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
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
It’s fascinating that this isn’t something that is always thrown back in the so called “pro life” person’s face. They’re only pro birth. They don’t care if the baby that comes out is fed, clothed, housed, eventually educated, etc. Or at least, they don’t believe there’s any collective responsibility to take care of that baby.
It is. They don’t care because they’re arguing in bad faith to begin with. They don’t care about children. They never did. This was about identity politics and concern trolling.
They proved this by immediately jumping to “trans panic” the instant roe was overruled by the illegitimate scotus who apparently forgot the 9th and 14th amendments even existed but they sure remembered “tradition & history”
That’s a strawman. We do.
You do. But not the politicians who actually get it into law. Also who has decided you are the spokesperson of the pro life movement?
The problem is there is a completely different perspective here. I dont want politicians to give people things like welfare not because I hate people, but because I think it turns them into dependents, and I think it actively harms them.
I agree that incorrect administration of welfare can lead to that. But thats also the politicians job to manage.
Thats also comparable to saying I don’t visit doctors I fear a mistreatment.
Its too big or a job for a politian to manage, it has to be run well at the street level.
Going to the doctor is a bad analogy, it would be more apt to compare it to someone taking pain medication because their back hurts, and they get hooked on the pain pills, but the reason their back hurts is because they are morbidly obese. We need to go after the problem, not enable the problem.
That is true we need to fix the problem. So in your analogy you would’ve stopped giving the person pain medication?
And how is the person crippled by pain supposed to stand, walk or excercise without pain medication?
I get it addition to pain medication is bad. I would assume most people know that, even those addicted. But the alternative is those people succumbing to pain, which would prevent any improvments.
Hence, yes I agree. Just throwing around money is not going to be the solution, but so is also not giving any.
Sorry, if you are not able to apply that analogy, I dont care to re explain every scenerio.
Conservatives want live babies to grow up to be dead soldiers. George Carlin
Maybe true in the 90s, but now the liberals seem to be just as war hungry.
*per year
Thanks for pointing it out. I corrected the post.
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.
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.
We should prioritise supporting the creation of more human lives
something something Bootstraps something something worked my way to the top
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are two completely separate issues that dont make sense to combine unless you just want to use it as a weapon. The question is if the fetus is “sacred” and deserves rights, if so then you cant kill it.
Bullshit. You can’t deem life “sacred” for fetuses while completely ignoring the existing lives that are snuffed out, violated, exploited, etc. How can life be sacred at birth without life as a whole being sacred as a prerequisite?
And yet, we ignore the fact that there are children who literally don’t get to eat food every day in a country that calls itself the greatest on earth… Children who can’t access healthcare, children who die in shootings, children who die because people won’t vaccinate their own kids, children who commit suicide feeling they can’t be accepted. Are their lives no longer sacred, now that they’ve emerged from the womb?
If potential life is being considered as sacred, then existing life must first be considered sacred.
Who said all human life was not sacred? Who said I dont care about all of those things?
One does not preclude the other. Human life is sacred from conception to death.
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.
If they were the men who would get pregnant, there would be free abortion services in any hardware store.
Make it an abortion kit
“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.”
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!
So you say … poor people should get an abortion?
“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.
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.
Yes, free health-care. Positive freedom in general is needed if you like choice.
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.
What we SHOULDN’T do is take away their right to one if they so choose.
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.
Nice strawman, try again
