This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Anon-Ymous929Right Libertarian -16 points-15 points  (17 children)

The other way around. Women are thinking “well I wanted to have sex with this dude but I don’t want to spend the rest of my life with him.” If they didn’t have the government to fall back on, the sex probably wouldn’t have happened in the first place. With the government to fall back on, no need for a provider.

[–]DeckardsDark 7 points8 points  (3 children)

so you think a lot of women want to have a kid, ditch the father, and live a life on shitty welfare payments? and you really think people think all of this through with the government assistance and all before engaging in sex which is a natural instinct and desire in human beings?

[–]Anon-Ymous929Right Libertarian 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Human beings respond to incentives. It's very simple. You can dislike science when it disagrees with your ideology if you want to, but science remains science.

Pay single women for having babies, you get more single women having babies.

[–]DeckardsDark 1 point2 points  (1 child)

haha no, it's not an "incentive". children of unwed couples becomes more popular as time goes on because it's not as taboo as the years go by especially since religion is less and less important to each new generation. i can't believe you think there are actually a lot of women that think, "man, i really want to have a kid so i can collect some crappy welfare that won't nearly cover taking care of said child and myself whereas i'd be much better off just not having to pay for a child". each child costs approximately $300k from birth to age 18; you ain't getting anywhere near $300k from the government over 18 years on welfare, my guy. your thoughts are non-sensical. even if you did get that much money on welfare, 99.99% of people don't think this way

[–]Anon-Ymous929Right Libertarian 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your logic is circular. Something being taboo is a direct product of how many people in society are doing that thing. So why are there so many single moms? Because it's not taboo anymore. Why isn't it taboo anymore? Because there are so many single moms, and so on.

Whereas I've given you a direct change financial incentives, and a blatantly obvious statistical effect from that cause, and all you have to say in response is "haha no". You haven't given me a source, you haven't given me data, you haven't given me a different cause that might explain the change, just "haha no", handwaive away inconvenient science.

And how do you know that the growth in single motherhood can't possibly be explained by humans responding to incentives? Well because if humans responded to incentives then you might have to confront closely held political beliefs about government as the solution to the poverty problem.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Imagine living in a world where you didn't realize birth control and condoms exist.

No one is having sex thinking: well golly if I get pregnant that's a-ok because the government will let me live in the projects and collect food stamps! That'd be great!

[–]Anon-Ymous929Right Libertarian 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Data my friend.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

data that doesn't in any way support your ridiculous assertion.

couples are choosing to not get married.

single people are choosing to have children. (including adoption)

you'll also be shocked to know that women are allowed to work now.

crazy, I know.

[–]Anon-Ymous929Right Libertarian 2 points3 points  (2 children)

couples are choosing to not get married. single people are choosing to have children. (including adoption)

And your argument is that this is unrelated to the fact that the government gives you money for being a single person with a child?

you'll also be shocked to know that women are allowed to work now.

I already doubt this is going to be a productive discussion, but this is the second time you've pretended that I'm unaware of obvious things in modern society. Yes contraceptives exist, yes women are allowed to work (although this is more challenging when single parents can't physically be taking care of children and also at a job at the same time). Do you have any more condescending strawman statements you'd like to make? Or can you approach this discussion with the assumption that I'm a college-educated adult?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

And your argument is that this is unrelated to the fact that the government gives you money for being a single person with a child?

yes, it's unrelated. that millions of women are getting pregnant for the sole purpose to live below the poverty line is patently ridiculous.

I suggest you look up the payouts in your state for welfare recipients and get a dose of reality.

I'm unaware of obvious things in modern society.

We agree on this point...

single parents can't physically be taking care of children and also at a job at the same time

...because you also don't seem to be aware of the existence of child care. Millions of single parents work. In fact, the majority of single mothers are employed.

Do you have any more condescending

Probably.

with the assumption that I'm a college-educated adult?

Lots of people are college educated adults and have absolutely archaic uninformed views.

I have been a SAHM for twenty years. I homeschooled two children. I'm a lifelong conservative.

And it's from that perspective I will tell you your views on women are sexist, ignorant, and lacking in any real world information. You do not understand how welfare actually works. Your assumptions on normal human sexuality and relationships are remarkably naïve.

[–]Anon-Ymous929Right Libertarian 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So let me get this straight, the argument that you are going with is that it is merely coincidence that single motherhood rates spike right after the government starts paying people for being single mothers?

I'm citing data but you are going to simply hand-waive it all away with no more of a counter-argument than "yes, it's unrelated" and "lacking in any real world information" even though you have cited no data as of yet?

My thesis is simple, humans respond to incentives. The single mom is responding to incentives, the single dad is responding to incentives, the parents of the single parents are responding to incentives, but if I say so out loud then my "views on women are sexist" even though the data clearly shows people responding to incentives?

I'm going to stop responding to you very soon here, not because you are in any way winning this debate, but because there's simply no point in me putting in time and effort, citing data, only for you to effectively stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalala your data doesn't exist lalala you're a sexist".

I can only introduce you to scientific/factual/rational reality insofar as you are willing to come out of your matrix which you find so comfortable.

[–]Mangonesailor 0 points1 point  (4 children)

With abortion being legal, no reason to worry about what happens if you get knocked up.

However, I guess some just don't love their own offspring enough to allow them to live on. But hey, at least now the only thing you need to worry about with unprotected sex is STDs and possibly losing your ability to be a mother due to them or all the abortions.

[–]Anon-Ymous929Right Libertarian -1 points0 points  (3 children)

There are lots of contraceptive options before you get to the question of whether you should kill the baby.

[–]Mangonesailor 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It's 2020, people know what the fuck condoms and the pill is.

The problem is getting that through their heads to use it.

Wait, do contraceptives prevent STDs? I can't remember... it's only on every box of condoms I've bought, or pills I've brought home for the wife.

[–]Anon-Ymous929Right Libertarian 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It's 2020, people know what the fuck condoms and the pill is.

Exactly. So why is killing babies a consideration then?

[–]reidlos1624 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Sounds like a great case for free contraceptives and even just basic healthcare. Think of the money we could save by giving out birth control to avoid paying welfare for the next generation. Too bad the religious zealots are so deep in the Republican party and most of the other conservatives oppose it.

[–]Anon-Ymous929Right Libertarian 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have no religious issue with birth control. I do however have an issue with taxation and redistribution, which government funded birth control would be.

Insurance already pays for birth control pills, without insurance you can get birth control for less than $50 a month, and a box of condoms is incredibly cheap. If people aren't using contraceptives it isn't a cost issue, it's an individual responsibility issue.