I remembered conversing with a Murican swine who I believe I'll never see again said, "I don't care if I were living in the streets, dirt poor, having to scour the garbage cans for food - as long as I have lots of children." For one, he doesn't really know that the poor are suffering behind the "smiling faces". He says he sees that a lot of Filipinos are happy in spite of being poor. Sometimes what is behind a smile is just a sad nation waiting to collapse. Maybe the street children may be playing and laughing but behind it all is a facade.
Later on, they will be hungry and remember food in the garbage is awful. I couldn't imagine myself as a beggar digging here and there for garbage. Whenever I throw the garbage, I would think that it's disgusting that's why I throw it. Stuff like expired food and rotten meat are not fit for consumption therefore it's only necessary to throw them away. Sometimes, I even think whenever I throw away a soda can or food packs, there's very few crumbs. Again, knowing the Failipino culture of wastefulness, it's possible that a lot of these unfinished foods end up in the trash can. The trash can would be filled with various stuff and finding food from a pile of garbage is a lot of hard work. Plus, any "hard work" associated with digging stuff in the garbage can is not rewarding. Food from the garbage already has a generous share of bacteria and the like, which does not provide the proper nutrition from the body. Sometimes, they can even be poisonous.
I could share my experience with what it is to encounter street children who get hungry. I was there at a simple bakery eating some bread for my snacks. I always remembered how some stubborn street children would come in packs to ask for food FROM ANYONE. I would want to believe they have had enough of the awful taste of pagpag (it's something I won't want to taste) and they would want to eat decent food. But the problem is that, the parents can't afford decent food. It's more often than not that every time I see somebody who has something decent to eat, the beggars flock asking for food. It doesn't take a rocket genius to figure out that these street children may have been fed up with the taste of food from the garbage can, in exchange they want to eat some decent food. However they have the problem that parents cannot afford decent food and living in the streets means scouring for scraps.
Pro-birth advocates think the children are their investment, the more children, the better right? Now here's some sensible economics to think about. Every child requires to be nourished and educated. If a child is born but it is not fed, educated and housed how can that child be trained? Every necessity calls for money to pay for the worth of it. If you are raising a child, think that you need to pay for basic needs. Nourishment and education require money. Sad to say, but street children are mostly uneducated because their parents cannot afford to send them to school. Yet they think that by having more children, they can get out of poverty. Why is the logic stupid through and through? I did mention the spending necessities of a family. Although a family does not require all the brand new stuff to work properly but they certainly need stuff like good food, clean water and education.
Another problem of pro-birth is to expect the children to support them instead of the other way around. I have noticed how I got fined PHP 500.00 WAY BACK for giving alms to a beggar. The traffic aide after receiving my fine then said, "Well sir, you are making a serious mistake if you start giving alms to beggars. They are begging so they can give money to their lazy parents." Some of the working class said, "Well not all the poor deserve your compassion. Some of them use their poverty to take advantage of people whenever they can." This of course was really an issue to take care of considering that the more children they have, the more beggars they may have to help them with their lazy living.
Not to mention, I would like to speculate that pro-birth mentality is also linked to a misguided notion of happiness. Looking back to that fat swine saying that he envies some of the poor because they are "happy" (I wonder what really made that pig miserable), he says he will be happy if he had lots of kids. Now you'd be happy if you had lots of kids IF they were all doing stuff that contribute for the better of society. But what if you had a load of kids who are bad people? Some may consider that the siblings are all troublemakers of society. Would you still be happy if all your children were troublemakers? While a person can say he or she is happy regardless, behind that statement is nothing more than a troubled soul.
What is needed is this. Every time a couple plans a child, they must think long-term not just short term. Also, I'm aware that a woman's nine-months pregnancy cycle is not at all easy. Giving birth is also painful. It's okay to have lots of children if you can afford to but family planning like limiting between 2-4 children for lower income groups will work better. Even massive clans today are starting to practice having lesser children. One may also consider how more often than not, that we rejoice at the birth of a baby but soon we face naughty children, rebellious teenagers and troublesome adults. It will continue to get worse than that when we consider the reality of the situation. They just think of the joy of giving birth without considering the consequences of not providing the necessities. As said, if your only concern is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed... then that is no longer pro-life but just simply pro-birth. That makes pigs out of men since from what I heard, pigs hardly care about their offspring.
Comments
Post a Comment