4 ms·

As a general rule parents are responsible for their own children that they have in all societies, by default. That’s part of the responsibility of having kids.

by SllX 4y ago

As a general rule parents are responsible for their own children that they have in all societies, by default. That’s part of the responsibility of having kids. Taking too much of that responsibility out of parents hands makes it less consequential for them to have children, and puts the public on the hook for individual choices. Inevitably that will lead to rising costs and I would put money down on someone somewhere coming up with really inane ideas like one-child policies or licensing down the line, either because of the rising costs or using them as a fig leaf to cover up their real political stance against population growth (because we’ve socialized one of the largest costs of having children and made it cheaper for would-be parents who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford the responsibility to have more children). I’m still in the camp of holding parents responsible for their choices, and I’ve suffered the consequences of my mother’s choices. Not every child’s upbringing is going to be happy or occur under ideal circumstances but that’s part of life too. EDIT: I should also add, none of this is commentary on the UK’s political scene. I don’t have a stance on their domestic societal concerns which is what the original story was concerned with. Just addressing the parent’s question.

celticninja 4y ago
> Taking too much of that responsibility out of parents hands makes it less consequential for them to have children If you are a parent you would know this is BS. Sending them to school and feeding them at school is hardly a significant consequence. Its not like if free school meals come along everyone is going to start having more children. Also children are required by law to be in school. I am not opting out of my parental responsibilities by sending them there. Further, your whole point is that it may make it easier for people to have more kids so we should not do that, even if the cost is children (who had no say in their birth) having to be hungry and suffer through choices of their parents (who birthed them) and the government (who require them to be in school). Sounds to me like you want to punish the children for the mistakes of their parents.
- SllX 4y ago
  Hi. Please note I didn’t address mandatory schooling or any of the issues downstream from that. The parent raised a point about defaulting to three-square meals a day for all children which was an extension or addition to existing school lunch programs. Please re-read what I said with that context in mind if you want to have a productive conversation. I’m also fine just leaving it at that. Children will always suffer the consequences of their parents including the choice to have them; and the choice to have children (or not), like pretty much all human actions is an economic one. Sometimes a poorly thought out economic choice, and sometimes not really thought through. Right now it is expensive to have children, and a large part of that expense is just food and shelter. Parents that can’t provide that tend to have their children taken away by the State, and the children have no say in that. Does that suck? Yes it does, I have been in my State’s foster care system, and I got out of it lightly when my mother figured out how to take some responsibility. This does not mean it is the public’s duty to insure against all the poor life choices people may make including having children they ultimately cannot afford. I’m basically okay with school lunch systems, because of the mandatory schooling requirement, but remember, what I addressed was an extension of that.
- humanrebar 4y ago
  There's a large and growing (especially post COVID) movement in the U.S. to opt out of public schools in favor of alternative schooling options. > Sounds to me like you want to punish the children for the mistakes of their parents. It's more that I don't expect governments to be little gods and solve all problems for their people. Sometimes life is hard, and that's unfortunate, but it's not a given that we can really move the needle on suffering through large organizational action. Often it's most impactful for individuals and small communities to step in and care for the most vulnerable. It will be more personal, holistic, and coherent. Big organizations can sometimes get in the way of that kind of personal compassion. For example, public schools have less patience to let compassionate individuals interact with kids on school grounds these days. Even parents are often excluded from the school grounds.
conductr 4y ago
I think a lot of this is solved if you make the parents pay that can. For example, if I pay $3 for a meal that cost only $1 to prepare then they can feed 2 other kids with the “profit”. Only people with kids should pay. Childless people shouldn’t bear the burden even though they benefit from fed kids. That keeps the politics at bay. The kids shouldn’t know anything about it. Who’s really paying and who is not. It also needs to work as a large network so that 100% paid schools subsidize 100% free schools.
yamtaddle 4y ago
> (because we’ve socialized one of the largest costs of having children and made it cheaper for would-be parents who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford the responsibility to have more children). Food is really, really far from being one of the highest costs of having children. I guess maybe it's the highest-cost thing that isn't one of the high-cost things, if that makes sense. Housing, healthcare, and childcare (= lost wages & benefits if a parent stays home, so still incredibly expensive) are so far ahead of everything else that most of the other typical expenses barely matter as far as the "have a kid or don't" decision. Healthcare in particular is the one you're taking out a reverse-lottery-ticket on every time you have a kid. They come out with serious chronic health problems, congrats, your annual spending is now 20+% higher indefinitely. And a decent chance you'll be declaring bankruptcy pretty soon. We could have fed each of our kids for several years just from the medical costs of their entirely uncomplicated pregnancies and births. And we had insurance. Above-average insurance for our area, for a couple of them, even. [EDIT] US perspective, of course. Some or all of these three very-expensive categories are taken care of by the public, to one degree or another, in ~all other developed states.
- SllX 4y ago
  Those are very middle class cost breakdowns. At a low enough income bracket you basically don’t pay for health care or child care because you simply don’t have it, or you rely on family, assistance programs and charities. The after school program was effectively my “daycare” through the end of 4th grade post-Foster care and what I did after school after that was basically on me. The City was my oyster. I also went without medical care as a teenager. In this simplified environment, childcare and medical care (at least pre-Obamacare) are luxuries you do without, so shelter and food take precedence as the preeminent costs at that point (for some extra irony, we were just past the cutoff point for school lunch from my Middle School years onwards). Life is tougher that way, but it’s survivable.
taylodl 4y ago
That's a fine sentiment in the civilized world but here in the United States women's bodies are controlled by the government - and so is their decision to have children. You got impregnated by a rapist? Sorry, tough shit! Then whenever it comes time to actually support the children they forced to be born they come back with this it was your choice to have the child so it's your responsibility to care for it! Grrrr! That really grinds my gears!

by SllX 4y ago

celticninja 4y ago

> Taking too much of that responsibility out of parents hands makes it less consequential for them to have children If you are a parent you would know this is BS. Sending them to school and feeding them at school is hardly a significant consequence. Its not like if free school meals come along everyone is going to start having more children. Also children are required by law to be in school. I am not opting out of my parental responsibilities by sending them there. Further, your whole point is that it may make it easier for people to have more kids so we should not do that, even if the cost is children (who had no say in their birth) having to be hungry and suffer through choices of their parents (who birthed them) and the government (who require them to be in school). Sounds to me like you want to punish the children for the mistakes of their parents.

SllX 4y ago
Hi. Please note I didn’t address mandatory schooling or any of the issues downstream from that. The parent raised a point about defaulting to three-square meals a day for all children which was an extension or addition to existing school lunch programs. Please re-read what I said with that context in mind if you want to have a productive conversation. I’m also fine just leaving it at that. Children will always suffer the consequences of their parents including the choice to have them; and the choice to have children (or not), like pretty much all human actions is an economic one. Sometimes a poorly thought out economic choice, and sometimes not really thought through. Right now it is expensive to have children, and a large part of that expense is just food and shelter. Parents that can’t provide that tend to have their children taken away by the State, and the children have no say in that. Does that suck? Yes it does, I have been in my State’s foster care system, and I got out of it lightly when my mother figured out how to take some responsibility. This does not mean it is the public’s duty to insure against all the poor life choices people may make including having children they ultimately cannot afford. I’m basically okay with school lunch systems, because of the mandatory schooling requirement, but remember, what I addressed was an extension of that.
humanrebar 4y ago
There's a large and growing (especially post COVID) movement in the U.S. to opt out of public schools in favor of alternative schooling options. > Sounds to me like you want to punish the children for the mistakes of their parents. It's more that I don't expect governments to be little gods and solve all problems for their people. Sometimes life is hard, and that's unfortunate, but it's not a given that we can really move the needle on suffering through large organizational action. Often it's most impactful for individuals and small communities to step in and care for the most vulnerable. It will be more personal, holistic, and coherent. Big organizations can sometimes get in the way of that kind of personal compassion. For example, public schools have less patience to let compassionate individuals interact with kids on school grounds these days. Even parents are often excluded from the school grounds.

conductr 4y ago

I think a lot of this is solved if you make the parents pay that can. For example, if I pay $3 for a meal that cost only $1 to prepare then they can feed 2 other kids with the “profit”. Only people with kids should pay. Childless people shouldn’t bear the burden even though they benefit from fed kids. That keeps the politics at bay. The kids shouldn’t know anything about it. Who’s really paying and who is not. It also needs to work as a large network so that 100% paid schools subsidize 100% free schools.

yamtaddle 4y ago

> (because we’ve socialized one of the largest costs of having children and made it cheaper for would-be parents who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford the responsibility to have more children). Food is really, really far from being one of the highest costs of having children. I guess maybe it's the highest-cost thing that isn't one of the high-cost things, if that makes sense. Housing, healthcare, and childcare (= lost wages & benefits if a parent stays home, so still incredibly expensive) are so far ahead of everything else that most of the other typical expenses barely matter as far as the "have a kid or don't" decision. Healthcare in particular is the one you're taking out a reverse-lottery-ticket on every time you have a kid. They come out with serious chronic health problems, congrats, your annual spending is now 20+% higher indefinitely. And a decent chance you'll be declaring bankruptcy pretty soon. We could have fed each of our kids for several years just from the medical costs of their entirely uncomplicated pregnancies and births. And we had insurance. Above-average insurance for our area, for a couple of them, even. [EDIT] US perspective, of course. Some or all of these three very-expensive categories are taken care of by the public, to one degree or another, in ~all other developed states.

SllX 4y ago
Those are very middle class cost breakdowns. At a low enough income bracket you basically don’t pay for health care or child care because you simply don’t have it, or you rely on family, assistance programs and charities. The after school program was effectively my “daycare” through the end of 4th grade post-Foster care and what I did after school after that was basically on me. The City was my oyster. I also went without medical care as a teenager. In this simplified environment, childcare and medical care (at least pre-Obamacare) are luxuries you do without, so shelter and food take precedence as the preeminent costs at that point (for some extra irony, we were just past the cutoff point for school lunch from my Middle School years onwards). Life is tougher that way, but it’s survivable.

taylodl 4y ago

That's a fine sentiment in the civilized world but here in the United States women's bodies are controlled by the government - and so is their decision to have children. You got impregnated by a rapist? Sorry, tough shit! Then whenever it comes time to actually support the children they forced to be born they come back with this it was your choice to have the child so it's your responsibility to care for it! Grrrr! That really grinds my gears!