5 ms·

If the parents do not have the resources to give the child a stable and healthy upbringing (becouse you want to save money), it will lead to a much higher risk

If the parents do not have the resources to give the child a stable and healthy upbringing (becouse you want to save money), it will lead to a much higher risk of destructive outcomes like poverty, disease and crime. All of which you will have to pay for later via your taxes, in one way or another. It's my firm belief that you are short-sighted in this regard, and that your way of prioritizing will lead to worse outcomes for everyone involved, including yourself. Not to mention you seem a bit indifferent to the suffering of children, but that is beside the point. Giving our children a good start in life is an investment for the future, just like spending money to educate children in school is an investment for the future.

dependenttypes 6y ago
> If the parents do not have the resources to give the child a stable and healthy upbringing ... they should use birth control or abort. > All of which you will have to pay for later via your taxes This is true only for crime, but it should still be cheaper per person compared to the alternatives. > Not to mention you seem a bit indifferent to the suffering of children I simply do not consider the suffering of children above the suffering of adults - forcing taxpayers and employers to pay maternity leave causes that. > our children "our" children? I would gladly pay for my children if I had kids, but I do not. > just like spending money to educate children in school is an investment for the future. One that should be left up to the parents to pay for (I would also consider school to be child abuse but this is besides the point).
- i_cannot_hack 6y ago
  > [School] should be left up to the parents to pay for So you would enjoy living in a society were the children of the poor enter adulthood illiterate and completely uneducated, without the basic life skills necessary in a modern society. I think our worldviews are simply too different for us to come to an understanding here. All I can say is that you present yourself as a very unsympathetic person.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > So you would enjoy living in a society were the children of the poor If you do not have enough money to pay for your children then you should not have any. > enter adulthood illiterate You do not need schools to educate someone (an extremely limited amount of the stuff that I learned came from school, it was certainly not worth what I had to endure there). Nowadays we have the internet, in the past we had libraries, in addition they always had their own families to educate them. > All I can say is that you present yourself as a very unsympathetic person I could say the same for you. After all you do not seem to care about the employer that has to pay multiple employees who do not work at all due to maternity leave nor do you care about the taxpayer.
    - postingawayonhn 6y ago
      > If you do not have enough money to pay for your children then you should not have any. And if they have them anyway you suggest we punish the children?
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        No, why would we?
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dependenttypes 6y ago

> If the parents do not have the resources to give the child a stable and healthy upbringing ... they should use birth control or abort. > All of which you will have to pay for later via your taxes This is true only for crime, but it should still be cheaper per person compared to the alternatives. > Not to mention you seem a bit indifferent to the suffering of children I simply do not consider the suffering of children above the suffering of adults - forcing taxpayers and employers to pay maternity leave causes that. > our children "our" children? I would gladly pay for my children if I had kids, but I do not. > just like spending money to educate children in school is an investment for the future. One that should be left up to the parents to pay for (I would also consider school to be child abuse but this is besides the point).

i_cannot_hack 6y ago
> [School] should be left up to the parents to pay for So you would enjoy living in a society were the children of the poor enter adulthood illiterate and completely uneducated, without the basic life skills necessary in a modern society. I think our worldviews are simply too different for us to come to an understanding here. All I can say is that you present yourself as a very unsympathetic person.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > So you would enjoy living in a society were the children of the poor If you do not have enough money to pay for your children then you should not have any. > enter adulthood illiterate You do not need schools to educate someone (an extremely limited amount of the stuff that I learned came from school, it was certainly not worth what I had to endure there). Nowadays we have the internet, in the past we had libraries, in addition they always had their own families to educate them. > All I can say is that you present yourself as a very unsympathetic person I could say the same for you. After all you do not seem to care about the employer that has to pay multiple employees who do not work at all due to maternity leave nor do you care about the taxpayer.
  - postingawayonhn 6y ago
    > If you do not have enough money to pay for your children then you should not have any. And if they have them anyway you suggest we punish the children?
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      No, why would we?
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html