4 ms·
It’s a choice between have a child now or never have any children.
by alasdair_ 4y ago
It’s a choice between have a child now or never have any children.
- vkou 4y agoWell, I'm glad that she did the thing that she wanted, at the cost of another human being getting to grow up without a mother.
- kortilla 4y agoNot a good look to argue whether a woman should have the right to reproduce. Her children will live better lives than 99% of the children on the planet despite not having their mother present until their pre-teen years.
- jinder 4y agoEr no - the loss of a mother is extremely traumatic to a child. It can lead to long term mental health issues and physical health issues.
- foldr 4y agoLots of kids suffer worse deprivations than having one parent in jail. Life is tough, but these kids probably have a better than average shot at a good life.
- jinder 4y agoAnd what makes you think that?
- foldr 4y agoThey'll be raised by a wealthy family with every material advantage in life. Some estimates have it that around 1 in 8 children in America go hungry at some point in their childhoods. So even if these kids are just fed regularly, that puts them ahead of millions of children.
- wwtrv 4y agoThe child did not lose a mother, if he/she never had one. Also she'll be out around the time the child will start elementary school. So yes the child will still be in a better spot than 99% of all children in single family households and probably than almost all in low income ones as well.
- vkou 4y agoIt's not a question of rights, since she obviously has them, it's a question of 'How fucked up is it to put your desire to have a child over that child's wellbeing.' At some point in the desire to wellbeing ratio, that equation crosses the line into 'incredibly selfish'. Children aren't just trophies for their parents.