[john_moscow]

No point in setting yourself on fire to keep others warm though.

[kaikai]

Actually I think caring for your children is one of the few times where it DOES make sense to set yourself on fire to keep them warm. I get the logic of needing room to get on one’s feet, but those kids still need care. Presumably their other parent is already sacrificing to pick up the slack.

[anon743448]

While dramatic, and sometimes necessary to set yourself on fire but most of the times your children will be better off if you push through the storm without burning yourself. They will suffer cold a little longer but watching your parent burn to death will scar them for life.

And that is the problem with child support system. It is ready to burn the father as the first option instead of last resort.

[phendrenad2]

This whole thread is a masterclass on why having children is a bad idea in our society. Yikes.

[atoav]

If you added a person to the world you're responsible for them. Especially if you're not putting in the day to day work of raising a kid and someone else is.

Don't want a kid? Use contraceptives. But do not blame it on the government that you now are responsible for another person. Santed a kid but realized the person you have been with isn't for you? Well then it was probably too early to get a kid with them.

Amazing. Has US individualism become so extreme, that it can't even be expected from parents to stand in for their kids, till they are grown up? Yes, metaphorically good parents would set themselves on fire to warm their kids.

If you want to support poor parents the answer isn't "fuck their kids", the answer is "let the rest of us help them".

[liamwire]

If the alternative is that your kids go cold instead, let me be the first to offer you a match.

[immibis]

And what should that child do for warmth, when both of their parents are dead?