"The poorer you are, the more you want to be born, I'm really convinced." When I first heard this, I intuitively felt that it was quite reasonable, but after thinking about it, I always felt that something was wrong. Because people who say this have not really thought about why the poorer they are, the more they have to live? Why are all the nations of the world like this?
"Don't give birth if you can't afford it", this is the truth that many people agree with, but is this really the case? What does "affordable" mean? Is it enough to eat and dress warmly? Is it eating well and dressing well? Is food and clothing worry-free? stand out? Is it a dragon and a phoenix among people? Is it soaring? Different people have different standards, so the so-called "affordable" is just a vague concept, or a relative concept. When a well-fed person A condescendingly accuses a family with food and clothing problems of "don't have children if they can't afford it", if another rich man makes a similar accusation to A, A will probably be infinitely wronged but unable to argue.
Furthermore, if the family is well-off, but he is born regardless of teaching, indulges in arrogance, and even cultivates one after another devil king and social scum, is such a person qualified to live more? How many people will go or dare to make condescending accusations?
Poverty is not inferior! No one has the right to condescendingly accuse others!
So I thought that pointing at someone who said, "The poorer you are, the more you want to live, I'm really convinced" is the same as a healthy person pointing at a cancer patient and saying, "The more sick you are, the more you want to live, and it's really good." Human beings can control it, and poverty is not what they want. They are born with such a fate, just like the parents of the little boy said "I have no choice".
Survival is a human instinct, and the continuation of the race is also an instinct engraved in the genes. For most poor people, it is not that they do not work hard, but various congenital factors and living environment make it difficult for them to turn over. Having a child is their lowest-cost investment, and their greatest hope of turning over. If they are fortunate enough to have a child who can become a little bit more comfortable, the whole family can get rid of the fate of poverty and death.
Some people say that "the poor are just greedy for physical pleasure, and having children is a by-product". Judging from the words of the little boy's mother, "God has taken something away and will give you another compensation" and many cases in real life, childbirth is a by-product. Most are of their own initiative, not accidental by-products.
Someone said "they sold their 11-year-old daughter and indirectly killed her". This sentence is correct, whether it is selling daughters or forcing underage daughters to marry, there are problems. However, the plot of selling women in the film is only to increase the contradiction, drama, and a branch line to promote the development of the plot, and does not directly affect the theme expression of the film. Obviously, if you don't sell your daughter, people who dislike "the poorer and the more prosperous" will still dislike it. Secondly, the most painful thing about losing a daughter is of course her parents. Tiger poison does not eat children. How could parents deliberately harm their children? They don't want to let their children live and thrive, but "they have no choice."
Poverty is not a sin, the most fundamental thing is to eradicate poverty!
View more about Capernaum reviews
