3 ms·

Some considerations: 1) We prioritize the lives and minds that are here over potential lives. Letting a child die so he can have more classmates to mourn him s

by yterdy 3y ago

Some considerations: 1) We prioritize the lives and minds that are here over potential lives. Letting a child die so he can have more classmates to mourn him seems perverse. 2) As with many relaxed regulations, I suspect that it will result in disparate negative impact to poor people. (I only skimmed the article; feel free to call me out if this is addressed). 3) This is American Bizarro World where the answer to, "Families can't have kids because they can't transport them," is, "Let some of the kids die in vehicular accidents," instead of, "Build public transit that is both safer for all involved and also allows any number of familial transit configurations, including 'mom and dad and like 8 kids' and 'a smaller 10-year-old who would be otherwise relegated to a car seat able to travel alone.'"

lo_zamoyski 3y ago
> We prioritize the lives and minds that are here over potential lives. Sure, but that fails to consider the context and the broader point of living. The point of living isn't to maximize safety at all costs and sacrifice everything else at its altar. The context is that declining birth rates are a major problem, so if it were the case that car seats dramatically affect birth rates, this is an important thing to consider. The bit about letting children die and mourning is an empty appeal to emotion that I will justifiably ignore. > As with many relaxed regulations, I suspect that it will result in disparate negative impact to poor people. And you didn't specify why. Why would this negatively impact the poor? Blanket statements that appeal to emotionally charged subjects like the poor are don't contribute any substance. The author points to the cost of car seats. They're not cheap. Having to buy them certainly affects the poor. Now you have less money for your kids, or you're being coerced into having less than the rich because you cannot afford a larger car. > Build public transit that is both safer for all involved and also allows any number of familial transit configurations. I agree that there is underinvestment in public transportation in the US, but once again, you'll handwaving and speaking from a position that's disconnected from reality as it is. The US isn't going to suddenly build up a huge base of public infrastructure. The urban planning and "rhythms of life" dosn't even accommodate this possibility easily. And even in Europe, where public transportation is much better, people living in rural or suburban areas don't necessarily have great access to public transportation. Furthermore, have you tried shuffling a bunch of kids around by public transportation? You want to carry all the stuff they might need? Even people in cities find cars a huge help in those cases. If car seat laws are indeed a major contributing factor to plummeting birth rates, then it makes sense to consider repealing them, especially if car seats don't provide any real safety[0]. Or if we can change car seat belts to accommodate the very young in a way that doesn't require car seats (and where more children can be fitted in the back seat), that, too, would be great. [0] https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/child-safety-car-seats/story?id=8867880 https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/child-safety-car-seats/...
- sottol 3y ago
  As GP said, Minivan and compact SUVs are similarly priced. Yet the populace chooses the former. If being forced to drive a minivan makes parents choose not to have a 3rd child, then it's really not about car seats it's such a minor inconvenience. Deregulation fan is just arguing for deregulation here, I doubt we'd see a marked increase in fertility rates from this. There's a lot more to consider. How many bedrooms does your house have? Are your kids gonna share? Bathrooms? Fridge space? Can they afford 20+% extra food budget, clothing? Time to take 3 kids to extracurriculars? Summer camps cost more. Do they like to travel, that extra kid is another full seat at the age they consider nixing child seats. More kids are much more inconvenient, it's just a fact. Besides, there are several 3-across car seat options that can be found with just a tad bit of research. We can fit 3 kids spanning 5y age diff into the back of our compact e-Golf.

by yterdy 3y ago

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

> We prioritize the lives and minds that are here over potential lives. Sure, but that fails to consider the context and the broader point of living. The point of living isn't to maximize safety at all costs and sacrifice everything else at its altar. The context is that declining birth rates are a major problem, so if it were the case that car seats dramatically affect birth rates, this is an important thing to consider. The bit about letting children die and mourning is an empty appeal to emotion that I will justifiably ignore. > As with many relaxed regulations, I suspect that it will result in disparate negative impact to poor people. And you didn't specify why. Why would this negatively impact the poor? Blanket statements that appeal to emotionally charged subjects like the poor are don't contribute any substance. The author points to the cost of car seats. They're not cheap. Having to buy them certainly affects the poor. Now you have less money for your kids, or you're being coerced into having less than the rich because you cannot afford a larger car. > Build public transit that is both safer for all involved and also allows any number of familial transit configurations. I agree that there is underinvestment in public transportation in the US, but once again, you'll handwaving and speaking from a position that's disconnected from reality as it is. The US isn't going to suddenly build up a huge base of public infrastructure. The urban planning and "rhythms of life" dosn't even accommodate this possibility easily. And even in Europe, where public transportation is much better, people living in rural or suburban areas don't necessarily have great access to public transportation. Furthermore, have you tried shuffling a bunch of kids around by public transportation? You want to carry all the stuff they might need? Even people in cities find cars a huge help in those cases. If car seat laws are indeed a major contributing factor to plummeting birth rates, then it makes sense to consider repealing them, especially if car seats don't provide any real safety[0]. Or if we can change car seat belts to accommodate the very young in a way that doesn't require car seats (and where more children can be fitted in the back seat), that, too, would be great. [0] https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/child-safety-car-seats/story?id=8867880 https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/child-safety-car-seats/...

sottol 3y ago
As GP said, Minivan and compact SUVs are similarly priced. Yet the populace chooses the former. If being forced to drive a minivan makes parents choose not to have a 3rd child, then it's really not about car seats it's such a minor inconvenience. Deregulation fan is just arguing for deregulation here, I doubt we'd see a marked increase in fertility rates from this. There's a lot more to consider. How many bedrooms does your house have? Are your kids gonna share? Bathrooms? Fridge space? Can they afford 20+% extra food budget, clothing? Time to take 3 kids to extracurriculars? Summer camps cost more. Do they like to travel, that extra kid is another full seat at the age they consider nixing child seats. More kids are much more inconvenient, it's just a fact. Besides, there are several 3-across car seat options that can be found with just a tad bit of research. We can fit 3 kids spanning 5y age diff into the back of our compact e-Golf.