How society convinced us that childbearing is morally wrong without a fat budget.
Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column offering you a unique framework for thinking through your moral dilemmas. It’s based on value pluralism — the idea that each of us has multiple values that are equally valid but that often conflict with each other. To submit a question, fill out this anonymous form. Here’s this week’s question from a reader, condensed and edited for clarity:
The last few years have been financially hard for our family. My husband and I are both working and building up a business. It’s been slow and the financial damages are going to take a while to recoup. We are relying on government assistance to help support our family of six.
Crazy as it sounds to most people, we’d like to have another child before it’s too late as I’m already in the upper ranges of my childbearing years. I keep feeling like it’s irresponsible to have another child because we are on government assistance, even though we have a roof over our heads, everyone is healthy, and there’s food on the table. We have a wonderful support system and we spend time with each child individually.
I’m worried, though, what friends and family might think of us if we have another. Is it unreasonable or morally wrong to bring another child into the world when we are poor? I know people who think it’s wrong to have more kids if you can’t fully fund college 529s for those you have, but that seems a bit extreme. So where do we draw the line morally?
...read more at archive.is
pull down to refresh
related posts
Fuck 'em! It's your life. If you want more kids and you're a good parent, then have more kids
I'm with you. We shouldn't have to deal with that social BS. It's different now, but where I grew up, you were the weirdo if you had less than 5 kids.
I hope people start having big families again, especially if they aren't doing it for these kinds of reasons.
It's seems only the poor are having kids these days.
Exactly this, especially in the UK. Seems like the only people actively popping them out are thick as shit and looking to get as many government payouts as possible.
Meanwhile, the couples that are actually responsible are taking longer to try and be as financially secure as possible and are thinking about how they can make the best life possible for any future kids. but they end up waiting sometimes forever as inflation destroys everything.
Idiocracy calling!
Well, not going to lie, raising kids is not a Walmart discount transaction. It's a lifelong commitment. And, yes, there are expenses. There are more expenses if you give a darn about them and you want them to really succeed. It's not so expensive if you just offload them at age 18 birthday (but most people don't do that because they give a darn).
Anyone who says it's morally wrong to have kids -- tell them it's morally wrong for them to accept social security if they don't have kids.
Yes, kids were the original Social Security. 4 or 5 kids can care for two aging parents (esp if mom and dad have little / no debt).
The collapse of family sizes (was that natural or environmentally induced?) dovetails completely with the rise of the social security state.
The answer to this question is always yes if you even ask it and you should ignore it.