Raising a child costs between $13k[2] and $35k[1] per year in the USA – depending on where you live and who you ask.
With a minimum wage job ($7.25/hr) you need to work about 5 to 13 hours per day to make that much – before taxes.
[1] https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/cost-raise-child-2023
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/090415/cost-raising-child-america.asp
Use condoms, it’ll always be cheaper than an abortion.
Vasectomies are cheaper than condoms in the long run, unless you’re a monk.
Mine cost me $20 in copay, not bad at all!
Yes and we should. We should also make childcare free.
It can’t be free.
What you’re actually saying is that “childcare should be communally funded by taxes”.
I’m not on board with that unless it comes with limits on reproduction, especially for those who pay zero taxes.
Stop creating more human lives when you can’t even independently support your own.
We should prioritise supporting the creation of more human lives
First of all you’ll be really happy with all those babies when you turn 80 and society hasn’t fallen because the average age is 70.
Second, when childcare is free more people can join the workforce, this increases taxes and productivity.
But maybe the most important it will make society more equal. When you’re poor working almost doesn’t make sense if you have to spend 80% of your salary on childcare. So more people don’t work, these people are usually women. That really doesn’t help with an equal society, because a big group can’t really work so they can’t really climb any ladders.
If they were the men who would get pregnant, there would be free abortion services in any hardware store.
Make it an abortion kit
Usually when pro-lifers try to fight for this, that gets censured heavily.
I know someone with 11 kids and 3 grandkids. He only just received a raise to ~50k which is more than he’s made in his entire adult life. I know many people in similar situations including my own family. While it may be a struggle, children can be raised when household income is at or below poverty level. Don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise. Money (or lack there of) will never justify killing a child.
At a bare minimum there is adoption. Thousands of couples can’t conceive and would love to adopt.
Adoption is not the silver bullet people seem to think it is. If the baby isn’t white, or has health problems, there’s a much higher chance they’ll end up in the foster care system.
Separately, carrying a pregnancy and giving birth are extremely dangerous. Depending on which state you look at, American women face the highest maternal death rate in the developed world. Also, the leading cause of death of pregnant women in America is intimate partner homicide, and intimate partner violence frequently escalates during pregnancy. How does adoption fix those problems?
Uncertainty and risk are ever present and bringing a child into adverse circumstances is scary. I don’t have any silver bullets to address the multitude of problems you listed. I do know, however, that if we treat every human life as precious, in utero and out, child and adult, that we will live in a better world. If we live in the truthful acknowledgment of the sanctity of life then we will have to forge a better future for the children that are deserving of their chance in life no matter what hardship awaits them. Our judgment is imperfect and shouldn’t dictate whether anyone, particularly an innocent, dies.
Then you and the people that agree with you on what constitutes the beginning of human life need to be fighting tooth and nail for social services and social welfare programs to support people before, during, and after pregnancy/birth. “Life begins at conception” and “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” are fundamentally opposing ideals unless they are only backed by cruelty, cognitive dissonance, and hate.
If you truly believe that all life is sacred, and that life begins with conception, you need to be turning around and fighting the people beside you on the importance of supporting the humans that are outside the womb.
Y’all need to get cracking on those incubators that can grow a whole-ass child from a couple of cells outside of a human womb. Otherwise, you’re just advocating for modern-day slavery. Poor look, my dude.
Abortion is not “killing a child”.
The ignorance you’ve displayed here is astounding and sad.
You should never be allowed to control other people’s medical procedures.
Right wing policies hurt women every time.
What you’re doing here is the exact same as them: no discussion possible. The only valid viewpoint is yours. The end. And you also add a verdict to your sentence.
I agree with them. You dont kill (cull) a child because of money. You never kill a child.
I also agree with you that a fetus is not a child. And that abortion is not evil or bad.
See? Both can be true.
Many would be surprised to learn that “god” or “nature” have aborted more pregnancies than there are humans alive.
So you say … poor people should get an abortion?
Or how about poor people should be given a living wage?
But what if they are not valuable enough to earn a living wage?
I beg your pardon?
Every job needs a living wage. Anything else is wage slavery. Seriously, what are you, a 1910 coal mine overseer?
A living wage for all benefits both people and the economy; that’s been proven over and over again. All people are worthy of being able to support themselves and a family, for heaven’s sake.
Let me rephrase; what if that person does not bring in enough value to an employer to be worth the amount that you think they should be paid?
And again, that’s just wage slavery done up in a different bow.
Payment for a job is you not wanting to do it or being unable to do it, so you hire someone to do it. If they do the job, they can’t do something else, so you pay them enough to make it worth their time. You support them so they can help you. If you can’t pay them enough to support them, then do the damn job yourself.
Seriously, why are you so against people getting a living wage? It used to be even grocery checkstand workers could afford a decent place. Back then our economy was better too.
We’ve done it before, and it worked. Other countries today do it and it works - see the wages for McDonald’s workers in Denmark as an example.
The only thing taking away living wages does is force people into wage slavery to line the pockets of the rich to a ridiculous degree. It’s not sustainable and it benefits no-one but a few people who don’t need that money anyways.
First problem is that “living wage” is a meaningless term because it will very by multiples depending on where you live and your family size/structure. The next problem is that people dont just do a job that needs to be done, they can literally be worth less than you pay them. If they keep making mistakes, or you cant trust that they will correctly do the job or whatever. It can just not be worth the money or extra labor to employ them.
What you should do your in your scenario is fire them, not exploit them.
Right, which is, as the other person said, why you fire them if they don’t do a good job. You don’t keep a mistake-maker and pay them less, you hire someone who can do the job and pay them well.
And how is it ‘meaningless’? You just defined it: a wage allowing someone to live in the place they’re located. So yes, it changes from place to place. That’s not ‘meaningless’, it’s ‘regional’. And you should still pay someone a living wage.
I don’t understand why you’re so opposed to it. Why do you want people suffering and in poverty for providing services? If you work, you should be able to eat and live, full stop. Even if it’s only in the cheaper parts of your town.
OP didn’t say that at all… They only pointed out how expensive raising a child is and that people will make the decision that is in their best interests.
You don’t need to explicitly write something down to say something.
Nice strawman, try again
“Should” is not the operative word.
“Have the choice to” get an abortion is the operative phrase.
Yes, that’s obvious. People should always have a choice. The choice should just not be based on their income alone.
Yes, free health-care. Positive freedom in general is needed if you like choice.
The choice is not yours so you can’t say what it should or shouldn’t be based on.
That’s not what I meant. Income should just be irrelevant when making the choice.
Income can’t be irrelevant, you do need to provide for that child. Only if poor people didn’t have a problem to do so would it be irrelevant.
If a woman abort because she really doesn’t want the financial trouble, it’s not wrong. Furthermore, having the right to choose means she could even have bad reasons without it being wrong.
Now if you ask me, the meme isn’t really about the choice itself. Poor people often choose to have a kid regardless, most women are wise enough to know it’s worth it. I think the real problem is how harder it is for them to take that choice.
What we SHOULDN’T do is take away their right to one if they so choose.
More proof it’s more punishment than concern for the baby. To them, sex is a sin unless for procreation and your punishment for having sex for fun or while poor (or sexually assaulted) is that you have to bear the burden because you sinned. They can’t handle their own sexual shit because it’s not allowed to be talked about, so they make us all deal with it. She doesn’t want to have her 3rd baby, but she’s a good Christian woman who can’t say no to her husband, so she has to have it, and she wants other women to have to have it too. The fawning over babies and speaking to the “sacredness of life” is the facade they wear because it sounds more “Christian”.
Oh that and, male power over women’s bodies. Because, you never know, that mystery pregnancy you got after the club might just be Jesus! Zeus came as coins ffs, so God may appear to the new Mary as rohypnol. Who knows?
This isn’t proof, it’s a strawman argument.
A lot of the issues here can be side-stepped with proper sexual education classes.
No amount of education is going to side step getting fucked in the ass like working for minimum wage.
They also tried to sterelize the lupenproletariat and it didn’t end well.
Plus, no matter how many destitute families expire, they refill the servitor ranks with brain draining the rest of the planet.
Because without maintaining an excess supply of working hands, the marginal cost of labour would explode. And the rich want their latté.
All this to say, the low wages are kept low by design.It’s the very reason for all the assfuckery.
So no, it won’t be solved by getting the poors to fuck less and have less kids.
Literally.
Its not too late to offer him a razor to shave off his eyebrows.
*per year
Thanks for pointing it out. I corrected the post.
“No, god won’t stop abortions from happening, but he makes sure that all wealthy people are good and all poor people are bad and deserve it.”
I’m not advocating insane gop’ers, it’s up to the woman, but they’d say it’s about not killing a kid. They’d go up for adoption which is very successful in the US. They are insane assholes but this is a pretty weak argument IMO.
Honestly, I hope this all gets pushed through. My salary adjustment would be glorious. Otherwise, I’m quitting my job and watering flowers at Lowe’s. No need for all the stress when I’m barely making above minimum wage at that point.
something something Bootstraps something something worked my way to the top
