10 ms·
Why would people bring a child into the world if they can't even afford diapers, will always blow my mind.
by rubicon33 9y ago
Why would people bring a child into the world if they can't even afford diapers, will always blow my mind.
- mirimir 9y agoBecause they got pregnant. And an abortion wasn't possible, for medical or ethical reasons. Edit: Or for other people's ethical reasons, manifested as laws against abortion.
- gizmo686 9y agoOr political. Abortion is not accessible in all parts of the country.
- mirimir 9y agoRight, political. I was including that in "ethical". But I see my error.
- EugeneOZ 9y agoOr religious. Most idiotic decisions were made by religious reasons.
- ILikeConemowk 9y agoAt which point did we, as a society, settle the philosophical conundrum that is taking an unborn life? Cells, fetus or baby? What is it? Since when? Why? How should it be done? I'm not religious at all but it seems to me that, at least tangentially, most religious believes are rooted in philosophical unknowns and feeling of uncertainty. Religious people then resort to their faith of choice as a way to find answers. Then again, since, as you say, being against abortion for religious reasons is idiotic, do we have an all encompassing scientific and philosophical answer about when, why and how it is "not idiotic" to perform an abortion? If we don't, because as far as I know we don't, then why is it idiotic to decide based on your inability to understand a situation for which other people do not have answers? As I said, I'm not religious and agree that religion is certainly not the only compass some people should lead their lives by. Nevertheless, your remark rubbed me the wrong way. "Idiotic," how can you be so judgmental if you to don't have answers to all the questions I listed above?
- mirimir 9y agoYes, it's a cheap shot to just dismiss it all as religious and idiotic. Except in self-defense or war, societies generally aren't OK with killing people. But when do fetuses become people? Some cultures were OK with parents (or at least, fathers) killing children younger than eight years. Many have gone with birth as the cutoff. There is an argument that conception is the cutoff. But on the other hand, the relationship of mother and fetus is rather unique. So arguably she can evict a fetus, whenever she wishes. After all, there is otherwise no obligation for one person to save the life of another. So anyway, it's not just about religion.
- freeflight 9y ago> So anyway, it's not just about religion. But religion played and still plays a large role in forming these discussions because of its supposedly unique position as a "moral compass" for many cultures over the course of history. Imho this is especially evident if you take a look cloning and stem-cell research in general. While most of the West is still busy trying to figure out how to make it compatible with Christian ideals of life, China, in their usual pragmatism, just goes ahead and does it because they don't have a comparable lobby stopping them from doing it. In that regard, it is pretty much religion that put a stop sign there and even tho this debate is anything but new, I'm not really sure we've actually progressed at all with said debate, it rather feels like decades of stalemate.
- mirimir 9y agoYes, many religions undeniably provide standard answers for such ethical questions. But that doesn't make them religious questions.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- djrogers 9y ago> So arguably she can evict a fetus, whenever she wishes. A mother 'evicting' a fetus at 24 weeks without the abortion would result in a very tiny, but likely healthy baby (at least in the US, where premature baby care is generally outstanding). Source - held one in my hands this fall when our friends adopted him.
- endymi0n 9y agoWith all due respect, I never understood the prevailing attitude in the US to do everything it takes to make you keep that „sacred life“ if you get pregnant by accident – and then once it‘s there, drop it like a hot potato and do exactly zero to make it a tax-paying, happy and productive member of society. The hypocrisy of it all just blows my mind.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 0xfeba 9y ago"Pro-birth" Yeah, they wail and wail about murdering children and then are all too pleased to scorn and segregate the mothers (but not so much the fathers) of these children so they have the worst possible chances.
- maccard 9y agoOr in all western countries.
- hycaria 9y agoPut it to adoption ?
- colejohnson66 9y agoCorrect me if I’m wrong, but it can actually cost money to put a child up for adoption in some places.
- djrogers 9y agoYou're wrong in the US, which is where this story is. In fact adoptive moms get healthcare, and sometimes even room/board/food etc paid for them.
- sd1642 9y agoBecause the color of your skin matters. African American babies are cheaper to adopt but stay in the system longer because they are harder to place in adoptive homes.
- xienze 9y agoNot really relevant to solving the problem of getting rid of the baby. Any parent who's OK with aborting that baby probably doesn't have any issue with how long the baby stays in the system.
- SamBam 9y agoTotally relevant. The original statement was (paraphrased) "Someone might have gotten pregnant even if they can't afford kids," to which someone replied "Put it to adoption." First, this seems incredibly heartless -- poor people should just give their kids up to adoption -- and second, it only makes "logical" sense if you assume that adoption is a better outcome for the kids than growing up poor. But if, as stated, some kids are going to end up in "they system" for years or decades, instead of magically getting adopted into some rich family, then putting them up for adoption may well end up much worse.
- 9y ago
- rubicon33 9y ago> "Because they got pregnant" Really? In 2018, given the myriad of ways you can cost-effectively prevent pregnancy, I hardly accept "because it happened" as an answer. Yes, birth control sometimes fails. That statistic alone cannot explain the quantity of individuals having children, who simply shouldn't be. People can down vote me all they want, but what I am saying is true: Having children when you cannot afford to take care of them is reckless and incredibly selfish.
- mirimir 9y agoPeople screw up, all the time. But yes, sometimes people have kids, realizing that they have no clue how they'll afford them. Call it desperation, if you will. Or rebellion against an unjust society. Or maybe they don't really think it through. Much of the time, I suspect.
- dancek 9y agoIt's not about affording diapers, it's about affording clothes and food and healthcare and baby strollers and a bigger apartment and babysitting and diapers. The costs of everything you need to raise a child come as a surprise to most middle-class people. How would they not to the poor. Common sense says that people raise kids in developing countries and they have nothing, so it can't take money, right? But in a western society with a western standard of living, that common sense is wrong.
- m_mueller 9y agoOr to put it differently: If you raise a child like in a developing country, but you are in one of many developed nations, the government will come and abduct your child.
- mercer 9y agoOne factor to consider is that it might, even in the US, be one of the few ways to make sure you'll (eventually) have some helping hands and be (somewhat) taken care of in older age.
- musgrove 9y agoI agree. Birth control is much cheaper than diapers, and a lot cheaper than raising a child to adulthood. The person this article focuses on was chosen carefully. Most readers will feel sympathy for her, but in reality, the consequences of her decision to have unprotected sex out of wedlock while working at a low-paying job and living with her parents as an adult is her responsibility. And clearly, she's irresponsible. And there are people who don't think adult humans should be responsible for themselves, which is who this article's aimed at.
- tallanvor 9y agoBirth control fails. Approximately 8% of women still end up pregnant during their first year on birth control, and even after the first year the percentage doesn't fall to 0. There are many reasons that it fails, although missing a dose is the largest reason. Other reasons can be improper storage, using certain drugs (prescription or otherwise), or even consuming an unusual amount of some foods or supplements. Even if you do everything right there's a small chance that it will happen anyway. Now, people like to claim that if you skip a dose or mess up taking it at the wrong time of the day it's your fault, but it can be complicated due to the different types of pills available, and if you get switched to a different brand, it can be easy to mess up. Typically pills come in a 28 pack. The first 21 or 24 of those will have the hormones used to prevent pregnancy, and then either 7 or 4 will be placebos. But some schemes only give you 21 pills and then you go a week without taking any before starting up the next set. There's also now larger packages and the hormone concentrations and days without taking them vary as well. Condoms have certain advantages, but they break. And other forms of birth control tend to be more expensive and out of the reach of people living in poverty.
- rubidium 9y agoWell, there is one form of birth control that's both free and 100% effective.
- gjm11 9y agoIn the same way, although cooking doesn't always make food safe to eat, there is a form of cooking that's simple and 100% effective: not eating. And although the various safety measures rock climbers use sometimes fail, there is a method of rock-climbing safety that's 100% effective: not going rock-climbing in the first place. And I have a perfectly safe car: that is, I never leave my house. I take it you can see how ridiculous these are. The point (well, one point) of cooking is to be able to eat food and not get food poisoning. The point of all the ropes and things is to be able to climb rocks and not fall to your death. The point of seatbelts and crumple zones and antilock braking is to be able to drive from place to place and not get killed in a car crash. Not having sex -- which I assume is what you are referring to here -- isn't a form of birth control, because it doesn't accomplish the objective of having sex and not making babies. It might still be a good idea, of course. Just as it might be a good idea never to go rock climbing (maybe it's just too dangerous to be really worth it for anyone who's thinking clearly) or never to drive a car (it's bad for the environment in lots of ways, after all). But that's a separate argument, and the case needs to be made honestly (cost/benefit on failure rates, appeals to alleged rules handed down by alleged gods, etc.) rather than by snarky one-liners like the one above.
- freeflight 9y agoMaybe because they also couldn't afford contraception? Life just happens, as nice as it would be for all children to be born planned into stable circumstances, afaik the reality is often quite a bit more unpredictable than that.
- flukus 9y agoThey shouldn't, but now that it's done, should the child have too suffer for the mothers mistakes?
- rokhayakebe 9y agoSome things/ideas/comments are best kept in our thoughts. Your comment qualifies; I mean it as a feedback.
- efa 9y agoYeah, lets not talk about icky things like people not being responsible.
- rokhayakebe 9y agoI work in Family Law and these type of statements can be said about any group: wealthy, middle class, poor. Middle class: "That people who work all the time and never spend time with their kids are allowed to have children will always blow my mind. What is the point of having a child if you never see them." Rich: "That people who will rob their kids of their self reliance, by buying them everything they want, are allowed to have children will always blow my mind. What is the point of having child if they just end up leeching on their parents." I mean we can come with all sorts of irrational and judgmental comments.
- DanBC 9y agoRape is a thing. Failed contraception is a thing. Lack of access to contraception or abortion is a thing.
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoSo, only the wealthy should have kids? Because if you factor everything in that we "should" be doing for kids, only the wealthy could afford it. Seriously, why don't we leave the decision of who should be allowed to have kids out of the conversation and we as a society buck up and help take care of the ones who need help?
- swalsh 9y agoWhy should middle-class people be the only ones who can have children? I find it much more mysterious that we have people who work full time in this country who can't afford diapers.