Thanks for this, so I redid the math using the two youngest categories (up to 34 years old) and the % goes from 21% to 26% 🤷♂️
It only surveyed people who don't have children. Says on the left 'Do not have children, n = 1300'. This result says nothing about the general intention to have children as those with children in each age group are excluded. Naturally, as people age, the number who still think they're going to have children goes down.
The light blue section doesn't count towards either yes or no, right? Because it's the "I don't know" answer.
I was sitting here wondering how they came to 21% at all without only looking at the oldest category, and even then it's only a fourth that would not get children.
For sure, good call out, I think they just mean only 21% of people feel sure about wanting kids, and if we remove the age bias it goes to 26%. Honestly it would be more interesting to compare the categories to answers from 10, 20 or 30 years ago to have a better benchmark for how we could interperet this.
Yeah, I got distracted by the headline and didn't notice the bottom text that says it exactly that way.
I suppose I'm not alone, because I doubt it would've been interesting enough to make my feed without the confusion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't basic biology say that it gets more dangerous for people to have kids the older they are? Let alone the virility of men over 40.
But, the answers do specify "have or raise" so adoption is also included.
Yes, it starts being a risk birth at 35.
People PLAN to have kids? ;)
Yeah honestly 20% seems about right, if not a little high.
I never understood how someone gets pregnant accidentally. I have 2 kids and both where very on purpose.
I never understood how someone gets pregnant accidentally.
...seriously?
Yeah you don't want to get the girl pregnant you don't cum in her pussy . It's that easy I did it for many years .
If you see the world that simplistic, maybe you should have refrained from procreating.
Birth control can fail. Pills can be forgotten or interfere with other medications, IUDs can fall out unnoticed, condoms can break or slip off, etc.
If you have sex often enough, the chances of having birth control fail at some point creep up to 100%, and if you're "lucky" that results in a pregnancy, and if the mother either has no access to abortions, or simply doesn't want one, you have a child.
Unplanned doesn't mean unwanted or unloved. Many people in principle would like a child but don't know if now is the right time and this person is the right partner, but if random chance over, they'll take that hint and become parents.
Seriously. Did "the condom broke" stop being an insult about why people exist?
My brother had 2 unplanned children using the pull out method. First time should have taught him it's not an effective birth control, but it wasn't until the second kid that he really accepted it.
So ummm I guess it's not that easy for everyone lol
It's likely this guy has a lower sperm count and doesn't realize it. If it took him more than one month of trying, I am certain of it.
No one said it was difficult, we said it was an accident. As in someone has sex without the express intention of bringing a human into the world.
Cum again?
Only a fifth of Canadians younger than 50 plan on having kids
That's sustainable as long as those 1 in 5 Canadians who do have a kid each have on average at least 10 kids.
The poll found 51% say it is “not their responsibility” to fund other people’s childcare, with the most likely group to say this are those who have raised children to the age of 18 or older, where the proportion rises to 59%.
While I've got sympathy for that position, the flip side of that is that it's taxes from those kids who will be paying for pension, medical care, and so forth of people who don't have kids.
So if you don't want to pay for someone else's kids, it does seem a bit unfair that their kids should pay for your old age. I mean, it required a lot of time and work and money on the part of people who did have kids to raise that kid.
The social welfare model in most countries, as things stand, is rather loaded against people who have kids.
But those children will have their education and esrly healthcare paid for by the people they eventually pay for the retirement and healthcare of
That's his point. The people that say they do not want to pay for other peoples children want to opt out of the social contract that underpins all of this. And if they do, they should not get the rewards side later in life.
This kind of egocentric " me me me" thinking is to the detriment of everyone. Social systems are like insurance.. if you don't need it.. it's not a waste.. you got lucky. But if you get unlucky.. if you go at it alone.. you will be up the creek without a paddle.
Too many people think that life and the world is as you make it. They refuse to believe that probably 20pct is you, the other 80 is (good/bad) luck.
Education and a good job also prevent them from falling into poverty and crime and mugging those old people.
That argument only works on people that believe they will live long enough to see those benefits, or experience them regardless of how long they do live.
In the US at least, there is no reason to believe anyone under 50 is going to "retire," if they don't already have the full funds to retire. Canada's right wing parties desperately want to copy the US so they can get paid what US politicians get paid.
In this economy you gotta wait until your 70s before you humour the thought of having children.
Besides, to match the government budgets we probably should hold off until we reach 1830s population numbers.
Maybe if they created an environment conducive to having kids, more people would have them. Failing and underfunded public education, increasingly expensive cost of childcare, lower standard of living. I could go on about climate and geopolitical uncertainty but you get the idea.
Once you're 50, you got everything together, the house, the car, the job.... That's when you should start dating! There's a bunch of 45 year old hotties out there with big tiddies! Just gotta know where to look....like like forward, to the left, and to the right. Usually you don't need to look up to find a hottie.
Anyway, the thing about 45 year old hotties is that they don't live with their parents anymore. Usually their parents already died. It's tragic, So know, but believe me! It's for the best! You don't wanna end up getting chased around the neighborhood by a 90 year old with a shotgun. At best the guy hurts himself and you're still the guilty party. Nah. Find yourself a 45 year old orphan.
And get a job you laisy sonobabich! How are you gonna provide to your girlfriend if you got no job! 😜
Fortunately for the species, over 95% plan on having unprotected sex
::: spoiler Toronto Sun - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Toronto Sun:
I can't imagine a lot of 40-year-olds are still planning to have kids so this number seems a little suspect to me.
Correct
Source
Thanks for this, so I redid the math using the two youngest categories (up to 34 years old) and the % goes from 21% to 26% 🤷♂️
It only surveyed people who don't have children. Says on the left 'Do not have children, n = 1300'. This result says nothing about the general intention to have children as those with children in each age group are excluded. Naturally, as people age, the number who still think they're going to have children goes down.
The light blue section doesn't count towards either yes or no, right? Because it's the "I don't know" answer.
I was sitting here wondering how they came to 21% at all without only looking at the oldest category, and even then it's only a fourth that would not get children.
For sure, good call out, I think they just mean only 21% of people feel sure about wanting kids, and if we remove the age bias it goes to 26%. Honestly it would be more interesting to compare the categories to answers from 10, 20 or 30 years ago to have a better benchmark for how we could interperet this.
Yeah, I got distracted by the headline and didn't notice the bottom text that says it exactly that way.
I suppose I'm not alone, because I doubt it would've been interesting enough to make my feed without the confusion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't basic biology say that it gets more dangerous for people to have kids the older they are? Let alone the virility of men over 40.
But, the answers do specify "have or raise" so adoption is also included.
Yes, it starts being a risk birth at 35.
People PLAN to have kids? ;)
Yeah honestly 20% seems about right, if not a little high.
I never understood how someone gets pregnant accidentally. I have 2 kids and both where very on purpose.
...seriously?
Yeah you don't want to get the girl pregnant you don't cum in her pussy . It's that easy I did it for many years .
If you see the world that simplistic, maybe you should have refrained from procreating.
Birth control can fail. Pills can be forgotten or interfere with other medications, IUDs can fall out unnoticed, condoms can break or slip off, etc.
If you have sex often enough, the chances of having birth control fail at some point creep up to 100%, and if you're "lucky" that results in a pregnancy, and if the mother either has no access to abortions, or simply doesn't want one, you have a child.
Unplanned doesn't mean unwanted or unloved. Many people in principle would like a child but don't know if now is the right time and this person is the right partner, but if random chance over, they'll take that hint and become parents.
Seriously. Did "the condom broke" stop being an insult about why people exist?
My brother had 2 unplanned children using the pull out method. First time should have taught him it's not an effective birth control, but it wasn't until the second kid that he really accepted it.
So ummm I guess it's not that easy for everyone lol
It's likely this guy has a lower sperm count and doesn't realize it. If it took him more than one month of trying, I am certain of it.
No one said it was difficult, we said it was an accident. As in someone has sex without the express intention of bringing a human into the world.
Cum again?
That's sustainable as long as those 1 in 5 Canadians who do have a kid each have on average at least 10 kids.
While I've got sympathy for that position, the flip side of that is that it's taxes from those kids who will be paying for pension, medical care, and so forth of people who don't have kids.
So if you don't want to pay for someone else's kids, it does seem a bit unfair that their kids should pay for your old age. I mean, it required a lot of time and work and money on the part of people who did have kids to raise that kid.
The social welfare model in most countries, as things stand, is rather loaded against people who have kids.
But those children will have their education and esrly healthcare paid for by the people they eventually pay for the retirement and healthcare of
That's his point. The people that say they do not want to pay for other peoples children want to opt out of the social contract that underpins all of this. And if they do, they should not get the rewards side later in life.
This kind of egocentric " me me me" thinking is to the detriment of everyone. Social systems are like insurance.. if you don't need it.. it's not a waste.. you got lucky. But if you get unlucky.. if you go at it alone.. you will be up the creek without a paddle.
Too many people think that life and the world is as you make it. They refuse to believe that probably 20pct is you, the other 80 is (good/bad) luck.
Education and a good job also prevent them from falling into poverty and crime and mugging those old people.
That argument only works on people that believe they will live long enough to see those benefits, or experience them regardless of how long they do live.
In the US at least, there is no reason to believe anyone under 50 is going to "retire," if they don't already have the full funds to retire. Canada's right wing parties desperately want to copy the US so they can get paid what US politicians get paid.
In this economy you gotta wait until your 70s before you humour the thought of having children.
Besides, to match the government budgets we probably should hold off until we reach 1830s population numbers.
Maybe if they created an environment conducive to having kids, more people would have them. Failing and underfunded public education, increasingly expensive cost of childcare, lower standard of living. I could go on about climate and geopolitical uncertainty but you get the idea.
Once you're 50, you got everything together, the house, the car, the job.... That's when you should start dating! There's a bunch of 45 year old hotties out there with big tiddies! Just gotta know where to look....like like forward, to the left, and to the right. Usually you don't need to look up to find a hottie.
Anyway, the thing about 45 year old hotties is that they don't live with their parents anymore. Usually their parents already died. It's tragic, So know, but believe me! It's for the best! You don't wanna end up getting chased around the neighborhood by a 90 year old with a shotgun. At best the guy hurts himself and you're still the guilty party. Nah. Find yourself a 45 year old orphan.
And get a job you laisy sonobabich! How are you gonna provide to your girlfriend if you got no job! 😜
Fortunately for the species, over 95% plan on having unprotected sex
::: spoiler Toronto Sun - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Toronto Sun:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://torontosun.com/news/national/only-a-fifth-of-canadians-younger-than-50-plan-on-having-kids-poll ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support