Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Baitball Blogger

(46,737 posts)
Sun May 8, 2022, 03:12 PM May 2022

The pitfalls of linear thinking.

I've thought of this often, but never knew how to actually bring it into a conversation. No matter how you try to serve it, it can offend sensibilities because it's easier to recognize something that is in existence today, than it is to give equal attention to what you plan to create tomorrow.

It has to do with pro-choice. It has to do with planned parenthood. This is our reality. The hard right can SEE the fetus that is conceived today. But what they ignore is the number of children who are jeopardized from ever being conceived in the future, once a woman makes a decision that she is in a financial hole and just can't afford a larger family.

That's it. It's a simple concept. I'm just saying that women, like anyone else, learn from their experiences. And the children she decides to forego in the future are casualties created by right-wingers who don't ever seem to mind their own private business. But, the lives of the children of the future, their lives should count too, shouldn't they?

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The pitfalls of linear thinking. (Original Post) Baitball Blogger May 2022 OP
hard to talk about 'future' populations stopdiggin May 2022 #1
Just trying to bring in an idea to offset the conservative's agenda. Baitball Blogger May 2022 #2
As per this essay? vanlassie May 2022 #3
Exactly. We need to hear more stories like that. Baitball Blogger May 2022 #4
Very famous author. vanlassie May 2022 #5

stopdiggin

(11,317 posts)
1. hard to talk about 'future' populations
Sun May 8, 2022, 03:42 PM
May 2022

without also having discussion about a whole range of other issues. Income equality and distribution certainly qualify. Population density and distribution. Sustainable population, environmental impact. Social cohesion and structure vs family, tribal instincts. Justice. Government and governance. (how many children, per parent, are fair - is any limitation 'justified'?) So, yes - it is all 'fair game' as far as a discussion about reproductive 'choice' and justice.

Incidentally - the general convention and observation has been that rising income, and income stability, most often has the result of less children and growth. And then comes the argument of whether that is financially a good and sustainable outcome? (as far as large populations and economies go)

Baitball Blogger

(46,737 posts)
2. Just trying to bring in an idea to offset the conservative's agenda.
Sun May 8, 2022, 04:04 PM
May 2022

I can see how more education would encourage someone to limit family size. The one thing that wealth and education should give someone is an inkling of what it takes to give a child the best environment for a proper upbringing. Of course, I've seen some overshoot and give their kids far too much. In that light, the family with modest means who can raise grounded children is the best of all.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The pitfalls of linear th...