Or your partner has a fatal disease or accident.

Ideally this case would be insured; you'd also be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits.

Survivor benefits cap out at 75% of the worker's benefits. That itself caps out to $2675. So a spouse with kids would get at most $2006/month. Not horrible, but a parent with two kids would just be over the poverty level. And realistically, most people at that age would have small accrued benefits.

$2000/month is more than a lot of people in the US make working full time.

I would argue $2000/month is a very significant benefit to a survivor. It’s also inflation adjusted.

For a single person, sure. A single parent with 2 kids? Very scary.

Everyone should breed. That’s evolution.

That's an asinine statement.

We aren't bacteria. We don't have to behave like bacteria, irregardless of one's relationship to authoritarianism or social conformity.

And we should not forgive, let alone celebrate, people who do behave like bacteria.

It's not a nuanced statement, but it certainly isn't asinine. It's just the minimum positive effect you can have on the future -- the lowest bar, if you will.

You could, with similar effect, make the same statements about bacteria in response to "People should live" or "People should thrive".

In the context more than 75% of black children, and more than half of hispanic children being born out of wedlock, and comparable statistics for all poverty stricken population groups, calling it "the minimum positive effect you can have on the future" is a really an asinine statement. It's not a positive effect.

https://cis.org/Camarota/Births-Unmarried-Mothers-Nativity-a...

If you could tell someone with a single parent that they, for that reason, cannot have a positive effect on the future, then I don't think there is any basis for agreement between us on the topic.

That would actually be the opposite of evolution