5 ms·

Apparently, family planning is rocket science. What is your rational definition of "appropriate resources"? Public school? Public school in a better but more e

Apparently, family planning is rocket science. What is your rational definition of "appropriate resources"? Public school? Public school in a better but more expensive district? Extracurriculars? Tutoring? Private school? Fully supported university education? Love is not rational... it's giving your all and more for someone that matters. Workaholics are not inherently good parents, but good parents do go the "extra" mile to improve their child's life.

WalterSear 8y ago
It's not. Saying it is doesn't make it so. Neither does thousands of people choosing misery for themselves and their children. Just like physical health, people very much want family planning to be complicated, because it allows them more room to rationalize short-sighted, self-gratifying decisions. Appropriate resources are resources that give you the space to be healthily present for yourself and your child. It means time and money, or more specifically, the money to buy time. Love is not having a baby. You can't love someone who doesn't exist, and making someone to love if you don't have the money to take care of you both is equal parts selfish and self-defeating.
- losteric 8y ago
  This is the quote you responded to: >The older folks with the desk jobs are often quite literally sacrificing their own well-being for their family's, "deprioritizing their health" for another priority. We are not talking about impoverished one-night-stands having babies out of ignorance of contraceptives. These are tech workers who are well-off but still intentionally sacrifice their long-term quality of life in order to improve their children's. I will probably fall in that group, I had to work through college and want to ensure my child does not. It's a probabilistic utilitarian argument, my cumulative change in quality of life gained from switching to a less demanding career is less than what my child gains from the freedom to explore more opportunities in college (plus my joy at seeing their happiness). Of course, love is an essential part of that calculation. I would not make those sacrifices for some arbitrary child.

WalterSear 8y ago

It's not. Saying it is doesn't make it so. Neither does thousands of people choosing misery for themselves and their children. Just like physical health, people very much want family planning to be complicated, because it allows them more room to rationalize short-sighted, self-gratifying decisions. Appropriate resources are resources that give you the space to be healthily present for yourself and your child. It means time and money, or more specifically, the money to buy time. Love is not having a baby. You can't love someone who doesn't exist, and making someone to love if you don't have the money to take care of you both is equal parts selfish and self-defeating.

losteric 8y ago
This is the quote you responded to: >The older folks with the desk jobs are often quite literally sacrificing their own well-being for their family's, "deprioritizing their health" for another priority. We are not talking about impoverished one-night-stands having babies out of ignorance of contraceptives. These are tech workers who are well-off but still intentionally sacrifice their long-term quality of life in order to improve their children's. I will probably fall in that group, I had to work through college and want to ensure my child does not. It's a probabilistic utilitarian argument, my cumulative change in quality of life gained from switching to a less demanding career is less than what my child gains from the freedom to explore more opportunities in college (plus my joy at seeing their happiness). Of course, love is an essential part of that calculation. I would not make those sacrifices for some arbitrary child.