🇳🇱
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.
@shit No the cost for the government to raise a baby is quite a bit higher than the cost I indicated (As there are administration fees). The cost I gave is the same cost a mother raising her child would have to pay per year. Its the cost for the supplies and needs themselves, not government admin costs which would be extra on top of that.
@shit But "they" arent the ones who stated the figure. The number I stated was the cost for a low-income (below 40k) family to raise a child in its first year of life, on average. It is not the cost an orphanage itself pays per year, that is, as you say, significantly higher, as is the cost to a middle class family (which tends to spend even more on a childs needs)
@shit Whoever said kids are bad. They just cost you more money than abortion. Who the hell would care if there are more hindus or musslims, they too should be told to curb their kid making obviously. But if they dont thats no excuse for us to compound the issue and make it worse by doing the same.
Fact is we are drowning in too many kids. Everyone should be trying to have fewer of them, not more, we can barely support the population we have.
Who said I was talking about food.
Moreover I think its a pretty foolish goal to try to have as many people on this planet so the food we have is just barely enough for us to eat and not starve to death. It would be a pretty shitty world if we had exactly enough food not to die and no more. But again food is hardly the only issue I'm talking about.
@freemo @shit abortion targets the poor, thats all it is, the removal of broke fucks they deem undesirable. The black communities growth has stagnated due to the number of abortions and the way they seem to target their neighborhoods. Not surprising when you look at early planned parenthood funding and practices.
1) This is only partly true. The majority of women who get abortions are in fact above the national poverty level not below it.
2) it is true however that those in poverty are more likely to get an abortion than those not in poverty. But rightfully so, if you are in poverty you cant afford to raise a child properly so you **should** be having less babies. Get out of poverty first so you can give a child what it needs.
No one is forcing any of your people to be killed. Your people just are choosing not to have babies they cant raise. Want to fix the problem, then get your people out of poverty then we can talk. Until then they have every right to do what they feel is best with the shitty situation they have.
@freemo @shit i dont see the benefit in killing my people just to sit as a slave in a system designed to kill my people