[ SECRET POST #2686 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2686 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Controversial opinions

[fingalsanteater]

save up money

lmao... save up money. SAVE UP MONEY. /USA-centric POV incoming

You do realize that very suggestion of a poor or even middle class family "saving money," is outdated. Money goes to bills and some luxury items and that's it. Suggesting that a poor or middle class person or couple saving money before trying to have kids is akin to advocating eugenics as saving enough money to get out of poverty is not feasible. And how much money? Just giving birth is expensive as hell and costs more than a poor or middle class person could even save in the first place.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

+1

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

This ^

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. It's an incredibly naive and classist opinion.

Re: Controversial opinions

[fingalsanteater]

It just fucking grinds my gears when people say "oh, the only people who can afford to have kids should have them." And I hear it A LOT. There's just so much wrong with that way of thinking. The first being that the people others think shouldn't be having kids are the people who can't afford or are denied the resources to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Ugh.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

But I don't think that's what people mean. They mean that if you're on welfare and have five kids, you probably shouldn't have another kid you can't take care of. As for not getting pregnant... well, you may have to abstain. Yes, I realize this isn't an issue for people in abusive relationships, or rape victims, etc. I also think there's the issue of judging another person's circumstances when you don't know a thing about them. But I do see where they're coming from, in principle.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

*OPTION for people, not issue...

Re: Controversial opinions

[fingalsanteater]

Oh sure, I see where they are coming from "in principle," and it's part of the "principle" that I'm fundamentally opposed to. I find dictating someone's reproductive rights to based on their social standing or income level to be morally reprehensible.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

No. My mom raised me on her own and we were always poor.

And I'm living what I'm advocating - I know I cannot take care of a child right now, so I'm not having any yet.

I would think it's common sense not to put your own children in such a situation, but people are simply selfish.

Re: Controversial opinions

[fingalsanteater]

I think you are under the impression that people just "choose" to have kids they can't afford. That's not really how it works the majority of the time.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

No? One kid can be an accident, but if you have more "accidental" kids, you are generally just irresponsible. Exceptions, of course, for exceptional cases involving abuse and such. I'm talking about regular people with choices.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

You always have a choice, though. Even if you don't want an abortion, there is nothing stopping you from giving the child up for adoption.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not american, thanks.

... and you are proving my point. A child costs a LOT of money. If you don't have any money to spare even BEFORE you have a child, how the hell are you expecting to take care of an additional person? It's just irresponsible.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I think with things like these, you may want to watch your wording? I think there's a difference between being poor and literally not having one dollar to spare.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

Why? I didn't say poor, I said "can't afford to take care of a child".

Re: Controversial opinions

[fingalsanteater]

Which is why I specified my comment was from a USA-centric POV. Taking care of a person doesn't always mean "having money." While I agree that it's prudent to at least be able to afford the necessities like food, housing and clothing before planning to have children, that is not the way the world works. Children are not always planned and it's asinine to think that people will abstain from sex just to avoid the scant possibility of pregnancy. Your opinion is a fine opinion in a vacuum, but has no basis in reality.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, sorry. I assumed you thought I was american.

I said "one child can be an accident, three are not". You can have one accidental child, but there are people running around with a whole bunch of children they cannot take care of. After having one child and seeing that you don't really have the resources to care for it properly, I'd think you'd try harder to not have a second or third.

Why? If I'd said you shouldn't buy a puppy if you don't have the money to take care of it, you'd almost certainly agree. Just because children happen naturally instead of being bought doesn't mean you don't have the responsibility to make sure you can give them a good life before having them.

If I lived in the USA (or any place with bad/weird health care options), I'd be even more determined not to have children until I can provide for them - the thought that my child might get sick and die, even though there are medical options, simply because I couldn't afford to pay for those medical options, is horrifying. I wouldn't want to put myself, let alone my (theoretical) child in such a situation.

I'm not saying there should be a law against it, just that I think people shouldn't do it... and that I think it's common sense.

Re: Controversial opinions

[diet_poison]

fwiw, OP, I've been reading through this thread and I pretty much agree with you. I don't have time to really get into it, since I need to drive back to school as soon as this weather blows over, but...yeah. Having kids is about the kids, not about the parents.

nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

In what world are you living that there's a "scant" possibility of pregnancy when birth control is not used? It's about a 2.5% chance per individual encounter or 80% per year. Maybe you consider those to be acceptable odds for a few minutes' enjoyment, but I sure as hell don't.

If you know damn well you can't afford to have a kid, then what's asinine is taking that risk. Sex is not a necessity of life, it's not even that goddamn important. Where did this idea come from that it's somehow unreasonable to expect adults to exercise a little self-control?

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

"Where did this idea come from that it's somehow unreasonable to expect adults to exercise a little self-control?"

Because they've never, in the history of the world, been able to.

Adults acting immature and irresponsible and making poor choices isn't some new fucking thing, and it's coming across people who think that things "used to be different" is tiresome as hell. There have been people having kids out of wedlock and having more than they could afford and failing at keeping their pants on (and, in fact, there has typically been a rationalisation or five for certain people [like men] not keeping their pants on. At the end of the 1800s, for example, it was thought that if men weren't fucking things constantly, they'd die. Like, they'd literally die of not having sex) since the dawn of man. The major difference between us and our forebears is that we actually think there's something wrong with killing babies that you don't want (and that's not even generalisable to the entire modern world!).

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

My mom got pregnant with me when she was on birth control, and then had another pregnancy when she was using spermicide, which ended in a miscarriage. Who knows how many more times it would've happened if my dad hadn't gotten a vasectomy.

Also, what? Sex is a drive. Just because YOU can go without doesn't mean everybody can.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

I think it depends who OP is talking about. A lot of people really are lower middle class; what are they supposed to do, not have kids? That's kind of unfair. But people who are impoverished and can't even afford food or water really shouldn't, no. But even then, it's not that simple.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

I think I was quite clear? "can't afford to take care of a child". By most definitions, middle class people should be able to take care of a child. I'm not saying you should be rich to have children, you should, quite simply, be able to give your child a reasonably good life.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

How is it unfair? Part of being an adult is realizing that you don't always get everything that you want.

I've wanted a dog my entire life but my parents were allergic and now that I'm on my own, I don't have the money or space for a dog. So I don't have one even though I desperately want one. Maybe I won't ever get to have one, who knows. It would suck, but sometimes life is like that. Being an adult means accepting that and dealing with it.