🇳🇱
Make? No one is "making" it cheap. It simply that humans are exp3ensive when they are alive. They need food, care, a room, people to look after them. A dead baby takers far fewer resources so **of course** it will be cheaper.
Sounds like its a good objective argument why people **should** have abortions rather than put them up for adoption. Because it consumes less of the planets resources, indicated by the fact that its cheaper.
@shit Babies might be cheaper than they need to be. But no matter how inexpensive you try to be when raising them they will always be any orders of magnitude more expensive than not having one.
@shit Yea would have saved a lot of money indeed. Thanks for seeing the point.
@shit Last time i checked babies weren't very good house keepers. we arent talking about teenagers we are talking about babies. Even so unless you have your child plowing fields for you he isnt going to be making you more money than he costed you with a life of being raised no matter how much you may want to twist the numbers in that direction.
@shit The mental gymnatics here is impressive. YEa I'm sure a toddler can waddle over and snatch a few eggs. But 1) most people arent on farms so its a moot point anyway 2) even if we talk just about farms no baby, no toddler, is helping out enough to come anywhere **close** to paying their own way until maybe they are a teenager, and even then they wont come anywhere close to offsetting hte debt they cost as a child.
No matter how desperateyou are to paint an anti-abortion picture based on finances it simply wont work because there is no truth in where your headed. The fact is, and undeniably so **babies* are going to cost more than they make you, as will toddlers.
@shit I said nothing of the sort. I never said if i even support or am against abortion.
The OP made a money based argument, one that was flat out incorrect. Nothing more nothing less. If you want to concede that point and discuss the greater points of abortion I'd be happy to. But lets not conflate arguing about abortion vs arguing about costs of abortion. They are related but seperate arguments.
@shit yes and that adoption fee **covers** the cost to take care of them until adopted. That is **why** the fee is so high, there are costs associated, not because of greed, but to cover expenses.
YEa but im the moron I guess, that should be obvious.
@shit LOL ok there.
The average cost of a new born baby is $26,000. The average child takes 3 - 5 years to be adopted. Therefore the average cost to take care of an adopted baby, on average, is actually quite a bit more than 30K, 30K is just the cost the adopting family is charged but the cost is quite a bit more and usually comes from donations.
Always funny to see someone spitting out nonsense calling everyone morons and you dont even know the most fundemental facts around the topic your arguing for.. yea but I'm the moron, whatever you say.
@shit I need to pull up the data. I think medical costs were like 11% of that price figure.I might be remembering wrong though.
@shit No, that is not the cost accrued by governments in any way.
@freemo you refer to a foetus as a "dead baby", which is all kinds of wrong. It's not a baby.
@Nihilizt Incorrect, according to the dictionary it absolutely is a baby:
Baby:
an extremely young child
Child:
an unborn or recently born person
@freemo Ooh, dictionary definitions get me hard!
But no, it's not a baby. I appreciate your anal retentive dedication to the cause of pro life fuckwittery.
@Nihilizt lolol oh sorry didnt know we were just making up whatever definitions we wanted. I guess your right not the dictionary...
@freemo also, fuck it - blocked.
