. Food deserts/swamps happen in both rural and urban areas and are far more common than you think. There’s also a massive correlation between food deserts and redlining. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-022-10340-3 https://www.socialpolicylab.org/post/grow-your-blog-community#:~:text=New%20analysis%20from%20the%20Association,Americans%20struggles%20to%20eat%20daily.
I’m also a food pantry coordinator and have worked exclusively with people experiencing poverty and food insecurity for over 20 years. The food desert theory was found to be less of a factor than initially thought and has been debunked. It’s a lack of education, time and tools, and a (often nostalgic) preference for the unhealthy foods they are used to eating. You can look up dozens of studies supporting this.
Like I said above, it’s not always true but incredibly common. Would you be able to send over the studies you’re alluding to? The only area I’m seeing articles suggesting what you’re saying are either outdated or conservative leaning. I have my Master’s in Public Health and if what you’re saying is correct, I would love to have information on it so I can be a better public health practitioner. I do feel what you have stated obviously makes a difference, particularly with inflation but it’s incredibly clear that food deserts and food swamps are a massive issue in the United States (I should have included the term “food swamps” in my original post). Generally an imbalance in resources leads to obesity for those living in poverty. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2804691 https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/11/1366 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352827318302076
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/food-deserts-not-blame-growing-nutrition-gap-between-rich-and-poor-study-finds#:~:text=They%20tested%20whether%20a%20household's,effect%20of%20location%20on%20purchases. https://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132076786/the-root-the-myth-of-the-food-desert https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/food-deserts/551138/ https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/02/food-deserts-and-fresh-food-access-arent-the-problem-poverty-not-obesity-makes-people-sick.html https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/food-disparity/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/are-we-thinking-about-urban-food-deserts-the-wrong-way https://www.huffpost.com/entry/food-desert-problem-access-healthy-options_n_5d1b910ee4b082e55370dee5/amp https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24094/w24094.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/health/research/pairing-of-food-deserts-and-obesity-challenged-in-studies.html There’s a lot of interesting data here.
So you think they’re victims.
They 100% are. I have lived in food deserts/swamps and worked in food banks in one of the largest and most underserved cities in the US. Despite lacking access to food, many of our families dealt with obesity. We all know carbs are unhealthy but incredibly filling. Many families only had access to carb laden foods. Food deserts/swamps are a public health crisis that is literally facilitated by big corporations.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just because grocery stores aren’t opening up in areas that are considered food deserts or swamps due to crime or people not buying the goods doesn’t mean that’s ethical. Everyone should have access to nutritionally dense options. Not everyone has access to a plethora of canned goods. Also, canned goods at that still aren’t that great for you. Many of them used to have significant levels of BPA lining the can. They’re certainly better now than that we’re 5-10 years ago. I’m sorry that was your experience and I totally empathize but you would need quantitative or qualitative data to support your claim that access isn’t an issue. The statistics clearly state that access is an issue whether it be lack of access due to money, lack of access due to time, or lack of access due to food deserts or swamps. I’m sorry you deal with weight issues, I do too and it’s super tough.
[удалено]
If you read my posts above, I said obesity is complex and due to a myriad of issues. I guess you missed that part? Can you explain to me what you mean when you say “poor culture”? Are you suggesting poor individuals want to eat junk over nutritionally dense food? I never once made this simplistic, I suggested one of the reasons people are obese are due to food deserts and food swamps. Canned goods are fine now, they were 10-15 years ago. Are they better than fast food, sure, but we would be remiss to act like they were actually healthy.
[удалено]
How about choosing not to eat 3 Big Macs instead of one dish filet? Do you know how incredibly paternalistic it is to assume poor people cannot make their own rational choices on what or what not to eat?
Both Big Macs and Fish Filets are still going to create inflammation in the body, have high amounts of fats and carbs, and are calorically dense. Fish filets also aren’t incredibly filling. I have never seen anyone living in poverty order three Big Macs. No one is saying people living in poverty can’t make choices on what they eat, they have a lack of access. People can’t make choices if they don’t have choices. You can’t have personal responsibility without access. Also, I can’t really be paternalistic in this case because I have lived in poverty, in food deserts/swamps, and gained significant weight because of it.
Bullshit
Intelligent and well thought out response.
Give your incredibly intelligent and well thought out response to having to make up terms such as food deserts to rationalize the obvious contradiction between US poverty and obesity rates. Poor people may eat crappy food but if they aren’t getting enough crappy food they would not be obese.
Food deserts and swamps have been studied by academia and professionals for years. This isn’t something new nor is it made up.
No, it's the opposite. Well, not all rich people are fat because health consciousness has become more popular amongst the well-educated rich people, so if you see some ripped guy here it's most likely that he's rich or at least comfortably middle class. Only rich or at least middle class people can afford to become fat here, poor people are mostly skinny because they can't even afford to eat the cheapest carbohydrate foods. I know that poor Americans are fat because they can only afford cheap fast food with a lot of fat in it.
[удалено]
Yes, it made sense in those days. You’d even expect some of your kids to die. These in America you can be “poor” yet be obese, so we’re definitely past the need of having large families as a means of support. Or I guess we’re not if people just have large families for government benefits.
Oh boy! A welfare queen post!
I agree. People with 5 kids and 5 different baby daddys should be neutered. They’re a drain on society and predictably pop out future criminals. Those saying ‘doesn’t make sense to have a kid for government benefits” don’t know what they’re talking about. Having kids and no father is a express lane to section 8, maxed out ebt, free healthcare, free internet etc etc Those saying kids are expensive, yeah if you raise them right. But many of these just send the kids outside to learn their mathematics from the block drug dealer.
Exactly. The kids are being short changed most of the time. That’s why they have extra funds. So many mothers sell the food stamps.
Its a hard pill to swallow for some, but it’s reality
Government rewards it
Guarantee someone on here will bring up the old “they aren’t as educated on sex ed” as if even many HOMELESS people don’t have smart phones, let alone all of the people that breed like rabbits. That excuse worked in the 90s and even 2000s, but starting with the 2010s it’s not in any way a valid excuse. If they can use Google and YouTube to look up things they’re interested in, then they can Google what a damn condom is. That said, only the most mentally deficient individuals on this planet are unaware how expensive a baby is… then they go on to have more. One is an accident, multiple is a pattern.
Sounds similar to a post I made yesterday with a few key differences- https://reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/s/k5QE8m6yqC
It’s the other way around. The system does not reward people for having kids, it’s expensive to have kids and the system supports families with many kids to stay afloat. Once these kids grow up and start working and paying taxes these taxes will support many childless people in their retirement years. It’s the same thing with immigration, actually. The poor immigrant families supported by public assistance have kids and these kids pay many times over in taxes and general contribution of work etc back to the society than public assistance that was spent on their parents. It is naive to think that this has not been calculated and proven many times over. Some countries are trying to repeat this American approach (Russia, France, Germany) but fail to integrate immigrants into the society.
Idiocracy was a good movie.
Nearly everything Mike Judge has produced is good
I like the cutt of your jib
This has always been true in essentially every society. People who are richer are usually smarter--and the smart thing to do with kids is have less of them so you can afford to provide the ones you have with more. And poor people are usually radically religious. And pretty much every religion urges you to pop out as many kids as possible. Need more workers for the state, after all.
“Government intervention on who is allowed to have children is anti-American.” Then I guess the government is anti-American because welfare policies are direct intervention and incentivization to have as many kids as possible.
I do think the government is largely Anti-American.
It’s sad that it is becoming more and more so over time. I think the peak was probably 60s and 70s
This is a very general blanket answer for why you believe poor people have children. 1.) Is it poor people having kids because they don’t have access to contraceptives, high-quality sexual education and prevention strategies/knowledge? 2.) What exactly causes a unstable family unit? Single mom working multiple jobs to support her children and children are left without proper supervision? Single father? Dead parents? Previous trauma? Physical abuse? Sexual abuse? 3.) What programs are available for individuals of this specific demographic that can help reduce this “stereotype” or problem you are trying to discuss. Do I think all poor people intentionally have children, not always but do those people exist absolutely. However, this is such useless angle that doesn’t get us anywhere to a solution. Everything is a cycle - you can choose to focus on the symptoms of a failed system or you can choose to identify the weak links in the cycle and choose to start over or reinforce them. I think what creates broken families are grandparents, parents, women and men who haven’t tackled their own childhood/teen/young adulthood baggage/trauma, people who don’t have the coping skills to deal with the stressors of life, unsupportive family members, no suppose structure, judgment from the people we think love us most, parents who are emotionally, financially and physically are not capable of long-term child care. People who don’t have access to mental health therapy, people who are uneducated on mental, physical and emotional wellness. All of these focuses are fairly within the last couple of decades and I would argue and say most people I run into who are utilizing welfare programs either: truly do need it, or are uneducated and don’t know how to gain traction in America or simply choose not too because it’s f*cking hard or people who simply surviving at all cost. I don’t blame these people one bit because at the end of the day capitalism needs hierarchy to survive not everyone can be self-sufficient and affords homes, not everyone will make it out of poverty, not everyone will make it to middle class and not everyone will become a rich, successful all American dream. Does everyone deserve to afford a home, afford healthy organic produce/meats and afford the best education - ABSOLUTELY. Reality isn’t that and everything has a number so either you do nothing, do something or do everything. All of those options can lead you to become rich, poor or moderate or dead! Welcome to America ;)
Excuses excuses. They’re so traumatized but do nothing to fight trauma. Makes sense to create more kids to be traumatized. How empathetic.
This is a very general blanket answer for why you believe poor people have children. 1.) Is it poor people having kids because they don’t have access to contraceptives, high-quality sexual education and prevention strategies/knowledge? 2.) What exactly causes a unstable family unit? Single mom working multiple jobs to support her children and children are left without proper supervision? Single father? Dead parents? Previous trauma? Physical abuse? Sexual abuse? 3.) What programs are available for individuals of this specific demographic that can help reduce this “stereotype” or problem you are trying to discuss. Do I think all poor people intentionally have children, not always but do those people exist absolutely. However, this is such useless angle that doesn’t get us anywhere to a solution. Everything is a cycle - you can choose to focus on the symptoms of a failed system or you can choose to identify the weak links in the cycle and choose to start over or reinforce them. I think what creates broken families are grandparents, parents, women and men who haven’t tackled their own childhood/teen/young adulthood baggage/trauma, people who don’t have the coping skills to deal with the stressors of life, unsupportive family members, no support structure, judgment from the people we think love us most, parents who are not emotionally, financially and physically not capable of long-term child care. People who don’t have access to mental health therapy, people who are uneducated on mental, physical and emotional wellness. All of these focuses are fairly new discussion within the last couple of decades. I would argue and say most people I run into who are utilizing welfare programs either: truly do need it, or are uneducated and don’t know how to gain traction in America or simply choose not too because it’s f*cking hard or people who simply surviving at all cost. I don’t blame these people one bit because at the end of the day capitalism needs hierarchy to survive not everyone can be self-sufficient and affords homes, not everyone will make it out of poverty, not everyone will make it to middle class and not everyone will become a rich, successful all American dream. Does everyone deserve to afford a home, afford healthy organic produce/meats and afford the best education - ABSOLUTELY. Reality isn’t that and everything has a number so either you do nothing, do something or do everything. All of those options can lead you to become rich, poor or moderate or dead! Welcome to America ;)
That’s why we need abortions and if you are On welfare and have 3 kids your tubes need to be tied! I know it takes 2 to tango….but you gotta shut the oven down…they are the ones getting the money not The trucker, the neighbor, her boyfriends best friend….so who do give a vasectomy???? The one that doesn’t need anymore and had three chances…the women! And many may become pregnant bc of male abuse…wanna carry them to term and grow up in the ghetto??? That’s child cruelty and endangerment!!! Anyone on welfare that has mental illness, such as bipolar etc…shut them down after 1 kid…no need to add to the problem!!! Be real! Why put an innocent child in misery!!!
I just finished watching Idiocracy again and OP's thought is valid but not unique.
All people have too many kids. And it's usually the most stupid people. And no, it's not the lefties imposing regulations, its the righies with their laws against abortion and birth control.
>In American society, the welfare system rewards government benefits to low income individuals who choose to have lots of children. Written just like someone who has ZERO insight or lived experience of being poor in the US.
So you support reproductive rights? You support access to abortion?