[joenathanone]

Theory, the simulation is a poor reflection of reality; Accurately simulating what it would be like to care for a baby is beyond our current technology.

[el_benhameen]

I don’t think it’s beyond our technology, but it would be deeply unethical to lock a bunch of teenagers in a house and subject them to sleep deprivation and screaming for weeks on end.

[btilly]

Would a temporary donation of cranky toddlers in their terrible 2s be unethical?

Sadly, the shock of being in such a weird situation would likely calm the toddlers down.

[jimbob45]

Really? I feel like flour babies were pretty effective for as far as you’d want to go with middle schoolers (I.e. no sleep deprivation).

[xboxnolifes]

If the point of the simulation was to deter pregnancies, I don't see how it could be successful without the biggest struggles of raising children being included. After all, people are willing to have children even when they are aware of these struggles, so reducing the struggles even a little would make having children seem more appealing, not less.

Hell, it's possible that teenagers naturally have a larger than reality aversion to having children, and these simulations break down the aversion, increasing pregnancies.

[lotsofpulp]

What is the point of infant simulation if the one of the most impactful part would be skipped?

The biggest parts of having a baby, for the mom mostly:

1) physical changes and pains during pregnancy, including lack of sleep

2) physical changes and pains during childbirth, including episiotomy/C section, and dealing with that recovery process

3) while this is all going on, you have to teach this baby to breastfeed. Which then leads to engorgement and other pains for the mom, at least for a few weeks.

And all of this is happening while you are on very broken sleep schedules. And assuming you do not have to worry about income/rent/etc.