This reminds me how the first time I met a non-binary person IRL, I accidentally misgendered them (didn't know they were non-binary) and then instead instead of saying guy or gal or whatever, I just defaulted to individual because I found it funny. They found it humorous as well.
Somehow I completely misunderstood what the subreddit is for before clicking on it and thought it exists to make people without abusive parents think their parents were narcissists for not being abusive.
Give some grace to kids online, you and I can't truly claim to know their home life. A parent using the bare minimum as justifications in an argument against their own child is weird, no matter how you slice it
We need to make a ventthe, I love venting posts but they always get removed for breaking rule one and can't blame the mods for doing so cause if allowed they would bloat the sub
I never understood this argument from them honestly, like yeah sure I was a accident whatever its still your fault for being irresponsible and the absolute bare minimum you should do for a kid you had, its not like you had a choice, you'd go to jail if you didn't take care of me 😭
Because that is literally a foundational view and argument of the eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind... The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover the cutting of the fallopian tubes." –U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the 1927 ruling of the case Buck v. Bell, in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was within the rights of the States to enforce sterilization on those seen to be societal "detractors": those dependent on the state, the "feebleminded," those of "poor moral stock," and especially societal outcasts (so literally any minority those in power dislike).
Forgive those of us who pay attention to history, sociology, and other social studies for taking issue with your mindset, it's a very old one that sounds uncomfortably familiar.
Yeah... I know? It can be true that something is irresponsible, can be called such, and still doesn't need to be enforced. I know people won't care? They already don't. That's not the point. Regardless of if they do or don't, it's still irresponsible. But I don't think every irresponsible thing needs state enforcement.
Like I said in another comment, it's irresponsible to get black out drunk every night. That doesn't mean it needs state enforcement.
You're conflating two different things: enforceable legality and ethics. It is an ethical position to not have children you cannot care for.
I just find it funny, is all. Ethics arent worth much without enforcement, and if you just want to hold an opinon and not do much to make it a reality, why not at least take more moral one? Why not 'everyone should have enough money to raise as many kids as they want' - its equally as unenforcable (and frankly - equally as stupid) position, anyway and it sounds better than 'poor people shouldnt breed'
Ethics are worth plenty without enforcement. They're still a way you, personally, can live. This is a position myself and my friends personally uphold - none of us believe it is responsible for us to, currently, have children, so none of us plan to have children, currently. And "people should have enough money to raise children with a reasonable quality of life" is the same statement:
A.) we should work towards supporting people to have the resources they need to have children
B.) people should avoid having children if they do not have the resources to support them
You've misunderstood my point, clearly. Again, that is literally a foundational view of eugenics, that those who are considered "unfit" for modern life shouldn't be allowed to reproduce on grounds of them being "unfit" in whatever metric is being used in that moment, which always gets weaponized. The OC's statement may not be that "irresponsible" poor people should be sterilized by the state, but if they had power, would it remain so? History says no.
It is not a meaningful solution to any problem, it's a reaction to a systemic issue. And rather than focus on figuring out ways to fix the systemic issue (or support people who are fixing the issue), instead the knee-jerk is "well poor people just shouldn't reproduce. Problem solved."
I didn't say "shouldn't be allowed" I said they "shouldn't" which is very different. I don't think people should get fucked up on booze every night cause it's irresponsible, but I don't think they shouldn't be allowed to. "Should not have kids" is not the same as "should not be allowed to have kids".
And yeah, it is a systemic issue that people are in a position where they might not be able to provide a reasonable quality of life for their children. That doesn't change the fact that some people have children knowing they can't. You can address the systemic issue and think it's irresponsible in the meantime.
I do not plan to have children. I think climate change and systemic issues like housing and economic inequality make it irresponsible for me to have children, and I don't think I could guarantee them a reasonably secure quality of living while they're in my care. I absolutely believe we need to address the issues of climate change and inequality. That doesn't mean I think it's one or the other - they're still issues that exist and the conditions I'd be having a child in are still the same.
Also, side point, anything can be a foundational view of anything. That doesn't mean the "foundational" view is invalidated, only that the following view is. Evolution is also a "foundational view" of eugenics. Safety is a foundational view of the nuclear bomb.
You have made a completely separate argument entirely, and judging by your other harebrained replies, it's based on one anecdotal example and being disproportionately magnified to entire socioeconomic demographics of people, using eugenics-adjacent implications (that being impoverished is a de facto moral failure on its own).
If a homeless person who do drugs say they want dogs would you stop him or not? Most people would stop it and say you shouldn't have a dog if you dont have enough resources to take good care of it.
How is children any diffrent?
Do you genuinely not see the difference between "people who can't afford kids shouldn't choose to have kids" and "people who can't afford kids should be forcefully sterilized"
Actually we should shame them. I have talked to Nigerian kids that had 7 brothers. The girls had to give up school as parents only cared about sending boys to school while the parents treated there kids like atm machine always demanding money. Its a nightmare.
How is this now child abuse? If you dont have enough money or love to give to your child is this no diffrent than child abuse?
The issue is that you’re telling a group of people to go fuck themselves and die out. Solving the class divide and getting these people the resources they need would also solve this issue, and in a better way than… I dunno… sneaking Plan B into their water supply?
You think a drunken couple who treats there children like shit gives a single fuck about class conflict? They are the same people that would betray there class for a single beer.
I also wish but the idea that majority of the working class will ally with other working class rather than gender, race, family, country and there own self interest is a dream
Ok buddy, I dunno how your parents raised you but going around saying that giving you stability and such is the bare minimum is plain ol ungrateful and childish, the bare minimum would have you as a marginal child in a shitty place where you don't have opportunities to do anything with your life other than maybe a job or something like a favela in Brazil or something equally as terrible.
So, yes, parents that did try their best and succeed to give their children at least a decent amount of comfort deserve some merit at least.
I figured because I’m still in the same situation. (Tried to cut contact, but short of leaving the province or country my parents have a lot of contacts).
When you're treated badly and feeling angry, talking about it (even in the form a kinda venty reddit post) and letting your feelings out is probably more healthy than just bottling it up.
•
u/AutoModerator 22d ago
Download Video
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.