[VanillaLime]

So you're suggesting that being poor is a genetic condition (and one that apparently should be perpetuated)? Because that sounds even more dehumanizing than suggesting that the poor consider their resources before choosing to have children.

[lghh]

No, I am suggesting that people born into poverty are much more likely to stay in poverty and people not born in poverty are much more likely to stay out of poverty. Poverty is generational, social conditions can be passed down from parent to child without being genetic.

[Turing_Machine]

"No, I am suggesting that people born into poverty are much more likely to stay in poverty"

And I am advocating for fewer people being born into poverty.

Why are you opposed to this?

[lghh]

I agree that having fewer people being born into poverty is a thing we should strive for, so I am not opposed to it like you claim I am. What I am opposed to is your method and reasoning for that method.

Your method is that poor people should not have kids due to their inability to easily provide for those kids. In not having kids, they bring less people into an impoverished social standing that is hard to break out of. By this reasoning, should people with less desirable traits (history of heart disease, cancer, etc) not have kids to help eradicate those traits? There is a chance their child will not have those specific traits or htey will take, like there is a chance that a child will move out of poverty.

Of course not, that's absurd.

Other than the self regulation of impoverished people to not have kids to help eradicate poverty, which is what you are describing, I would rather see social means to help those people escape poverty.