The most convenient, reliable forms of birth control (IUD and vaginal ring) both require prescriptions so yes birth control could be much more accessible.
“Providing easy access to birth control also would be important for these children since a poor single mother might be able to successfully care for one child but not three or four.”
The first critique was pretty fair and well argued and reasoned, save for the idiotic claim above, to which Bryan was imo far too charitable.
The second critique, by contrast, appear to be nothing but the babbling of unapologetically leftist midwits.
Welfare pays mothers to bear and keep babies. No other gambit works as well as doing this. Therefore, many nubile females bear babies and at least plan to keep them, so as to collect this money. Most of these females are bereft of other opportunities anywhere near as good.
Am I missing something here (I'm male, and a father only by women I was/am married to). Neither mother collected any welfare.
Bryan you're falling prey to the similar mind hypothesis - you believe likely correctly that you would choose adoption if you were faced with being a single mother without welfare, however the choice is not seen in this way by the candidate single mother.
Poverty is objectively bad, and poverty with a child is objectively worse, for both the mother and the child. That said, the person in this circumstance is likely already overwhelmed and numb to causing themselves additional duress. It is not necessarily a burden that makes much subjective difference to this person.
On the other hand, the human instinct for love and attachment of a mother for her child, especially an infant, varies much less across individuals than perspectives on material circumstances. The instinct for attachment is often if not usually even stronger than the combination of love and rational thought that would otherwise be compassionate cause for surrendering a child.
Policies that burden a mother to give up a child would need to go much, much further than plunging the mother into relative poverty in a developed nation to cause a significant percentage of these mother's to forfeit their children. I would wager a nontrivial percentage of even financially stable parents would take the penalty of financial ruin before forfeiting a child.
Ending the welfare state has enough positives without considering its effect on single mothers/adoption/abortion/etc.
Paraphrasing Bryan from both his graphic novels, when you have a trillion dollar idea, the thousand dollar effects don't really matter.
The most convenient, reliable forms of birth control (IUD and vaginal ring) both require prescriptions so yes birth control could be much more accessible.
“Providing easy access to birth control also would be important for these children since a poor single mother might be able to successfully care for one child but not three or four.”
The first critique was pretty fair and well argued and reasoned, save for the idiotic claim above, to which Bryan was imo far too charitable.
The second critique, by contrast, appear to be nothing but the babbling of unapologetically leftist midwits.
Nice insights...thank you 🙏
Welfare pays mothers to bear and keep babies. No other gambit works as well as doing this. Therefore, many nubile females bear babies and at least plan to keep them, so as to collect this money. Most of these females are bereft of other opportunities anywhere near as good.
Am I missing something here (I'm male, and a father only by women I was/am married to). Neither mother collected any welfare.
Bryan you're falling prey to the similar mind hypothesis - you believe likely correctly that you would choose adoption if you were faced with being a single mother without welfare, however the choice is not seen in this way by the candidate single mother.
Poverty is objectively bad, and poverty with a child is objectively worse, for both the mother and the child. That said, the person in this circumstance is likely already overwhelmed and numb to causing themselves additional duress. It is not necessarily a burden that makes much subjective difference to this person.
On the other hand, the human instinct for love and attachment of a mother for her child, especially an infant, varies much less across individuals than perspectives on material circumstances. The instinct for attachment is often if not usually even stronger than the combination of love and rational thought that would otherwise be compassionate cause for surrendering a child.
Policies that burden a mother to give up a child would need to go much, much further than plunging the mother into relative poverty in a developed nation to cause a significant percentage of these mother's to forfeit their children. I would wager a nontrivial percentage of even financially stable parents would take the penalty of financial ruin before forfeiting a child.