3 ms·

> It's worth noting how taboo it is to admit that you hate your children, and thus how vastly under-reported this attitude ends up being. Then how do you know

> It's worth noting how taboo it is to admit that you hate your children, and thus how vastly under-reported this attitude ends up being. Then how do you know anyone feels that way? Where do you get your information? > wish they hadn't been forced to grow up in abject poverty That's a different question altogether. We all wish we had been born in better circumstances, but that doesn't mean we resent being alive. The solution to children growing up in abject poverty is not abortion, it's social safety nets. Nobody should have to live in abject poverty in a rich country.

falcolas 4y ago
> Then how do you know anyone feels that way? Where do you get your information? Google for "I hate my children". > [social safety nets] One solution to children growing up in poverty is a safety net - a solution that is strongly advocated against as being "socialist" by our current government. i.e. It ain't happening in our lifetime. Since that solution is not currently feasible, not having children if you can't afford them (i.e. it will put you into poverty, either from normal costs or advanced costs if the child is known to have a birth defect) is the next best solution. There are four well known methods for this, abstinence, contraception, abortion, and adoption. Abstinence is not a realistic solution, this has been shown to be the case through the centuries. Reliable contraception does not exist (or is effectively unavailable: see the crap women have to go through to get their tubes tied). It's also next up on some of the SC justices' hitlist. That leaves abortion and adoption. The first is much more affordable and less likely to kill the woman than the second. And that doesn't count the already overloaded foster care system and adoption rosters we're subjecting the children to.
- Grustaf 4y ago
  So the Democratic party are strongly advocating against safety nets to prevent children from growing up in abject poverty? Because that would be "socialist"? Regardless of abortion laws, this would seem like a basic requirement for any civilised society. I'm not sure why you would say that reliable contraception doesn't exist. Condoms are extremely effective, and cost nothing. When it comes to adoption, it is my understanding that there is a huge demand for adopted children, outstripping supply by an order of magnitude. Are you saying this is not the case?
  - diydsp 4y ago
    > Condoms are extremely effective, and cost nothing. Condoms are only 98% effective even when used correctly[1]. Women need access to abortion. [1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/male-condoms/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/male-condoms/
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      There is risk with everything in life. If someone is having sex, regardless of condom use, birth control use, vasectomy, etc., they are accepting the risk of an unplanned pregnancy. Why is it that we push for the killing of unborn persons instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions?
      - diydsp 4y ago
        > accepting the risk of an unplanned pregnancy. No, they're accepting the risk of having an abortion.
    - Grustaf 4y ago
      That's per year, not per instance. So it's really quite high.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    This isn't a partisan issue. Neither Democrats nor Republicans (the politicians, not necessarily the constituents) want safety nets. They have different reasons, but the end result is that neither side is willing to make it a reality. > Condoms are extremely effective Condoms have an 85% success rate† in the real world (98% if used perfectly, but humans are rarely perfect, especially when... emotionally compromised). That means a pregnancy a year is absolutely within reason. > it is my understanding that there is a huge demand for adopted children A case where research is easy, and worth doing. But here's what I found Google: "Of the more than 440,000 children in foster care in the United States, there are over 123,000 kids available for adoption right now. According to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, children in foster care can expect to wait an average of three years to be adopted and the average age of a foster care child is 8.5 years old." "... roughly 20,000 children “age out” of foster care each year. This means they are now legally adults without ever finding a family through adoption." That "huge demand" is for families who will only take babies, not fostered children. Historically, 2% of families in the US will adopt, meaning that even if every previously aborted fetus was carried to term and put up for adoption as a baby, there still wouldn't be enough families. EDIT: The cost to give birth, without complications, is between $5 and $15k. That's just giving birth. And the parent doesn't receive the adoption fees; that cost is on them. For the adoptive parents, a private adoption (how you get a baby) is in the $25 to $50k range††. † https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom... †† https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoptive-parents/how-to-adopt/adoption-costs/how-much-does-it-cost/ https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoptive-parents/how-to-adopt/ad...

falcolas 4y ago

> Then how do you know anyone feels that way? Where do you get your information? Google for "I hate my children". > [social safety nets] One solution to children growing up in poverty is a safety net - a solution that is strongly advocated against as being "socialist" by our current government. i.e. It ain't happening in our lifetime. Since that solution is not currently feasible, not having children if you can't afford them (i.e. it will put you into poverty, either from normal costs or advanced costs if the child is known to have a birth defect) is the next best solution. There are four well known methods for this, abstinence, contraception, abortion, and adoption. Abstinence is not a realistic solution, this has been shown to be the case through the centuries. Reliable contraception does not exist (or is effectively unavailable: see the crap women have to go through to get their tubes tied). It's also next up on some of the SC justices' hitlist. That leaves abortion and adoption. The first is much more affordable and less likely to kill the woman than the second. And that doesn't count the already overloaded foster care system and adoption rosters we're subjecting the children to.

Grustaf 4y ago
So the Democratic party are strongly advocating against safety nets to prevent children from growing up in abject poverty? Because that would be "socialist"? Regardless of abortion laws, this would seem like a basic requirement for any civilised society. I'm not sure why you would say that reliable contraception doesn't exist. Condoms are extremely effective, and cost nothing. When it comes to adoption, it is my understanding that there is a huge demand for adopted children, outstripping supply by an order of magnitude. Are you saying this is not the case?
- diydsp 4y ago
  > Condoms are extremely effective, and cost nothing. Condoms are only 98% effective even when used correctly[1]. Women need access to abortion. [1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/male-condoms/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/male-condoms/
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    There is risk with everything in life. If someone is having sex, regardless of condom use, birth control use, vasectomy, etc., they are accepting the risk of an unplanned pregnancy. Why is it that we push for the killing of unborn persons instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions?
    - diydsp 4y ago
      > accepting the risk of an unplanned pregnancy. No, they're accepting the risk of having an abortion.
  - Grustaf 4y ago
    That's per year, not per instance. So it's really quite high.
- falcolas 4y ago
  This isn't a partisan issue. Neither Democrats nor Republicans (the politicians, not necessarily the constituents) want safety nets. They have different reasons, but the end result is that neither side is willing to make it a reality. > Condoms are extremely effective Condoms have an 85% success rate† in the real world (98% if used perfectly, but humans are rarely perfect, especially when... emotionally compromised). That means a pregnancy a year is absolutely within reason. > it is my understanding that there is a huge demand for adopted children A case where research is easy, and worth doing. But here's what I found Google: "Of the more than 440,000 children in foster care in the United States, there are over 123,000 kids available for adoption right now. According to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, children in foster care can expect to wait an average of three years to be adopted and the average age of a foster care child is 8.5 years old." "... roughly 20,000 children “age out” of foster care each year. This means they are now legally adults without ever finding a family through adoption." That "huge demand" is for families who will only take babies, not fostered children. Historically, 2% of families in the US will adopt, meaning that even if every previously aborted fetus was carried to term and put up for adoption as a baby, there still wouldn't be enough families. EDIT: The cost to give birth, without complications, is between $5 and $15k. That's just giving birth. And the parent doesn't receive the adoption fees; that cost is on them. For the adoptive parents, a private adoption (how you get a baby) is in the $25 to $50k range††. † https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom... †† https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoptive-parents/how-to-adopt/adoption-costs/how-much-does-it-cost/ https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoptive-parents/how-to-adopt/ad...