If you had a child?

Question

And had to decide whether to leave the child behind for a chance at a better education,better living conditions,better healthcare,etc would you choose to be separated from your child for those reasons or take the child to a place where all of those things didn't exist?

Hey Wanderer!

Answer 1

To ask such a question, you obviously don't have kids.

Besides that, everyone is ethnocentric so, that parent from the poor country probably sees your culture as morally bankrupt and shallow, with child molesters, Columbines and teen pregnancy lurking at every corner. Who would leave their unprotected child in a place like that?

For those offended by this answer, you have no idea of what ethnocentrism is. Look it up.

Answer 2

I have a 5 year old, and I would never be separated from him. All those things are NOT greater than the love of your mother. Children need there real Mom's. If you really love your child, doesn't matter if you don't have all the finer things in life to provide. You will make away some how. It will work out, but don't hand over your child for that reason. You can attain all those things that the child needs in time....BUT, The greatest of all these is...LOVE!

Answer 3

Hard question
and to tell you the truth i think i would leave the baby behind if i knew that a better life was there for her or him
why drag a baby up when you no left behind the child would have a great life having a decent upbringing and schooling a life instead of just trying to live
respect
shaz

Answer 4

If I lived in a country that could not provide children with a decent education, decent living conditions, decent healthcare, etc... then I would have the common sense NOT to have any children.

It is unfortunate that the citizens of countries who cannot provide the conditions expressed above lack this simple wisdom...

p.s. Hey, PANCHA!... ;-)

Answer 5

Why do you always say it's about the kids? There are right ways and wrong ways to accomplish things in life. If conditions were really that awful why are any of these people having children they already can not even care for themselves. At what point does anyone in that position accept responsibly for their attitudes to life ?

Answer 6

No way that the child should be left behind. No matter what the motives, nothing can replace the love and nurturing that a child needs and desires from its mother.

Answer 7

No, I would definitely take my child with me.....Just because I live in a third world country, doesn't mean I don't have quality of life....Its a misconception to think living in a first world country, you will automatically have happiness and prosperity.

Truth is you make your life, what it is....Of course money helps and so does better health care, but you can take very little and do a lot with it...

The emphasis with me would be on education.....Fortunately, it is not restricted to the wealthy and privileged few, I speak of Internet....I would use that to educate my children....And take an active role in their education.

Answer 8

You can teach your child whatever the child needs to know. Don't leave a child feeling unwanted. You must strive to do more, and do it legally to show this child the right way. A good fight for those rights will show what is important.

Answer 9

If I lived in any other nation besides America, I would probably have a hysterectomy so my child would not be exposed to the death and destruction of the world

Answer 10

Pancha, if this is about the 'anchor baby' thing it's a matter of the fact that Mexico doesn't seem to want to build schools, roads, hospitals, homes, all that other goodness. And, it's not america's job to absorb Mexico's excess population. Why don't they build all the stuff they need in Mexico? That's my question. Put the homes where the poor people that need them can live in them, instead of dragging everyone into OUR country, where we've already got poor, already got our own social problems, all that other good stuff. When is Mexico, for instance, going to start building hospitals? I oppose 'anchor babies' for this reason, because it's a neverending sob-story, the country's already in DEBT, Pancha, massive practically unpayable debt, and you want to bring MORE people into the country? Hospitals closing, jails filling up, all that good stuff, Pancha, and a lot of it is attributable unfortunately to this influx over the last few years from Mexico. We can't be their problem buffer forever, they have to actually stand up and ACT on some of their social issues.
I don't see any reason why we should accept one more illegal jobless no-future immigrant, Pancha, I know that's what it says on the sign, but there's reality, too, you know? Are you going to put them up in YOUR house? Or is your plan to invite them to come live off welfare or something in america? What kind of standards do YOU think are proper and appropriate, multiply that kid times 30k and you're probably getting ballpark on how many will cross JUST this year, Pancha...at some point, we need to start saying 'no more', and Mexico needs to start saying 'yes, we can' fix our own problems and no, the United States doesn't have to do it for us. But, in order for em to say that, they need to build SCHOOLS. And roads. and hospitals. And homes. And and and.
In other words, they need to fix their country up and stop living solely off the United States. It's really that simple. Say 'no mas' to anchor babies and the other sob stories, and 'yes' to the US border patrol/border fence etc etc etc....