The debate "Is it irresponsible for a deeply deprived family to bring a child into the world" was started by
August 27, 2016, 3:23 pm.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
RogueAmerican posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
neveralone posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
RogueAmerican, TheProudWeirdo, jack_tim_45, wdz, Mohit050, SalonY, SirIntegra, fishermo20, bigbuttgal and 3 visitors agree.
thereal, neveralone and 4 visitors disagree.
is that something u should have the power to choose? why not help them instead?
If parents are unable to give their beloved children selter,fire,cloths & bread they shouldnot bring them to the world
There is a certain responsibility of the parent, and if they cannot uphold it, they should not have children. But i say that if they intend on abusing their children.
What about a child being brought into a mentally or physically abusive environment, and in a 1st world economic environment, such as the US?
If there is an opportunity to correct economic status, then they are irresponsible in having that child. In the US, children are children. In other places, children are farm hands.
so if the culture or environment changes to one which is less difficult for a child, then would you deem it acceptable?
I feel it would have to depend on the culture. What else is there beyond poverty in the 3rd world?
So would it still be considered irresponsible for a child to be born into a family in extreme poverty where they will be brought up to work in dire conditions and live a difficult life?
Maybe it depends on the intention. Children, in the past of poor/growing economies have been aids. You would have children to manage the estate and provide extra help to you. The same for industrial settings: children were another income into the house.
Even the US went through this system, and it was the cultural norm for nearly every family; however, in the US in the current day, that is almost impossible. It has to be irresponsibility, not financial planning since child labor has been attacked and abolished from culture.
It also I feel boils down to the society itself: in the US if you have a child you cant support (as is the responsibility of the parent), you are depriving yourself and the child of success in relation to the rest of the US. In third world countries, you arent having children just to have them, but also because they are economic aids.
That's a fascinating point. Ill have to think about it
I understand the point you make, it is very sound. I am not against the point you make, I just want to flesh out the view. Would you apply the same level of irresponsibly for those who are in a constant state of poverty, such as those who live in extreme poverty in 3rd world countries?
Raising a child is a labor intensive and expensive thing to do. It is almost like buying a house, it would be irresponsible to buy that house without the means to pay mortgages. Children also bring another factor into the issue because they arent a house, they are animate. If you cant support your child, you are subjecting them to a hard life, and if extreme deprivation, fertile grounds for a corrupt morality.
No, Im not. I purely want to understand people's opinions on the topic at hand
Yes, but are you pivoting this to an argument on abortion?