Hacker News Reader

Comment by alasdair_ | Hacker News Reader

It’s a choice between have a child now or never have any children.

Well, I'm glad that she did the thing that she wanted, at the cost of another human being getting to grow up without a mother.

Not a good look to argue whether a woman should have the right to reproduce.

Her children will live better lives than 99% of the children on the planet despite not having their mother present until their pre-teen years.

Er no - the loss of a mother is extremely traumatic to a child. It can lead to long term mental health issues and physical health issues.

Lots of kids suffer worse deprivations than having one parent in jail. Life is tough, but these kids probably have a better than average shot at a good life.

And what makes you think that?

They'll be raised by a wealthy family with every material advantage in life. Some estimates have it that around 1 in 8 children in America go hungry at some point in their childhoods. So even if these kids are just fed regularly, that puts them ahead of millions of children.

The child did not lose a mother, if he/she never had one. Also she'll be out around the time the child will start elementary school. So yes the child will still be in a better spot than 99% of all children in single family households and probably than almost all in low income ones as well.

It's not a question of rights, since she obviously has them, it's a question of 'How fucked up is it to put your desire to have a child over that child's wellbeing.'

At some point in the desire to wellbeing ratio, that equation crosses the line into 'incredibly selfish'. Children aren't just trophies for their parents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com