[ 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

[(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)]

Why is reproduction a "right" to you? Having children is, quite literally, putting a helpless person into a situation without their consent, a situation from which they won't be able to remove themselves for many years. I'd think making sure people don't abuse their "right" to make babies would be an important part of civilisation.

[(Anonymous)]

It'a also putting further demands on a planet that really, REALLY cannot afford to have more human beings on it at this point, and in fact needs to reduce the number it's already got substantially. Nobody wants to talk about that or is willing to discuss curtailing those precious "rights" in any way, even if it means the eventual extinction of our species and many others.

[(Anonymous)]

Please start your own thread for your money and/or planet saving opinions. This is quite complicated enough already.

Re: Controversial opinions

[dethtoll]

Unfortunately that's not a road you want to start going down. I agree with you that certain people shouldn't be having kids, but where do we draw the line? Neutering rednecks?

Re: Controversial opinions

[fingalsanteater]

A reproductive right is being given the freedom to choose to have children or not, no matter my income level, education level, social class, race, ethnicity, etc.

I think you are overly concerned with money, for one thing. Having money doesn't always make a better home life. In fact, I would say that beyond the ability to provide the basic necessities, having money has no bearing on one's ability to raise children. Children born to parents who can "afford" them can still be placed without their consent in a bad situation from which they can't remove themselves.

And, your line about a baby being a helpless person placed in a situation without its consent is naive bullshit. I mean, yeah, technically, it's true.

But, you are essentially advocating governmental checks reproduction because a baby can't consent to being born, which wrests the ability to choose to reproduce out of the hands of the individual and into the many hands of bureaucracy since a baby can NEVER consent to bring born.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

da

I find the well-being of children to be more important than anyone's right to have them. I'm not the OP who said poor people shouldn't have kids or whatever, but yes, I think it's irresponsible to continue to have kids that you can't take care of.

You might have the right to have kids, but you don't have the right to keep them if you can't take care of them. (says someone who has done foster care for kids in relevant situations)

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

The thing that bothers me about the current system is... yes, kids will get taken away if they're neglected or abused, but by the time that happens, they've already been neglected or abused. You can't just erase those experiences and pretend they never happened, that's the kind of stuff that can fuck people up for life.

I don't know. If I had to make a choice, I'd much rather that someone didn't get to have kids than have any kids suffer neglect or abuse. No child deserves that.

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

[fingalsanteater]

So? It's their right to have children.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

Having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right choice to make.

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)]

Many children get put up for adoption and never get adopted. They wind up being shuffled through the system until they reach the age of majority, and as a result of their background, a good portion of those kids wind up having serious problems socially and with the law.

Unless you are certain you kid is going to be going to a good home, then putting him or her up for adoption really isn't much better than keeping him or her. In fact, keeping the kid would probably be the kinder choice.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

I may be wrong, but isn't that only the case with older kids? I thought babies get adopted more often.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

Which quite often results in people who live their entire lives in the foster care system! And there are some pretty fucked up people who sign up to be foster parents. I'd rather a kid be raised by people who love them and have to get free school lunches than be abused by a stranger. Which, I realize, is not the fate of all children put up for adoption. But it's what I'd be thinking of if I was a poor mother and it would influence my decision. I'm sure I'm not the only one!

Re: Controversial opinions

[fingalsanteater]

there is nothing stopping you from giving the child up for adoption.

Nothing stopping you? Really?