12 ms·

> People who are irresponsible probably aren't calculating the costs..or they don't care. Are you saying that poor people who have children are implicitly irre

> People who are irresponsible probably aren't calculating the costs..or they don't care. Are you saying that poor people who have children are implicitly irresponsible for having had children? That seems to be what you are saying. As a general rule, don't we want everyone to have kids—including poor people? What do poor people have to do to have kids "responsibly", in your view?

Dalewyn 3y ago
As a would-be parent, it is your duty to guarantee a comfortable childhood for your child. This means having a reliable and sufficient income stream to provide for a reasonably comfortable life. If you lack that sort of income, it is irresponsible to become a parent. So to answer the question of whether poor people should have children: No, they should not. Absolutely no child deserves to knowingly live a destitute life if it can be helped.
- Exoristos 3y ago
  All these comments, like this, are hilarious. I grew up below the poverty line, and it was great. Big screen TVs are not what makes life worth living. Something tells me you commenters value belongings so much because they're all you have and are.
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    I was surprised to find such confidently ignorant and repulsive takes. It's one thing to have your own goals for your kids, it's quite another to set some ludicrous standard for others.
  - legutierr 3y ago
    I think you might be missing the point. The apparent concern that these comments show for the well being of children is misdirection and rationalization, hiding the true intent behind anti-natalist perspectives, which are fundamentally eugenicist in nature. At their foundation, these comments presume that there are people who deserve to have children, and that there are people that do not—in other words, that there are children that deserve to be born, and that there are children that do not deserve to be born. Poverty is just a proxy for other qualities that would be much too controversial to articulate explicitly.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      Not really, just that there is a lot of suffering (not to mention many willing adoptees) out there, and that there is no need to create more suffering by having children one cannot adequately care for, it is not some sort of hidden conspiracy theory to advance eugenics. If that is what you believe, then it is likely that nothing anyone says here will sway you out of that viewpoint. If anything, the anti-natalists will extinguish themselves anyway, so the problem solves itself.
      - legutierr 3y ago
        I think you might be misreading some of these comments. I also wonder if you are aware of the history of eugenicist ideas in the west, and how enmeshed those concepts are in many every-day attitudes about who should be having children—often without people understanding the history (and original intention) of policies they espouse. I am not advancing any kind of conspiracy theory here. And I think you misrepresent the potential harm. Anti-natalists don't just want to forgo having children. Many anti-natalists also want to discourage or prevent other people from having children. In fact, I'm sure many people making anti-natalist comments here do intend to have children themselves—they just want to discourage or prevent other people they find undesirable from having kids.
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        I have not seen or met any anti-natalists that explicitly want to stop others from having children, and if there are any, that's such a fringe minority as to be inconsequential (just like in other thought groups, like vegans). The vast majority of anti-natalists are like the ones in some of these comments, asking whether it is moral to have children. They are not pushing that onto others.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        mensetmanusman 3y ago
- brailsafe 3y ago
  Would-be parents aren't authority figures when it comes to either what the goal of parenthood should be, who meets the criteria, or what reasonably comfortable means. Would-be parents get to have their own goals based on their own constraints. My differing opinion is that it's irresponsible to opt-in to raising a child if you lack the facilities to care for your basic needs, with a bit of margin. If one minor setback risks putting you on the street, and you have no support structure at all, probably don't try and get pregnant. You should be able to provide their basic needs until they can provide their own. That's it, except that income/expense pressure is intense enough now, in many areas, that meeting those requirements can be even more difficult than it might have been with an above-average income than in previous decades.
- chr1 3y ago
  What is the definition of "reasonably comfortable life"? From the point of view of most of human history and most of the people currently living on earth, even the poorest people in US and Europe live _unreasonably_ comfortable lives. If the viewpoint you promote was common anytime in history humanity would not exist today.
  - wiseowise 3y ago
    If you can raise your kid on a median, as in your kid isn’t spoiled and not lacking - you’re good to go.
    - Thiez 3y ago
      Median? So the bottom 50% of the population as measured by wealth or income should not have children, according to you?
      - wiseowise 3y ago
        Median of their environment. > So the bottom 50% of the population as measured by wealth or income should not have children, according to you? If that means world where kids are presented with equal opportunity for happiness - then yes. To give you an example: whole class goes on a trip for X sum, one child's parents can't afford that trip. What is moral to do in this case?
        chr1 3y ago
        Moral thing is for the child that doesn't have enough money to not go on that trip. It is a valuable lesson that to get something useful from other people you need to do something useful for them first. The difference of what you did and what you took is the money you have. Taking children to the same trips and giving them all the same toys does not give them equal opportunities, due to natural differences of abilities and interests the children have. I myself was a child who very often had to stay at home when my class went to cinema or to play computer games. I never would even consider to want to have one less sibling in exchange for going to more trips. In fact i would happily give most of what i had as a child in exchange for having one more brother. After all the best memories are not from expensive things, but from reading a book, or playing together with toys made from simple sticks and newspaper. If your answer to your question is that, if a child can't go to a trip with the rest of the class then that child is better to not exist at all, then your system of beliefs is immoral and abhorrent. And it is a good thing that such a system of beliefs also leads people holding it to not reproduce and by that select such horrible thinking out of population.
- TheHappyOddish 3y ago
  > As a would-be parent, it is your duty to guarantee a comfortable childhood for your child. This means having a reliable and sufficient income stream to provide for a reasonably comfortable life. If you lack that sort of income, it is irresponsible to become a parent. Unless your family is very well to-do, you likely only have to look back 2-3 generations on yourself (or anyone) to find parents who don't meet that line. Are you saying the vast majority of humanity are irresponsible parents, or do you believe this to be a new standard that must be followed?
kajaktum 3y ago
> Are you saying that poor people who have children are implicitly irresponsible for having had children? That seems to be what you are saying. I am not sure how this is a controversial point? If you cannot properly take care your children, don't have one. It doesn't matter if its poverty, mental health or anything out of your control. Obviously, that is not to say that poverty is their fault but we have better standard of how much suffering a child should suffer.
- legutierr 3y ago
  In what world is this NOT a controversial point?!? Genuinely, I ask: what is the cultural environment in which you exist, such that you can make this argument without at least knowing that other people would find it deeply offensive? > If you cannot properly take care your children, don't have one. OK, so poverty prevents a person from "properly" taking care of children? Would you say that poor people able to take care of their children, but only "improperly"? What, might I ask, is the minimum acceptable level of income that a couple should have before having children? What do they do, those hard-working, upright and moral couples who don't make enough money to meet your standard? Should they live their whole lives childless, and die alone?
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Poverty is a variable to properly taking care of a child, that does not mean that the parent means that being poor automatically makes one unfit to have a child, which is what you're conflating, if I understand correctly. If one is poor but can provide the proper nutrition and housing to a child, then great, have them, but if not, then no, I don't believe it is controversial or offensive to say that it would be better for them to not have a child. Child abuse is a big problem for a reason.
    - legutierr 3y ago
      > Poverty is a variable to properly taking care of a child, that does not mean that the parent means that being poor automatically makes one unfit to have a child, which is what you're conflating, if I understand correctly. In fact, the other commenters were conflating these two things, which I wanted to point out. I agree that they should not be conflated. > If one is poor but can provide the proper nutrition and housing to a child, then great, have them, but if not, then no, I don't believe it is controversial or offensive to say that it would be better for them to not have a child. Child abuse is a big problem for a reason. The right decision for an individual couple to make is not the same as the right policies and practices for society to implement. There are people who are unsuitable for having children, but that number is vanishingly small (or at least it should be). Everybody else just needs support, resources, and instruction. It might be better for a couple that does not have support, resources or knowledge to forgo having children. Whenever that happens, though, it is a tragedy for humanity. The rest of us should find ways to support families that are otherwise lacking, so that having children is the best option for them.
wiseowise 3y ago
> Are you saying that poor people who have children are implicitly irresponsible for having had children? Yes. Not implicitly, explicitly. That’s how I was born and suffered for 20 years until I earned my way out of poorness. > What do poor people have to do to have kids "responsibly", in your view? If you can’t give your kid what other parents can (and I’m not talking about obscene gifts, just basic activities such as going to clubs, or attending social places) - you shouldn’t have kids.
- lwhi 3y ago
  You are incorrect. What if you can give them positive things that money can't buy? Do all rich kids get the benefit of wisdom, experience, compassion, joy?
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  I grew up poor, my life is awesome now, so you are wrong in at least one case :)

Dalewyn 3y ago

As a would-be parent, it is your duty to guarantee a comfortable childhood for your child. This means having a reliable and sufficient income stream to provide for a reasonably comfortable life. If you lack that sort of income, it is irresponsible to become a parent. So to answer the question of whether poor people should have children: No, they should not. Absolutely no child deserves to knowingly live a destitute life if it can be helped.

Exoristos 3y ago
All these comments, like this, are hilarious. I grew up below the poverty line, and it was great. Big screen TVs are not what makes life worth living. Something tells me you commenters value belongings so much because they're all you have and are.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  I was surprised to find such confidently ignorant and repulsive takes. It's one thing to have your own goals for your kids, it's quite another to set some ludicrous standard for others.
- legutierr 3y ago
  I think you might be missing the point. The apparent concern that these comments show for the well being of children is misdirection and rationalization, hiding the true intent behind anti-natalist perspectives, which are fundamentally eugenicist in nature. At their foundation, these comments presume that there are people who deserve to have children, and that there are people that do not—in other words, that there are children that deserve to be born, and that there are children that do not deserve to be born. Poverty is just a proxy for other qualities that would be much too controversial to articulate explicitly.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Not really, just that there is a lot of suffering (not to mention many willing adoptees) out there, and that there is no need to create more suffering by having children one cannot adequately care for, it is not some sort of hidden conspiracy theory to advance eugenics. If that is what you believe, then it is likely that nothing anyone says here will sway you out of that viewpoint. If anything, the anti-natalists will extinguish themselves anyway, so the problem solves itself.
    - legutierr 3y ago
      I think you might be misreading some of these comments. I also wonder if you are aware of the history of eugenicist ideas in the west, and how enmeshed those concepts are in many every-day attitudes about who should be having children—often without people understanding the history (and original intention) of policies they espouse. I am not advancing any kind of conspiracy theory here. And I think you misrepresent the potential harm. Anti-natalists don't just want to forgo having children. Many anti-natalists also want to discourage or prevent other people from having children. In fact, I'm sure many people making anti-natalist comments here do intend to have children themselves—they just want to discourage or prevent other people they find undesirable from having kids.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        I have not seen or met any anti-natalists that explicitly want to stop others from having children, and if there are any, that's such a fringe minority as to be inconsequential (just like in other thought groups, like vegans). The vast majority of anti-natalists are like the ones in some of these comments, asking whether it is moral to have children. They are not pushing that onto others.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        mensetmanusman 3y ago
brailsafe 3y ago
Would-be parents aren't authority figures when it comes to either what the goal of parenthood should be, who meets the criteria, or what reasonably comfortable means. Would-be parents get to have their own goals based on their own constraints. My differing opinion is that it's irresponsible to opt-in to raising a child if you lack the facilities to care for your basic needs, with a bit of margin. If one minor setback risks putting you on the street, and you have no support structure at all, probably don't try and get pregnant. You should be able to provide their basic needs until they can provide their own. That's it, except that income/expense pressure is intense enough now, in many areas, that meeting those requirements can be even more difficult than it might have been with an above-average income than in previous decades.
chr1 3y ago
What is the definition of "reasonably comfortable life"? From the point of view of most of human history and most of the people currently living on earth, even the poorest people in US and Europe live _unreasonably_ comfortable lives. If the viewpoint you promote was common anytime in history humanity would not exist today.
- wiseowise 3y ago
  If you can raise your kid on a median, as in your kid isn’t spoiled and not lacking - you’re good to go.
  - Thiez 3y ago
    Median? So the bottom 50% of the population as measured by wealth or income should not have children, according to you?
    - wiseowise 3y ago
      Median of their environment. > So the bottom 50% of the population as measured by wealth or income should not have children, according to you? If that means world where kids are presented with equal opportunity for happiness - then yes. To give you an example: whole class goes on a trip for X sum, one child's parents can't afford that trip. What is moral to do in this case?
      - chr1 3y ago
        Moral thing is for the child that doesn't have enough money to not go on that trip. It is a valuable lesson that to get something useful from other people you need to do something useful for them first. The difference of what you did and what you took is the money you have. Taking children to the same trips and giving them all the same toys does not give them equal opportunities, due to natural differences of abilities and interests the children have. I myself was a child who very often had to stay at home when my class went to cinema or to play computer games. I never would even consider to want to have one less sibling in exchange for going to more trips. In fact i would happily give most of what i had as a child in exchange for having one more brother. After all the best memories are not from expensive things, but from reading a book, or playing together with toys made from simple sticks and newspaper. If your answer to your question is that, if a child can't go to a trip with the rest of the class then that child is better to not exist at all, then your system of beliefs is immoral and abhorrent. And it is a good thing that such a system of beliefs also leads people holding it to not reproduce and by that select such horrible thinking out of population.
TheHappyOddish 3y ago
> As a would-be parent, it is your duty to guarantee a comfortable childhood for your child. This means having a reliable and sufficient income stream to provide for a reasonably comfortable life. If you lack that sort of income, it is irresponsible to become a parent. Unless your family is very well to-do, you likely only have to look back 2-3 generations on yourself (or anyone) to find parents who don't meet that line. Are you saying the vast majority of humanity are irresponsible parents, or do you believe this to be a new standard that must be followed?

kajaktum 3y ago

> Are you saying that poor people who have children are implicitly irresponsible for having had children? That seems to be what you are saying. I am not sure how this is a controversial point? If you cannot properly take care your children, don't have one. It doesn't matter if its poverty, mental health or anything out of your control. Obviously, that is not to say that poverty is their fault but we have better standard of how much suffering a child should suffer.

legutierr 3y ago
In what world is this NOT a controversial point?!? Genuinely, I ask: what is the cultural environment in which you exist, such that you can make this argument without at least knowing that other people would find it deeply offensive? > If you cannot properly take care your children, don't have one. OK, so poverty prevents a person from "properly" taking care of children? Would you say that poor people able to take care of their children, but only "improperly"? What, might I ask, is the minimum acceptable level of income that a couple should have before having children? What do they do, those hard-working, upright and moral couples who don't make enough money to meet your standard? Should they live their whole lives childless, and die alone?
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Poverty is a variable to properly taking care of a child, that does not mean that the parent means that being poor automatically makes one unfit to have a child, which is what you're conflating, if I understand correctly. If one is poor but can provide the proper nutrition and housing to a child, then great, have them, but if not, then no, I don't believe it is controversial or offensive to say that it would be better for them to not have a child. Child abuse is a big problem for a reason.
  - legutierr 3y ago
    > Poverty is a variable to properly taking care of a child, that does not mean that the parent means that being poor automatically makes one unfit to have a child, which is what you're conflating, if I understand correctly. In fact, the other commenters were conflating these two things, which I wanted to point out. I agree that they should not be conflated. > If one is poor but can provide the proper nutrition and housing to a child, then great, have them, but if not, then no, I don't believe it is controversial or offensive to say that it would be better for them to not have a child. Child abuse is a big problem for a reason. The right decision for an individual couple to make is not the same as the right policies and practices for society to implement. There are people who are unsuitable for having children, but that number is vanishingly small (or at least it should be). Everybody else just needs support, resources, and instruction. It might be better for a couple that does not have support, resources or knowledge to forgo having children. Whenever that happens, though, it is a tragedy for humanity. The rest of us should find ways to support families that are otherwise lacking, so that having children is the best option for them.

wiseowise 3y ago

> Are you saying that poor people who have children are implicitly irresponsible for having had children? Yes. Not implicitly, explicitly. That’s how I was born and suffered for 20 years until I earned my way out of poorness. > What do poor people have to do to have kids "responsibly", in your view? If you can’t give your kid what other parents can (and I’m not talking about obscene gifts, just basic activities such as going to clubs, or attending social places) - you shouldn’t have kids.

lwhi 3y ago
You are incorrect. What if you can give them positive things that money can't buy? Do all rich kids get the benefit of wisdom, experience, compassion, joy?
mensetmanusman 3y ago
I grew up poor, my life is awesome now, so you are wrong in at least one case :)