Hi everyone! I'm looking for advice about finding affordable housing in Oran for a friend who currently lives there and has a job.

He's renting a room at the moment but wants a place of his own. He's looking for another affordable place to live.

Does anyone know of reasonably priced rooms, studios, or small apartments for rent in Oran? Are there any trustworthy local rental groups or websites you recommend?

Any advice from people who live in Oran or know the local rental market would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Maga’s solution to the birth decline isn’t free healthcare, free college, free daycare, low costs bringing back affordability etc.

But NOOOOOO…….

They propose a marriage bootcamp for cohabiting couples who already have one child. This is what the Heritage Foundation wants and wrote in Project 2025 The document is “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years,” released by the Heritage Foundation on January 8, 2026. Heritage describes it as a policy blueprint intended to respond to declining marriage and fertility rates and put family formation more centrally into government policy.

The report's basic premise is that marriage and family formation need to be actively encouraged, rather than the government remaining neutral toward them. Heritage explicitly says the government should become supportive of marriage and family “from rhetoric, to law, to programs, grants, to regulations.”

 Their “idea”  is that these couples would receive relationship/planning education aimed at helping them transition into marriage.

 We all know that it won't just be couples who are living together with a kid, they will use this to go after single women, especially childfree, as our vice president has expressed his hatred towards us in the media. How many of us want to bet that they will target cf people because these people have overturned Roe vs. Wade pretty quickly after Trump won I wouldn't put this past them that they will try to force childfree into this mess they have proposed. 

Here is more about their solution for women who are ‘underbabied’: 

1. recruiting eligible cohabiting couples with children;
2. using federal involvement alongside churches, nonprofits and private organizations
3. providing relationship and marriage education;
4. a communal wedding at the end of the program;
5. pairing couples with mentor couples afterward; and
6. financial incentives associated with participating/marrying,

 

For example, Heritage proposes a Newlywed Early Starters Trust (NEST) accounts,$2,500 initial deposit into a new investment account tied to marriage, building on the existing Trump Accounts concept. It also proposes eliminating marriage penalties in welfare programs and creating additional incentives for married couples with children. 

I am and always will be pro-choice because I believe reproductive autonomy is a human right.

Abortion is healthcare. It is not some casual form of “birth control” that women run to whenever they don't feel like having a baby. The idea that women casually get abortions for fun or use them as their primary form of birth control is a ridiculous stereotype.

Abortion isn't an easy or insignificant experience either. Depending on where you live and what type of abortion you have, it can involve appointments, testing, medication or a procedure, transportation, time off work, childcare, and paying significant costs out of pocket. Access and requirements also vary depending on your location and circumstances.

And no, the government does not get to decide what a woman should do with her own body. Neither does a random man who will never experience pregnancy himself.

If someone personally doesn't want an abortion, that's their choice. But that doesn't give them the right to force their beliefs onto another woman or force her to remain pregnant against her will.

And to the men who think banning abortion will somehow make women want babies again: that's not how this works. Taking away reproductive choices isn't going to magically make women want motherhood. It may actually make some women even more determined to avoid pregnancy altogether.

You cannot legislate women into wanting children. You cannot force women to desire motherhood. And you definitely cannot make women want to reproduce with men who believe they should have the power to decide whether those women become mothers.

If you want women to willingly have children with you, maybe create relationships and circumstances where women actually want to build families with you instead of advocating for taking away their choices.

And this is especially important to childfree women. We shouldn't be told that we're selfish, immature, or that we'll “change our minds” simply because someone else believes motherhood is mandatory.

My motto: NO UTERUS, NO OPINION!

Pro-choice means allowing women to make their own reproductive decisions. That's what choice actually means.

One of the reasons I'm staunchly childfree is my oral health.

I spent $4,847 on braces, oral surgery, and a permanent retainer to correct my severe overbite and overcrowded smile. Before fixing my teeth, I had low self-esteem because I hated my smile. Correcting it improved my confidence, my overall well-being, and even the structure/appearance of my face.

So when I say I don't want pregnancy potentially affecting my teeth, this isn't vanity.

My oral health is part of my overall health and my mental health.

Pregnancy can affect oral health through hormonal changes, increased gum inflammation, cavities, and enamel erosion from frequent vomiting. And one thing that gets overlooked is that many pregnant women don't receive consistent dental care. The information I found indicates that roughly 60–65% of women don't see a dentist during pregnancy.

Why?

Prenatal care is understandably focused heavily on fetal development, ultrasounds, blood pressure, gestational diabetes and delivery. Oral health can get pushed aside. OB-GYNs may also have limited oral-health training, and some women encounter additional barriers when dental offices want communication or clearance from their OB-GYN.

So a woman may think:

“I'll deal with my teeth later.”

Then pregnancy ends and she has a newborn.

She's recovering from childbirth, exhausted, sleep deprived and responsible for a baby 24/7. Her own dental care can continue getting pushed further down the list.

And if that happens repeatedly across multiple pregnancies, the consequences can accumulate.

My own mother is a personal example.

My mom started with 32 adult teeth.

After having six children, she has only 9 teeth remaining and wears partial dentures.

Obviously, having children doesn't automatically mean a woman will lose her teeth. Oral health is influenced by many factors. But research has found an association between greater numbers of children and increased tooth loss among mothers historically described as “gain a child, lose a tooth.”

Seeing that in my own family makes me even more protective of my teeth.

I don't want to voluntarily take on pregnancy, morning sickness, hormonal changes, postpartum recovery and years of putting my own needs behind children when I don't even want children.

And this is where I get frustrated with society's attitude toward women.

A woman can say:

“I don't want my body changed by pregnancy.”

And she's called vain.

She can say:

“I don't want to risk my oral health.”

She's called selfish.

She can say:

“I worked hard to improve my body and health, and I don't want to undo that.”

She's told that “it's worth it for the baby.”

Why?

Why are women constantly expected to feel guilty for caring about what happens to their own bodies?

Pregnancy isn't some tiny inconvenience that happens and disappears the moment a baby is born. It involves enormous physiological changes, and society often minimizes or romanticizes the physical consequences women can experience.

And then women are expected to accept those changes without complaint because they're supposedly the price of becoming a mother.

I don't accept that.

My teeth aren't “just cosmetic.”

My smile affected my self-esteem.

Fixing my teeth improved how I felt about myself.

My oral health is connected to my physical health, and my confidence is connected to my mental health.

So yes, protecting my smile is a legitimate reason for me to remain childfree.

Being childfree means I can maintain my oral health, maintain the body I've worked hard to care for, protect my mental well-being, and avoid a pregnancy that I never wanted in the first place.

I don't owe anyone a pregnancy at the expense of my health.

And honestly?

I LOVE my smile. I'm keeping it. 🦷💅🏾❤️

As a childfree woman, I often hear this bingo after I state that I have no interest in motherhood:

“Oh, but you’ve never tried motherhood, so you don’t know.”

I believe this is a dangerous bingo to say.

Motherhood is one of the most permanent decisions a woman can make, yet people often treat it as though women should simply “try it” and discover who they become afterward.

Even when women say, “I wouldn’t be a good mom,” people still dismiss their self-awareness and insist that motherhood will somehow change them.

But why?

Why do people assume that becoming a mother will automatically give a woman patience, emotional regulation, a gentle temperament, or an innate ability to handle the constant crying, screaming, frustration, exhaustion, and demands that come with raising a child?

Motherhood does not manufacture a personality transformation.

If someone already knows she has a short temper, little patience, anger issues, becomes easily overwhelmed, or simply has zero desire to be a parent, why should we assume those characteristics will magically disappear once she gives birth?

And more importantly, who bears the consequences if they don't?

Not the person who said “you'll change.”

The child does.

These stories demonstrate why I don't believe “you never tried motherhood” is the reassuring argument people think it is.

1. Motherhood Doesn't Erase Anger Issues

The New York Mother Who Attacked Her Baby Because of Crying and Fussing

In a New York court case, a mother admitted violently shaking her seven-month-old baby, punching him in the head, back and side, and covering his mouth and nose.

According to the court record, she described being frustrated and angry with the baby because of his crying and fussing.

The baby suffered horrific injuries, including a bulging fontanel, subdural hematoma, skull fracture, and retinal hemorrhages. The court found the injuries were non-accidental.

The point is that having a baby does not automatically erase someone's existing response to frustration.

A crying baby doesn't become less demanding simply because the person holding them is now their mother.

2. Motherhood Doesn't Magically Make You More Patient — The 2026 Flagstaff Case

In May 2026, Arizona's mother, Ochra Manakaja, was accused in the death of her 15-month-old son.

According to reported court documents, she told police that she threw her son into his crib “out of frustration” after he was fussy and appeared to be experiencing stomach pain.

The child reportedly became increasingly ill afterward crying, remaining fussy, becoming weak and pale, refusing food and vomiting, and subsequently died.

Prosecutors charged Manakaja with first-degree murder, concealment of a dead body, and child abuse.

It's that motherhood didn't magically make frustration disappear.

The child was still a toddler who could become fussy, cry, become sick, and require enormous patience.

3. Motherhood Doesn't Automatically Create Maternal Attachment — The Cheshire Mother Who Hid Her Daughter in a Drawer

In England, a mother hid her daughter in a drawer beneath her bed for almost three years. The child was discovered shortly before her third birthday, severely malnourished, dehydrated, unable to walk or talk, and suffering from untreated medical problems, including a cleft palate.

The child had essentially been isolated from the outside world. She was left alone while her mother went to work or took her other children to school, and she had little to no social interaction. When she was found, her developmental level was assessed as roughly that of a 10-month-old.

The mother pleaded guilty to four counts of child cruelty and was sentenced to seven years and six months in prison. The Crown Prosecution Service said the child's physical and mental development had been severely affected by the extreme neglect.

This case is horrifying because it demonstrates something society doesn't like to acknowledge:

Giving birth does not guarantee that a woman will suddenly become emotionally invested, attentive, affectionate, or devoted to parenting.

Motherhood did not manufacture the maternal attachment people often assume is automatic.

The child lived with the consequences.

4. Motherhood Doesn't Automatically Make Someone Nurturing — The Rosa Hargrave Case

Rosa “May May” Hargrave was a 12-year-old nonverbal girl in Indiana who died in March 2023 after an infection from an untreated wound on her back became fatal.

Court and reporting described severe neglect in the home, including failure to properly care for the wound despite signs of serious infection. Her mother ultimately pleaded guilty to neglect of a dependent resulting in death and received a sentence that included home confinement and suspended prison time.

This is another reminder that giving birth does not automatically make someone nurturing. Being biologically capable of reproducing does not guarantee that a woman will be affectionate, attentive, emotionally available, or capable of providing the care.

Children can be completely dependent on their parent while that parent fails to provide the care that the child desperately needs.

And again, the child is the one who pays the price.

These cases are horrifying, but that's exactly why I think society needs to stop treating “you never tried motherhood” as harmless encouragement.

A child is not an experiment to determine whether someone will eventually develop patience.

A child is not a personality-transformation program.

And a child should not have to suffer because everyone around their mother assumed that “once it's your own baby, you'll be different.”

When a woman says:

“I don't want children.”

or

“I don't think I'd be a good mother.”

We need to believe her.

It makes me question how seriously people consider a child's quality of life when they say this.

Because she knows herself better than we do.

And maybe choosing not to create a child because she doesn't believe she can provide the temperament, patience, stability, or quality of life that child deserves is actually an incredibly responsible decision.

You can not “try motherhood” There is no such thing, and it's okay for a woman to not want motherhood!!!

Soon-to-be Attorney General Todd Blanche was recorded in a private phone call saying the administration wants to make Dobbs “permanent in every single state.” That is terrifying because this isn't just about banning abortion in red states it could mean overriding protections in states where abortion is legally protected.

Overriding State Protections: He indicated that federal practices would be put in place to ensure that states protecting abortion rights cannot circumvent or “attack” restrictions enacted by anti-abortion states. That means blue states may no longer be able to fully protect abortion access within their own borders.

And this is dangerous because abortion isn't simply about “not wanting to be a mom.” Abortion is healthcare. Pregnancy can become fatal. Women can experience ectopic pregnancies and other serious complications where ending the pregnancy may be necessary to save their lives.

Banning abortion doesn't make those medical emergencies disappear. It just takes away the option doctors and patients may need to save a woman's life.

And women of color are disproportionately affected by maternal mortality, making these restrictions even more dangerous.

The leaked call also included the statement that “it doesn't matter how the kid was conceived,” which is horrifying because that necessarily includes pregnancies resulting from sexual assault. That means an SA survivor could potentially be forced to carry her attacker's pregnancy and a child could be forced to become a mother.

That is not pro-life.

And forcing women into motherhood doesn't magically make them compliant or increase the birth rate. It can have the opposite effect. Women may avoid relationships and pregnancy altogether because they don't want to risk losing control over their own bodies.

You cannot force people into parenthood and expect that to create healthier families. All you're doing is creating more unwanted pregnancies, more broken homes, and more people forced into lives they never chose.

And now they're targeting abortion pills.

The Comstock Act: Legal experts and lawmakers have emphasized that Blanche's strategy relies heavily on resurrecting the Comstock Act of 1873, an archaic anti-vice law that could be interpreted to criminalize the mailing of abortion-related materials.

Think about how extreme that is: locking up women because they obtained medication to survive a deadly pregnancy or because they chose to end a pregnancy they could not safely continue.

A woman should NEVER have to fear prison because she saved herself from dying from pregnancy complications.

Nothing about forcing a woman to remain pregnant at the expense of her life is pro-life.

This isn't about protecting women. It is about controlling them!!!

For me, parentification confirmed that motherhood was never for me. I have been a mother to my five younger siblings as the eldest of six not just babysitting, but actually raising them.

The first time I realized motherhood wasn't for me was when I was 6 years old. My mom came home from the hospital after having my sister via C-section. From what I remember, she was in so much pain and under lifting restrictions that she needed help caring for the baby. I remember staying up with her throughout the nights until she could take of her by herself ; changing my sister's diapers and bottle-feeding my newborn sister while sitting right next to my mom because she couldn't do many of the physical tasks herself. That was the beginning of raising my siblings.

The second time I knew motherhood wasn't for me was when I was 9 years old, and my mom announced she was pregnant with my younger sister in 2008. Instead of feeling excited, all I could think about was having another child to help raise.

By 5th grade, my responsibilities increased even more. My mom taught me how to bathe my younger siblings before leaving me responsible for their nighttime routine alone. I was expected to feed them dinner, help them finish their homework, make sure they brushed their teeth, bathe them, and put them to bed afterward. Only after all of that did I start my own homework, usually around 8:30 p.m., because I always came last.

Even when my mom had morning classes, we technically had a "babysitter," but she mostly watched TV. I was 7 years old during this time and I was responsible for getting my two younger brothers ready for school while simultaneously getting myself ready.

This is sadly normalized for many little girls. We are plucked out of a child's place and placed into a mother's shoes without our consent or even understanding what is happening until years later.

By 10th grade, I was being left home alone with five kids while both of my parents worked. It was basically a repeat of 5th grade, except there were more children to feed, supervise, and put to bed. It wasn't just childcare, either. I signed school permission slips, replied to teachers' emails because I had access to my parents' accounts, and handled responsibilities that should have belonged to the adults.

My mom would often tell me, "You would make a great mother to your own," because she watched me raise her children. Whenever my siblings disrespected me, she would say, "She raised you. Don't talk to her like that." Even my siblings acknowledged it, saying, "We know."

The blurred line between being a sibling and being treated like their mother is something I still think about. They weren't even my children.

Even other adults noticed my parentification. Teachers would happily tell me, "You take such great care of your siblings." Even an elementary school bus driver once told me I would make "a great mom" after watching me help my younger brother take off his winter coat in the Minnesota cold.

I've already spent 20 years raising children. I have absolutely no desire to spend the rest of my life doing it again.

That's why I'm staunchly childfree!!!!!!!

The saying, "Just give the baby up for adoption; it's better than abortion," is one of the most frustrating arguments I see used against women. Too often, it is not presented as genuine support it is used as a way to guilt women out of exercising bodily autonomy. The reality behind that saying is often ignored because adoption is not a simple solution that erases the realities of pregnancy and childbirth. People also talk about adoption as if a social worker will magically appear in the delivery room, wave a wand, and instantly solve everything and as if you can walk into a private adoption agency like money doesn't exist. Real life does not work that way. Foster care is not a system where someone can simply call and request a social worker to take a newborn. Foster care exists primarily to protect children who cannot safely remain with their parents because of abuse, neglect, or other serious circumstances. It is not designed as a simple voluntary baby-placement service. Private infant adoption is also not something people can just walk into as if money, legal processes, and access do not exist. Adoption involves agencies, legal requirements, counseling, paperwork, and different rules depending on the state. Socioeconomic circumstances matter. A person's income, housing stability, healthcare access, employment situation, and support network can dramatically affect what choices feel realistically available to them.

Race and class also influence people's experiences with healthcare and child welfare systems. Research has documented racial disparities in maternal healthcare outcomes and in child welfare involvement, meaning not everyone experiences these systems in the same way. My opinion is "NO UTERUS NO OPINION!!!

The village nowadays has to either come built in or be paid for because many elderly people are still working, as Social Security isn't enough to live off due to the rising costs of society. Many men have kids but aren't fathers, so believing men are the village is a mistake many women fall for sadly.  The majority don't participate in the child's life, and a lot use weaponized incompetence to avoid the responsibility and prevent you from asking again. Sadly, a LOT of women experience the second one. It's why we have so many single-mother households.

An example that showcases this is: A girl I went to middle school with shared this with me after the father-daughter dance was announced. My BFF and I were excitedly discussing what our dads had planned for us after the dance. She was sitting across from us at the tables outside when she started crying uncontrollably.

My BFF and I went over to console her. We asked why she was crying, and she told us that her dad left her mom when she was six months pregnant out of the blue. Her mom woke up, and he had left a note on the fridge stating that he had left. He was the sole breadwinner while her mom was going to be a SAHM, just like they had planned.

After waking up to the news, her mom called his job and was informed that he had quit. She called his friends to see if they had heard from him, but they said no. Then she called his phone, only to hear that the number was no longer connected. He had changed his phone number and completely went MIA. This was in the '90s, too.

Her mother luckily found a full-time job quickly, was up to date with the household finances, and moved her own mom and dad into the home to provide free childcare. Three months later, she gave birth and went back to work . In fact worked 3 jobs throught her life while her daughter was being raised by her grandparents.. Her dad never showed up and her mom couldnt even get child support and he was the one "who wanted a family soo fucking bad". Men are all TALK when it comes to kids but no BITE they dip as soon as reality hits.

This is just one of the many examples shown. Having a kid nowadays should be because the woman wants to be a mom because the kid is definitely mommy's baby and daddy's maybe a saying I live by.

I know this will be unpopular because this series has a massive fan base, but I genuinely don't think Haunting Adeline should be adapted into a movie.

Before anyone says I haven't read it, I have. I actually enjoyed the books for what they are. But enjoying a book doesn't mean I think every story belongs on the big screen.

The author has said that the movie will not censor or water down the content. That's exactly why I think this adaptation is a bad idea.

The story romanticizes and eroticizes sexual assault in ways that are far more difficult to separate from reality when presented in a visual medium. Reading something on a page is one thing; watching it portrayed on screen is another. Movies reach a much larger audience than books and have a different level of cultural impact.

Sexual assault is a violent crime, not a romantic gesture, regardless of how attractive or charismatic the perpetrator is. Turning those scenes into entertainment for a mainstream audience risks blurring that distinction for some viewers and is something many survivors may find deeply disturbing.

My biggest concern is the broader cultural context. In a country where abortion access has already become heavily restricted in many states, the last thing we need is a mainstream movie that romanticizes sexual violence. While most people understand the difference between fiction and reality, some do not. I worry that a small but real number of viewers could misinterpret these fictional dynamics as something women secretly want, despite the fact that they do not reflect real-life consent or healthy relationships. If even a few people walk away with that misunderstanding, it could make dating feel even more unsettling and less safe for women.

I'm also concerned about how social media will inevitably glamorize scenes from the film, especially among younger audiences who may not fully understand the distinction between fantasy and healthy relationships. We've already seen romanticized edits of toxic fictional relationships go viral.

This isn't about banning books or telling adults what they can read. People are free to enjoy dark romance as fiction. My opinion is simply that not every book needs a film adaptation, and Haunting Adeline is one that should have remained on the page.

I am not implying that all women exhibit this behavior.

I wanted to share this because I’m still processing everything through both a childfree and antinatalist lens, especially around how reproductive values and compatibility showed up in practice.

I was in a long-distance relationship where I was very openly and firmly childfree from the beginning. For me, being CF has always been a non-negotiable core value, not something flexible depending on circumstances or relationships.

Over time, several things started to seriously concern me and ultimately contributed to me stepping away:

• He previously reconnected with a woman who was not childfree after she made it clear that motherhood was still on the table, and he stated he “didn’t care” whether she was CF or not.

• He had a pattern of engaging with women who were not childfree and seemed to treat CF compatibility as optional rather than foundational.

• He repeatedly told me that being childfree was “negotiable” and not something that would bother him if a partner wasn’t CF.

• He also said he identified with antinatalism, but in practice he was completely against my stance against reproduction and would react negatively when I expressed views aligned with bodily autonomy and abortion rights, which felt contradictory to the values he claimed to hold.

• When he was upset, he would attack my childfree identity or question it instead of respecting it as a settled part of who I am.

• He disliked me participating in childfree spaces online (which is actually how we met), which felt confusing and contradictory given that CF discussion was part of how we connected.

• On contraception, he was strongly against condoms and preferred methods like pull-out, which created a major mismatch in how seriously we viewed pregnancy prevention and control.

For me, these weren’t small disagreements they pointed to a deeper issue: reproductive ethics and alignment didn’t feel like a real foundation in the relationship, even though it is for me.

I’m not trying to label him or decide what his identity “really is.” I can’t know that. But I can say that the way CF/antinatalist-adjacent values were treated in practice did not match what I needed in a partner.

Leaving wasn’t hard because it was the right decision for me, and I feel more aligned with myself now.

I’m sharing in case anyone else has experienced this kind of mismatch where reproductive values aren’t just preferences, but core ethical and lifestyle differences that show up in behavior over time.

I saw a video of high schoolers struggling to read basic words, and the school later claimed one of them is an honors student with a 4.9 GPA. How is it possible for someone to perform that well academically but struggle with reading aloud? Is this grade inflation, gaps in the education system, or something else? At what point does this become educational neglect, and who’s responsible?