Why are "refugees" still having children?

[Crazy Eddie]

Given that human reproduction is a remarkably consistent behavior even in the worst of times, and given the very real possibility that these people were NOT refugees eight and a half months earlier, I'm not totally sure what "criticism" should be leveled at the parents except for their failure to (chose to?) obtain an abortion.

I, on the other hand, am reluctant to condemn a married man for having sex with his wife. There are a lot of things I will condemn a man for and call him irresponsible, but that just isn't one of them.

Except there are plenty of ways to have sex that don't include risking pregnancy.

And how two married people choose to get down is none of your fucking business (no pun intended).

So no one is asking these people to give up simple pleasures.

Except for you.

 

[credoconsolans]

Except there are plenty of ways to have sex that don't include risking pregnancy.

And how two married people choose to get down is none of your fucking business (no pun intended).

So no one is asking these people to give up simple pleasures.

Except for you.

I see Eddie is the type never to deny himself anything, even when a possible child might be put at risk.

Exactly why I have contempt for such people.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And how two married people choose to get down is none of your fucking business (no pun intended).

So no one is asking these people to give up simple pleasures.

Except for you.

I see Eddie is the type never to deny himself anything, even when a possible child might be put at risk.

You see nothing whatsoever, as you know significantly less about me that you know about these refugees and are simply talking out of your ass.

You are speaking in abstractions, but these are real people with real problems, real lives, and a real need for human dignity. They don't owe YOU anything: not an explanation for their choices, not an adherence to your judgement of 'responsible behavior,' not your approval over their sexual practices.

And I'm saying this as a man who is single handedly raising three children, two of which aren't mine. *I* don't owe you an explanation either; I am responsible for my own choices, and I reap the consequences -- negative AND positive -- all on my own. Just like these refugees are, ultimately, responsible for the wellbeing of their children, for whatever reason they decided to continue their family. They have to deal with the negative consequences AND they get to benefit from the positive consequences.

I'm sure your lack of approval over their life choices makes you feel really important in the overall scheme of the universe. Fortunately all of us, you still are not.

Exactly why I have contempt for such people.

Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

 

[arkirk]

This question is kind of strange and I think its answer is equally strange. When you are in a civilized social setting, there are many things available to you which disappear into chaos. One of them is information that widens the choices of people regarding whether or not to be a parent and how to prevent it if you wish to not be one. War promotes ignorance and human pathos in general...mostly because of that IGNORANCE. That is what you get when your country is torn apart and you are forced into an internment camp with nothing but the clothes on your back. So anything can happen, including unwanted pregnancies. That means refugees will be having children but the instability that ended up driving them from their homeland is the cause of this too, not that these people have a will to hurt others by having children.

 

[credoconsolans]

This question is kind of strange and I think its answer is equally strange. When you are in a civilized social setting, there are many things available to you which disappear into chaos. One of them is information that widens the choices of people regarding whether or not to be a parent and how to prevent it if you wish to not be one. War promotes ignorance and human pathos in general...mostly because of that IGNORANCE. That is what you get when your country is torn apart and you are forced into an internment camp with nothing but the clothes on your back. So anything can happen, including unwanted pregnancies. That means refugees will be having children but the instability that ended up driving them from their homeland is the cause of this too, not that these people have a will to hurt others by having children.

Pregnancies don't just "happen". It isn't like stubbing your toe. It's a willful act.

 

[credoconsolans]

And how two married people choose to get down is none of your fucking business (no pun intended).

So no one is asking these people to give up simple pleasures.

Except for you.

I see Eddie is the type never to deny himself anything, even when a possible child might be put at risk.

You see nothing whatsoever, as you know significantly less about me that you know about these refugees and are simply talking out of your ass.

I'm sure you don't see it. You and men like some of these refugees aren't looking past the end of their penises. Unprotected sex can lead to pregnancies can lead to children being born in some of the worst possible situations.

But what do you care as long as you get your jollies, right?

You are speaking in abstractions, but these are real people with real problems, real lives, and a real need for human dignity. They don't owe YOU anything: not an explanation for their choices, not an adherence to your judgement of 'responsible behavior,' not your approval over their sexual practices.

But I do owe them my tax money, right? For their irresponsible and selfish acts?

Just like these refugees are, ultimately, responsible for the wellbeing of their children, for whatever reason they decided to continue their family. They have to deal with the negative consequences AND they get to benefit from the positive consequences.

Then why am I being asked for tax money to help out these refugees if they're ultimately responsible? Obviously, they're not if they need other people's help.

Your post is abstract. You're giving these irresponsible folks virtues they don't deserve.

I'm sure your lack of approval over their life choices makes you feel really important in the overall scheme of the universe. Fortunately all of us, you still are not.

As long as their life choices don't effect me, why would I care? But once they need my help, then yes, I feel free to offer my opinion since I'm helping them out.

You're basically wanting me to just open my wallet and STFU.

Nope, sorry, no can do.

 

[laughing dog]

I am. Name-calling like you're doing is obviously not logical.

First, using names is logical when they are accurate descriptors. Second, I am not name calling. You cannot point to any post where I called you a name. Those two points indicate you are not using logic at all in that response.

No, you haven't.

Yes, I did. Have someone read and explain post 148 to you.

I don't keep up with the medical histories of refugees.

Then you have no business making claims of fact about their medical histories. You cannot say with certainty that refugees in your area had babies in transit.

But as has been established, many people are stupid, so are you saying refugees are exempt from the stupid percentile?

No.

I'm not. It's you who started calling names to posters, not me.

You are making plainly false accusations. Why do you feel the need to do so?

I agree. Which should mean - what exactly to me?

I have no idea what this refers to.

Then you're probably wrong.

Wrong about what?

Or correct.

The opinion that refugees who have babies in transit are stupid and selfish and deserve to be treated with respect is based on one's view of morality. As such it cannot be "correct" since there is no established standard of morality. I realize that it makes one feel to better about one's nasty, ignorant, selfish and hypocritical views if one thinks they are "correct", but that does not change the nastiness, the ignorance, the selfishness and hypocrisy contained in the opinion.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But I do owe them my tax money, right? For their irresponsible and selfish acts?

DO you? Is this happening in a country/district/city where you pay taxes? And are YOUR tax dollars specifically paying for their food and shelter?

I'm sure your lack of approval over their life choices makes you feel really important in the overall scheme of the universe. Fortunately all of us, you still are not.

As long as their life choices don't effect me

They don't. You pay the same taxes whether the government spends it on refugees or not. If you don't want the government spending that money on helping refugees, you should run for office and vote against it.

OTOH, that still assumes that your taxes would go to the refugees in the first place. Is that even really the case?

 

[Bomb#20]

As you're almost certainly already aware, nobody in this thread claimed the baby born to the migrants doesn't deserve to exist. The criticism is all for the parents, none for the baby.

Given that human reproduction is a remarkably consistent behavior even in the worst of times, and given the very real possibility that these people were NOT refugees eight and a half months earlier, I'm not totally sure what "criticism" should be leveled at the parents except for their failure to (chose to?) obtain an abortion.

There's a widespread feeling that it's unethical to do things that make you temporarily happy but that impose a substantial risk of a permanently unhappy life on a non-volunteering third party. That's pretty much the reason people object to a drunk driver even when he gets lucky and nobody gets hurt. Risking creating a child when you're a refugee or are living near a war zone and have a high likelihood of suddenly needing to become a refugee and are therefore in no position to have reason to believe you're going to be able to give your potential kid favorable odds for having a reasonably happy life imposes just such a substantial risk. This feeling has made several of the posters here sure what criticism should be leveled at the parents. Your mileage varies.

I, on the other hand, am reluctant to condemn a married man for having sex with his wife. There are a lot of things I will condemn a man for and call him irresponsible, but that just isn't one of them.

Some people are reluctant to condemn a man and call him irresponsible for driving drunk. There's a million ways to go, you know that there are.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Risking creating a child when you're a refugee or are living near a war zone and have a high likelihood of suddenly needing to become a refugee and are therefore in no position to have reason to believe you're going to be able to give your potential kid favorable odds for having a reasonably happy life imposes just such a substantial risk.

If that were a valid concern half my ancestors would never have been born.

This feeling has made several of the posters here sure what criticism should be leveled at the parents. Your mileage varies.

Fair enough.

I, on the other hand, am reluctant to condemn a married man for having sex with his wife. There are a lot of things I will condemn a man for and call him irresponsible, but that just isn't one of them.

Some people are reluctant to condemn a man and call him irresponsible for driving drunk.

Drunk driving, unlike procreation, isn't a biological imperative inherent to the survival of the human species or the bloodline of a particular family, nor is it a sovereign right of families to engage in at a time and place of their choosing, nor is it something people can necessarily chose not to do when conditions suddenly change.

Drunk driving, unlike sex, isn't a private action between two consenting adults in the context of an established relationship, the practice of which is as old as the human race and as fundamental to human existence as eating and breathing.

Of course there are a million ways to go on ANY particular issue, but setting yourself up as the arbiter of "good judgement" over other people's married life -- particularly, people you don't know, whose situation you're not fully aware of, whose NAMES you don't even really know -- is kind of a dick move by any measurement.

 

[credoconsolans]

If that were a valid concern half my ancestors would never have been born.

This feeling has made several of the posters here sure what criticism should be leveled at the parents. Your mileage varies.

Fair enough.

I, on the other hand, am reluctant to condemn a married man for having sex with his wife. There are a lot of things I will condemn a man for and call him irresponsible, but that just isn't one of them.

Some people are reluctant to condemn a man and call him irresponsible for driving drunk.

Drunk driving, unlike procreation, isn't a biological imperative inherent to the survival of the human species or the bloodline of a particular family, nor is it a sovereign right of families to engage in at a time and place of their choosing, nor is it something people can necessarily chose not to do when conditions suddenly change.

Drunk driving, unlike sex, isn't a private action between two consenting adults in the context of an established relationship, the practice of which is as old as the human race and as fundamental to human existence as eating and breathing.

Of course there are a million ways to go on ANY particular issue, but setting yourself up as the arbiter of "good judgement" over other people's married life -- particularly, people you don't know, whose situation you're not fully aware of, whose NAMES you don't even really know -- is kind of a dick move by any measurement.

Are you joking? Thousands of people go without sex everyday. Obviously it is NOT a biological imperative. Our species currently has 7 billion on the planet. There is no imperative whatsoever to increase the population. It is a choice.

 

[credoconsolans]

First, using names is logical when they are accurate descriptors.

Calling names is childish period. People resort to personal jabs when they've lost an argument.

Second, I am not name calling. You cannot point to any post where I called you a name. Those two points indicate you are not using logic at all in that response.

Call it. One or the other. In the first paragraph you say what you called me is accurate, in the 2nd you're saying you don't do it. Choose one or the other, you can't have both.

No, you haven't.

Yes, I did. Have someone read and explain post 148 to you.

I think it's you who needs to go back and read #148 again. I said nothing of the kind. Try not to put words in my mouth.

I don't keep up with the medical histories of refugees.

Then you have no business making claims of fact about their medical histories. You cannot say with certainty that refugees in your area had babies in transit.

Not with any certainly, but with a high probability. As I said, people can be stupid and you agreed.

I'm not. It's you who started calling names to posters, not me.

You are making plainly false accusations. Why do you feel the need to do so?

Why did you contradict yourself in the first two sentences?

I agree. Which should mean - what exactly to me?

I have no idea what this refers to.

Your opinion.

Then you're probably wrong.

Wrong about what?

Your opinion is wrong.

Or correct.

The opinion that refugees who have babies in transit are stupid and selfish and deserve to be treated with respect is based on one's view of morality. As such it cannot be "correct" since there is no established standard of morality. I realize that it makes one feel to better about one's nasty, ignorant, selfish and hypocritical views if one thinks they are "correct", but that does not change the nastiness, the ignorance, the selfishness and hypocrisy contained in the opinion.

Who said anything about morality? It's about the lack of commonsense, lack of rational thinking, the lack of self-restraint and selfishness.

THAT's certainly cause to feel contempt toward ANYone with those traits, let alone people seeking assistance.

 

[credoconsolans]

DO you? Is this happening in a country/district/city where you pay taxes? And are YOUR tax dollars specifically paying for their food and shelter?

I'm sure your lack of approval over their life choices makes you feel really important in the overall scheme of the universe. Fortunately all of us, you still are not.

As long as their life choices don't effect me

They don't. You pay the same taxes whether the government spends it on refugees or not. If you don't want the government spending that money on helping refugees, you should run for office and vote against it.

OTOH, that still assumes that your taxes would go to the refugees in the first place. Is that even really the case?

None of which means I have to like it and I don't. I have no problem with my taxes helping the refugees, but I sure can consider with contempt and resentment those who are stupid and selfish and short-sighted who cost me extra money.

I have little patience with stupidity.

Ignorance, yes, stupidity no.

 

[laughing dog]

Calling names is childish period. People resort to personal jabs when they've lost an argument.

You can keep telling yourself that.

Call it. One or the other. In the first paragraph you say what you called me is accurate, in the 2nd you're saying you don't do it. Choose one or the other, you can't have both.

Logically it is possible.

I think it's you who needs to go back and read #148 again. I said nothing of the kind. Try not to put words in my mouth.

Really, you need to have someone read it and explain it to you.

I don't keep up with the medical histories of refugees.

Then you have no business making claims of fact about their medical histories. You cannot say with certainty that refugees in your area had babies in transit.

Not with any certainly, but with a high probability.

You have no basis in fact for that claim.

As I said, people can be stupid and you agreed.

Which does not mean they necessarily had babies in transit.

Why did you contradict yourself in the first two sentences?

I didn't.

Your opinion is wrong.

I did not offer an opinion.

Who said anything about morality? It's about the lack of commonsense, lack of rational thinking, the lack of self-restraint and selfishness.

You are making moral judgments when you claim the refugees who have babies in transit lack commonsense, or rational thinking or self-restraint or that they are selfish.

THAT's certainly cause to feel contempt toward ANYone with those traits, let alone people seeking assistance.

Whether it certainly causes the feelings of contempt toward anyone with those traits depends on the people doing the feeling. For example, I don't think your posts on this subject are causing others to feel contempt towards you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you joking? Thousands of people go without sex everyday. Obviously it is NOT a biological imperative. Our species currently has 7 billion on the planet. There is no imperative whatsoever to increase the population. It is a choice.

And plenty of us have sex but are careful about not making unwanted babies.

 

[Bomb#20]

If that were a valid concern half my ancestors would never have been born.

Why on earth do people keep making that argument*? Is producing the particular people now alive the goal of morality? If that were a valid argument it would equally imply that rape isn't a valid concern. None of your or my ancestors would have been born if people never raped each other; do you think the historical requirements for our current existence somehow flow back through time and make rapists good people and make rapes have been all for the best in the long run?

(* Though usually it's expressed in the form "If abortion had been legal I wouldn't be here! Thank goodness it was illegal.")

Drunk driving, unlike procreation, isn't a biological imperative inherent to the survival of the human species or the bloodline of a particular family,

What's a "biological imperative"? An alcoholic finds drinking to be a biological imperative to him. A pedophile finds sex with children to be a biological imperative to him. It doesn't stop us from judging people who aren't willing to control their urges when giving in to them is going to get somebody else hurt.

nor is it a sovereign right of families to engage in at a time and place of their choosing

And? Denying the Holocaust and telling gays they're going to Hell is a sovereign right of humans to engage in; that doesn't mean the humans who do it ought not to be criticized for it.

Drunk driving, unlike sex, isn't a private action between two consenting adults

Drunk driving, unlike safe sex, isn't a private action between two consenting adults. Unprotected sex isn't a private action between two consenting adults either. There's a good chance that there will be a nonconsenting third party who'll be affected by the action and who may bear a terrible cost as a result, just like any pedestrian the drunk driver might run over.

Of course there are a million ways to go on ANY particular issue, but setting yourself up as the arbiter of "good judgement" over other people's married life -- particularly, people you don't know, whose situation you're not fully aware of, whose NAMES you don't even really know -- is kind of a dick move by any measurement.

Says the guy who set himself up as the arbiter of whose actions are none of whose f***ing business. You're swearing at credoconsolans for exercising his sovereign human right to express his opinion that what somebody else did was kind of a dick move. Is you calling him out for a perceived dick move also kind of a dick move, or are you special?

We all get to tell others their moves are dick. Sulaf inflicted misery on a baby and credoconsolans said she made a dick move; he criticized her and you said he made a dick move; Underseer accused people like him of thinking the baby doesn't deserve to live and I said Underseer made a dick move. Being arbiters of other people's moves' dickhood is what we humans do. So what is it that you feel makes other people's baby-making behavior off limits, but not all the behaviors you criticize other people for?

 

[bilby]

I, on the other hand, am reluctant to condemn a married man for having sex with his wife. There are a lot of things I will condemn a man for and call him irresponsible, but that just isn't one of them.

Except there are plenty of ways to have sex that don't include risking pregnancy. So no one is asking these people to give up simple pleasures. Just to use their heads. But some can't even do that.

I see what you did there

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If that were a valid concern half my ancestors would never have been born.


Fair enough.

I, on the other hand, am reluctant to condemn a married man for having sex with his wife. There are a lot of things I will condemn a man for and call him irresponsible, but that just isn't one of them.

Some people are reluctant to condemn a man and call him irresponsible for driving drunk.

Drunk driving, unlike procreation, isn't a biological imperative inherent to the survival of the human species or the bloodline of a particular family, nor is it a sovereign right of families to engage in at a time and place of their choosing, nor is it something people can necessarily chose not to do when conditions suddenly change.

Drunk driving, unlike sex, isn't a private action between two consenting adults in the context of an established relationship, the practice of which is as old as the human race and as fundamental to human existence as eating and breathing.

Of course there are a million ways to go on ANY particular issue, but setting yourself up as the arbiter of "good judgement" over other people's married life -- particularly, people you don't know, whose situation you're not fully aware of, whose NAMES you don't even really know -- is kind of a dick move by any measurement.

Are you joking? Thousands of people go without sex everyday. Obviously it is NOT a biological imperative.

Thousands of people go without FOOD AND SHELTER every day. That doesn't mean food and shelter aren't basic human needs.

Our species currently has 7 billion on the planet. There is no imperative whatsoever to increase the population.

Who said anything about the population? People procreate because they want to increase and sustain their FAMILIES.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

DO you? Is this happening in a country/district/city where you pay taxes? And are YOUR tax dollars specifically paying for their food and shelter?

I'm sure your lack of approval over their life choices makes you feel really important in the overall scheme of the universe. Fortunately all of us, you still are not.

As long as their life choices don't effect me

They don't. You pay the same taxes whether the government spends it on refugees or not. If you don't want the government spending that money on helping refugees, you should run for office and vote against it.

OTOH, that still assumes that your taxes would go to the refugees in the first place. Is that even really the case?

None of which means I have to like it and I don't...

I don't like the way your farts smell, but you don't see me launching on a long rambling tirade condemning you for having such a stinky farts, do you?

I have no problem with my taxes helping the refugees, but I sure can consider with contempt and resentment...

... anyone you damn well please. Just don't insult my intelligence by pretending you have a legitimate REASON to fling your content and resentment at people you don't even know and whose welfare you aren't even responsible for, tax dollars or not.

 

[bilby]

If that were a valid concern half my ancestors would never have been born.


Fair enough.

I, on the other hand, am reluctant to condemn a married man for having sex with his wife. There are a lot of things I will condemn a man for and call him irresponsible, but that just isn't one of them.

Some people are reluctant to condemn a man and call him irresponsible for driving drunk.

Drunk driving, unlike procreation, isn't a biological imperative inherent to the survival of the human species or the bloodline of a particular family, nor is it a sovereign right of families to engage in at a time and place of their choosing, nor is it something people can necessarily chose not to do when conditions suddenly change.

Drunk driving, unlike sex, isn't a private action between two consenting adults in the context of an established relationship, the practice of which is as old as the human race and as fundamental to human existence as eating and breathing.

Of course there are a million ways to go on ANY particular issue, but setting yourself up as the arbiter of "good judgement" over other people's married life -- particularly, people you don't know, whose situation you're not fully aware of, whose NAMES you don't even really know -- is kind of a dick move by any measurement.

Are you joking? Thousands of people go without sex everyday. Obviously it is NOT a biological imperative.

Thousands of people go without FOOD AND SHELTER every day. That doesn't mean food and shelter aren't basic human needs.

Our species currently has 7 billion on the planet. There is no imperative whatsoever to increase the population.

Who said anything about the population? People procreate because they want to increase and sustain their FAMILIES.

Our children are family, and therefore good.

Their children are population, and therefore bad.

'They' drag the world down. 'We' struggle to undo the damage.

This is fundamentally certain, for ALL 'We' and 'They'.

That attitude is almost universal; and it is why we end up with refugees in the first place.