> So they say. But really, they're just complaining about the housing situation using a device that they hope will pull on the right heart strings (and most likely are just repeating what they heard someone else say). Let's face it: Whatever housing they've already got, even if just a tent, will be fine for the children. Children don't care.
Quite a cynical reply. Social services will care if you try to raise a child in a tent here where temperatures are freezing. And the child will prefer better lodging after a single sleepover with the neighbor kids.
> Social services will care if you try to raise a child in a tent here where temperatures are freezing.
Sure, so as you point out there is absolutely no reason why you can't have children, even if you are in the most dire of straights[1]. As you point out, other people will happily help you out with those children if you are struggling to make it on your own.
The only reason to not have children is because you don't want them. Anything else is a lame excuse.
[1] Of course, we're specifically talking about middle class people here. Middle class people don't live in tents. They live in comparatively large houses that are far bigger than would ever be necessary to raise many children. Even if they wanted to live in smaller houses, must jurisdictions don't allow it.
Interesting that you believe a “comparatively large” house is the same thing as a giant house.
I guess that’s why the average home built today is ~100% bigger than an average home built 100 years earlier - ironically, when people actually had large families. No concept of what large even is.
Quite a cynical reply. Social services will care if you try to raise a child in a tent here where temperatures are freezing. And the child will prefer better lodging after a single sleepover with the neighbor kids.