Is birth control a form of discrimination?

[Washington]

They are. Would you feel okay about this if white people could discriminate against black fetuses? What makes it okay for people to do it in their own family?



Fetuses don't have phones or make art, they are too young to do that. They can grow or they can be killed.

I give up!!!!

 

[Autumnleaf]

If fetuses never exist because someone uses birth control, then how are they being "killed"?

In that case they are not so much being killed as being killed before they have the chance to be alive. The result is less babies of, on average, higher intelligence from people who would likely be better parents. Can you appreciate what I'm getting at?

 

[Autumnleaf]

I give up!!!!

If you can defend your point of view don't quit now. If you can't good bye.

 

[snoochface]

In that case they are not so much being killed as being killed before they have the chance to be alive. The result is less babies of, on average, higher intelligence from people who would likely be better parents. Can you appreciate what I'm getting at?

Not at all. I don't think socio-economic status has anything to do with intelligence. So I don't think that more babies born to underprivileged families means more stupid babies.

I certainly don't see how it's discrimination. What would the logical solution be to your supposed discrimination? Either more lower class families use birth control, in which case there are more fetuses (? ) being discriminated against, or more middle and upper class families have more babies?

 

[Autumnleaf]

Not at all. I don't think socio-economic status has anything to do with intelligence. So I don't think that more babies born to underprivileged families means more stupid babies.

I certainly don't see how it's discrimination. What would the logical solution be to your supposed discrimination? Either more lower class families use birth control, in which case there are more fetuses (? ) being discriminated against, or more middle and upper class families have more babies?

Logically we'd expect families to pay for their children which would make more well off families able to have more children.

 

[Gremlins]

In that case they are not so much being killed as being killed before they have the chance to be alive. The result is less babies of, on average, higher intelligence from people who would likely be better parents. Can you appreciate what I'm getting at?

You appear to be a very misguided eugenicist. There is infact almost no evidence that rich people are smarter. The Economist recently reported that private school children less intelligent than state school children overtake their government-educated counterparts by the age of 9. It's largely to do with environment, not genetics.

 

[Autumnleaf]

You appear to be a very misguided eugenicist. There is infact almost no evidence that rich people are smarter. The Economist recently reported that private school children less intelligent than state school children overtake their government-educated counterparts by the age of 9. It's largely to do with environment, not genetics.

The rich are smarter at getting money. The proof is in the pudding. It has already been shown that emotional intelligence pays more than IQ. Children of poor tend to end up in the Penn while chilren of the rich tend to end up other places. Even the highly paid rappers make pennies compared to the owners of the compainies they work for. Genetics pays big.

 

[ebia]

You appear to be a very misguided eugenicist. There is infact almost no evidence that rich people are smarter. The Economist recently reported that private school children less intelligent than state school children overtake their government-educated counterparts by the age of 9. It's largely to do with environment, not genetics.

And far and away the best predictor of educational success is the educational level of the parents. Parents with a high level of education whill have children who are successful in mainstream education, and that correlates closely with economic success and staying out of trouble.

 

[CCGirl]

Birth control should be subsidized by the state, it is a necessity.

 

[Kaonashi]

Am I the only one who has Monty Python going through his head from reading this thread?

 

[trivista]

Poor uneducated people don't use it as much and tend to have many children while more affluent people tend to use it and have less children. Isn't it prejudiced to discriminate based on economic status?

You fail logic.

 

[Autumnleaf]

You fail logic.

Reality is what it is.

 

[Mling]

Clearly, the affluent are discriminating against their own non-existent children for denying them birth. Or conception, for that matter.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Clearly, the affluent are discriminating against their own non-existent children for denying them birth. Or conception, for that matter.

Exactly!

 

[snoochface]

Exactly!

Are you serious?

 

[Autumnleaf]

Are you serious?

Yes, and its obvious. The birth rate of white people versus blacks and hispanics show this time and again. Its that simple.

 

[snoochface]

Yes, and its obvious. The birth rate of white people versus blacks and hispanics show this time and again. Its that simple.

You said they were discriminating against non-existing children by denying them birth. That has nothing to do with the birth rate among blacks and hispanics, or caucasians for that matter.

You're not talking about discrimination against racial groups, you're talking about discrimination against non-existent children. How can that be taken seriously?

 

[Joykins]

Society is discriminating against fetuses of middle and upper class mothers.

Sounds more like middle and upper-class people discriminating against sperm and eggs. And even so, a stretch.

Now, China's 1-child policy might be considered a form of discrimination but not voluntary birthcontrol use.

 

[Joykins]

In that case they are not so much being killed as being killed before they have the chance to be alive. The result is less babies of, on average, higher intelligence from people who would likely be better parents. Can you appreciate what I'm getting at?

People in these socioeconomic brackets are choosing to have fewer children so they can invest more resources in the children they already have (or plan to have).

It is sort of like that theory that men like to scatter their sperm far and wide to spread their genes as far as possible and women like to have fewer children but spend more years nursing and rearing them etc.

 

[Autumnleaf]

The reasons for discrimination may be noble but discrimination itself is ughly. Except it would seem in this case where it is accepted by the vast majority here.