this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
71 points (98.6% liked)
World News
38272 readers
432 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
it's not really a choice for a lot though, is it?
When I see what a hassle having kids is, how stressful it is, the expense, and dire prospects of a good economic future it makes no sense.
The most cynical narcissist will have kids so someone will take care of them in their old age but how likely is that?
I just don't see why I'd want to. It doesn't make sense.
i can barely feed myself. why would i raise a child in hunger?
This. Its more about shelter for me but yeah can barely keep things together as it is. Then factor in how it looks to be getting worse and worse for each generation and any kids born now are just on the crux of whatever they are going to call the next one.
It's true that it's not 100% a choice, but physically there's nothing stopping people from having kids. People are (fairly) prioritizing their financial security over having kids.
Though this may be a comment on abortion. In which case abortion is healthcare and a human right.
Not even sure if financial security is even the right term. If you can barely keep food and roof over your head (and healthcare is already not an option) then having children means losing one or the other for yourself and the kids. I mean its not like the ones who want people to have more babies are going to make sure snap benefits are always available much less healthcare.
"Food security" may be a better fit.
I would say that this is correct so long as we have the words informed choice based upon economic realities.