5 ms·

In the vast majority of cases having a child is optional. This perfectly illustrates the problem the GP brings up. People have no concept of what agency is.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Oh for God's sake. Have a child, get dumped/divorced, now you're a single parent. Parents are supposed to be omniscient? God already has a job (and parenting didn't work out so good then either)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- eyko 8y ago
  Or your partner has a fatal disease or accident.
  - astura 8y ago
    Ideally this case would be insured; you'd also be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits.
    - greedo 8y ago
      Survivor benefits cap out at 75% of the worker's benefits. That itself caps out to $2675. So a spouse with kids would get at most $2006/month. Not horrible, but a parent with two kids would just be over the poverty level. And realistically, most people at that age would have small accrued benefits.
      - refurb 8y ago
        $2000/month is more than a lot of people in the US make working full time. I would argue $2000/month is a very significant benefit to a survivor. It’s also inflation adjusted.
        greedo 8y ago
        For a single person, sure. A single parent with 2 kids? Very scary.
- WalterSear 8y ago
  > Parents are supposed to be omniscient? The majority of single parents haven't fallen from some perfect baby making situation. They make a risky, selfish choice, usually after the fact. You shouldn't breed if your situation isn't stable. You shouldn't breed if your partner isn't 100% committed to having children. You shouldn't breed if you are living paycheck to paycheck already. Babies aren't magical. Parents aren't inherently beyond reproach. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/books/review-in-hillbilly-elegy-a-compassionate-analysis-of-the-poor-who-love-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/books/review-in-hillbilly...
  - Aeolun 8y ago
    Everyone should breed. That’s evolution.
    - WalterSear 8y ago
      That's an asinine statement. We aren't bacteria. We don't have to behave like bacteria, irregardless of one's relationship to authoritarianism or social conformity. And we should not forgive, let alone celebrate, people who do behave like bacteria.
      - randallsquared 8y ago
        It's not a nuanced statement, but it certainly isn't asinine. It's just the minimum positive effect you can have on the future -- the lowest bar, if you will. You could, with similar effect, make the same statements about bacteria in response to "People should live" or "People should thrive".
        WalterSear 8y ago
        In the context more than 75% of black children, and more than half of hispanic children being born out of wedlock, and comparable statistics for all poverty stricken population groups, calling it "the minimum positive effect you can have on the future" is a really an asinine statement. It's not a positive effect. https://cis.org/Camarota/Births-Unmarried-Mothers-Nativity-and-Education https://cis.org/Camarota/Births-Unmarried-Mothers-Nativity-a...
perfmode 8y ago
There are powerful and influential institutions in the United States which limit access to birth control, sex education, and access to abortion.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Oh for God's sake. Have a child, get dumped/divorced, now you're a single parent. Parents are supposed to be omniscient? God already has a job (and parenting didn't work out so good then either)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
eyko 8y ago
Or your partner has a fatal disease or accident.
- astura 8y ago
  Ideally this case would be insured; you'd also be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits.
  - greedo 8y ago
    Survivor benefits cap out at 75% of the worker's benefits. That itself caps out to $2675. So a spouse with kids would get at most $2006/month. Not horrible, but a parent with two kids would just be over the poverty level. And realistically, most people at that age would have small accrued benefits.
    - refurb 8y ago
      $2000/month is more than a lot of people in the US make working full time. I would argue $2000/month is a very significant benefit to a survivor. It’s also inflation adjusted.
      - greedo 8y ago
        For a single person, sure. A single parent with 2 kids? Very scary.
WalterSear 8y ago
> Parents are supposed to be omniscient? The majority of single parents haven't fallen from some perfect baby making situation. They make a risky, selfish choice, usually after the fact. You shouldn't breed if your situation isn't stable. You shouldn't breed if your partner isn't 100% committed to having children. You shouldn't breed if you are living paycheck to paycheck already. Babies aren't magical. Parents aren't inherently beyond reproach. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/books/review-in-hillbilly-elegy-a-compassionate-analysis-of-the-poor-who-love-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/books/review-in-hillbilly...
- Aeolun 8y ago
  Everyone should breed. That’s evolution.
  - WalterSear 8y ago
    That's an asinine statement. We aren't bacteria. We don't have to behave like bacteria, irregardless of one's relationship to authoritarianism or social conformity. And we should not forgive, let alone celebrate, people who do behave like bacteria.
    - randallsquared 8y ago
      It's not a nuanced statement, but it certainly isn't asinine. It's just the minimum positive effect you can have on the future -- the lowest bar, if you will. You could, with similar effect, make the same statements about bacteria in response to "People should live" or "People should thrive".
      - WalterSear 8y ago
        In the context more than 75% of black children, and more than half of hispanic children being born out of wedlock, and comparable statistics for all poverty stricken population groups, calling it "the minimum positive effect you can have on the future" is a really an asinine statement. It's not a positive effect. https://cis.org/Camarota/Births-Unmarried-Mothers-Nativity-and-Education https://cis.org/Camarota/Births-Unmarried-Mothers-Nativity-a...

perfmode 8y ago

There are powerful and influential institutions in the United States which limit access to birth control, sex education, and access to abortion.