In many of these cases it seems like having kids may have been an ill-advised life choice.
Having kids is always a choice not a right.
Having kids is always a choice not a right.
2. You can't blame children for mistakes made by their parents.
You're forcing others to help them by threat of force.
Governments use the threat of force all the time to make people perform pro-social actions, if I park in a handicap zone I get a ticket. What is that ticket besides the threat of force if I dont pay it? What is any contract between any two parties besides a threat of force? On a fundamental level the government exists to threaten force against rich people in order to help poor people, which allows those poor people to go on living and not take up arms to take what they need from the wealthy.
If reproduction is not a right, then you shouldn't have a problem with the government coming to sterilize you for some arbitrary reason, right? Maybe your skin is not the 'right' color?
Having sex is a choice, there are risks involved, one of them is pregnancy.
Many people who aren't considered "rich" can raise children and be economically comfortable.
I'd encourage you to ask someone who grew up in poverty or with uneducated parents (who accidentally had children or decided to have four children knowing they couldn't afford it) if they'd willingly put a child through what they went through growing up and I think my point would be crystal clear.
If you're impoverished in your thirties, it is probably the result of a long history of poor life choices. You can get dealt a horrible hand with lots of tragedy and disadvantages and still be able to make it on your own in your thirties, as long as you're moderately intelligent and hardworking.
So... wow, thats one hell of a logic leap. Ignoring how close this is to progressive attitudes in the early 20th century, what about "happy accidents". This is a rather to be blunt disgusting attitude to our fellow humans.
> If you're impoverished in your thirties, it is probably the result of a long history of poor life choices. You can get dealt a horrible hand with lots of tragedy and disadvantages and still be able to make it on your own in your thirties, as long as you're moderately intelligent and hardworking.
I get the distinct impression you have no clue what you're talking about and have never worked paycheck to paycheck in your life. One bill can cascade into exactly what your saying is "a long history of poor life choices".
The attitudes such as this are exactly why populist messages are winning a lot of disaffected people. If you're telling them: improve or die, or just die if you're not useful to companies, is it any wonder they're rejecting the worldview wholesale?
I hate politics but the attitudes espoused in the parent post do nothing but blame people for the lives they tend to have been born with irrespective of ability or life choices. As someone that barely escaped things only by dumb luck at picking computer nonsense as a profession, the lack of empathy and understanding by people that have never seen what life is like in survival mode is both astounding and saddening.
I came from about as broken a home as you can imagine. I dropped out of high school. I lived on the streets. I went back to college to try and escape my situation. I spent 8 hours a day in the computer lab, working on my skills. I slept in tents and on couches so I could focus on my education and get ahead. Don't talk to me about privilege.
People have the ability to be strong. Coddling and enabling keep them weak. We should help people when they are hit by random, extreme circumstances. We should mostly let them struggle when they're dealing with basic life shit.
I assure you kids can and do grow up just fine without an upper middle class amount of resources thrown at them.
I agree with your second paragraph though.
If you can't put a roof over their head, and feed them, you probably shouldn't have had them.
Multiple people I went to high school with have children they outright can not afford, they couldn't afford the first, or the second, one has 5 children and has been receiving government assistance (and regular handouts as food distribution from her Church) since the first was born. This sort of thing is not uncommon, people with 1 or more children that they have never been able to afford on their own.
Look, I like sex but the primary function of sex is reproduction, if you can't afford the gamble that even 1 in 100,000 times you have sex a child will result then you simply shouldn't be having sex and if you have one unplanned child, and can't afford it, you absolutely should not be doing anything that could create more until a time that have improved your means and can afford to have more.
That's not eugenics, that's not mean, that's not classism, that's not racism, that's common sense.
When couples want to adopt, they are almost always (if not always) required to meet with someone that they have to provide financial statements/pay stubs/w2s etc to as to show that they are able to adequately provide for a child, no one has a problem with this...
Edit: and for those downvoting this, that appear to think I "am the rich" I make 34k USD per year, my father died 12 days before my 13th birthday and my mother did her best to provide for us after that, I personally have a bankruptcy from trying to live foolishly above my means in my early 20's. I drive a used car. I eat black beans and rice 5 days a week for more than half of my kcal requirements so that I CAN afford luxuries like internet, a current gen phone with a data plan, a playstation plus subscription and my two gym memberships as a strength athlete. I do not have children, if I had a sexual partner I would exercise all caution as to not have children as I know it would be a financial burden that would tax my income. I am not elitist, I am not rich, I am lower middle class. I AM responsible, I DO exercise common sense, I DO put thought into my actions that may impact me financially.
Not all people living in poverty are responsible for being there, in fact most probably aren't, however many do directly worsen their situation considerably by taking up vices like alcohol & tobacco and by making financially reckless decisions like having children. These actions make it far harder to dig themselves out of poverty and they should be expected to take responsibility for their own actions instead of expecting those with more means to swoop in and rescue them from their poor choices.
The grocery figure in the original article is insane, simply switching to beans and rice for half of their kcals (which will also meet healthy fiber and protein levels) would shave hundreds off that. Adding potatoes, canned vegetables, no-frills whole grain bread, would also bring down costs and probably markedly improve overall nutrition. Instead, a good chunk of these families, are likely buying overly processed box foods/soda/junk food/fast food for way too large of a portion of their dietary intake. Again, this is a poor choice many of those families are making. I've yet to find a grocery store that doesn't have shelves laden with beans, rice, lentils, potatoes and bread.
it is the material conditions of classism, racism, and hate that causes the poverty in the first place, with the intentional outcome of making the lower class suffer, so the rich can have more. this IS eugenics. you say it isn't, but in the preceeding paragraph, straight up say that poor people have no business having kids. unbelievable.
There's far more indication that the wealthy just don't know/care about the plight of the poor. Sure a few billionaires might promote what can be seen as anti-poor policy but it seems as though most of them think it's actually good policy.
Your comment is equally bizarre and extreme as the one you're replying to, but extreme in a different direction.
please, just go mask-off, be true to yourself, and admit you just want eugenics. you're already A-OK with the death and suffering of children.
You can go to a community college for next to nothing, while sharing a room with several other people, and eating ramen and microwave burritos, then cover a good portion of the costs with a Pell grant, food stamps and some needs based scholarships. After a few years, you can transfer to a 4 year university for a profitable major, take out student loans and complete your degree (this should be doable for 16-24 grand). You might have to work part time to pull this off but not more than 1-2 days a week.
I don't think there are many valid excuses for being unsuccessful beyond your early 30s.
I am ok with the death and suffering of children if it avoids more death and suffering later.
The ability to have kids or not is one thing, the right to make the choice is another, and it's constantly being attacked by religious extremists.
23% of those 18-30 aren't having sex and they're not dying.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-ame...
And your choice of words to describe the situation certainly aren't helping. In fact, they're causing more harm than good, as you present one side as good and kind, and the other side as evil incarnate.
In other words, this is a complex situation, and you're part of the problem.
A personal attack like this makes a hellish thread worse still. We ban accounts that post like that. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and following them?
The comment I responded to was saying, "having kids is a choice," to which I say, "many people are being forced to have kids they dont want." Forcing unwanted births is a specific policy objective pursued by a group of people pushing they're religious views on others.