Live Free and Starve vs. The Singer Solution to World Poverty

The issue of  forced child labor has been heavily debated in politics throughout many countries. There are many different opinions and views one could take about the subject. The authors Chitra Divakaruni and Peter Singer have extreme contrasting opinions. Divakaruni believes that banning child labor will do nothing to help the problem. She points out the even though the treatment of the children is cruel, giving them freedom would take away any source of income which mean loss of food, shelter, and clothes. Many  of these kids would probably choose the harsh labor with a fully belly over starvation any day. On the other hand, Singer doesn't point out whether child labor is right or wrong, but he talks about how none of this would be happening if other people weren't as selfish as they are. He says that we (meaning Americans) are just a mean and cruel as the people who sell their children for person gain because we have the money to help these kids but we don't take the time to put it to good use by donating it. Before even reading the article, I already started to form a bias against Divakaruni because I personally believe that forced child labor is morally wrong. I stand corrected. After reading Divakaruni's article, I didn't realize how much worse it could be for the children if they weren't allowed jobs. It was interesting to hear the story of the little boy who worked for her family and what his life could have been if he had been denied the job opportunity. He could have been one of, "the many children we saw by mud roads, their ribs sticking out through the rags they wore." Paragraph 6, line 4. Although Singer makes a valid point about the great affects of donations, I now believe that unless proper schooling and necessities are presented in a bill, child labor is probably a better life for kids then a life of starvation.