Not so well, or fair
Here's one for all those fet-o-philes who love those ''preborn children'' for 9 months and then, on the 10th month, discover they have to contribute to their care and feeding, schooling and housing.
The findings support a neurobiological hypothesis for why impoverished children consistently fare worse than their middle-class counterparts in school, and eventually in life.
"Chronically elevated physiological stress is a plausible model for how poverty could get into the brain and eventually interfere with achievement," wrote Cornell University child-development researchers Gary Evans and Michelle Schamberg in a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Now obviously, not all unwanted pregnancies happen to the poor but you can bet many of them do. And, because these women have limited access to contraception because of the cost -- in some areas of urban America, druggists lock up condoms -- or because they are in locations where there's no easy availability to abortion, such as PEI or New Brunswick, well, it's hardly surprising that more kids are born in impoverished homes.
Of course, the fet-o-philes will be wagging their fingers and saying these people shouldn't be having sex then.
Well, maybe they shouldn't but they do and so, as a society, we need to care for all our children.
Otherwise, they could grow up into far more expensive people we need to care for.