fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2686 ]

[ SECRET POST #2686 ]

⌈ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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.

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.

This is why I will never, ever be able to view having kids as a 'right.'

I don't think any person's personal desire to have children outweighs the kid's right to be loved, wanted, healthy, and to have access to the things they need in order to grow and thrive.

I have personally opted not to have children (even though I would like them) because my health problems would mean essentially playing Russian Roulette with a potential biologicial child's health and life and there is no way that I can justify that under any circumstances. My desire to have biological kids does not trump their right to be healthy and not suffer from lifelong health problems. Yeah, it's disappointing to me, but I'll live. If I were to have a kid, the kid might NOT live.

(reply from suspended user)

Love is a necessity, but it also isn't some magical power that will provide all other physical necessities. Those are important too.

(reply from suspended user)

Because all of those things are necessities. You can love your child, but loving them isn't going to put food on the table or buy them clothes. Likewise, you can be rolling in money and be able to give your kid all the material things they could ever want, but that's meaningless if you don't love them.

(reply from suspended user)

Re: Controversial opinions

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-12 02:14 (UTC) - Expand

(reply from suspended user)

Re: Controversial opinions

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-12 19:54 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial opinions

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-12 02:26 (UTC) - Expand

(reply from suspended user)

Re: Controversial opinions

diet_poison - 2014-05-12 03:10 (UTC) - Expand

(reply from suspended user)

Re: Controversial opinions

diet_poison - 2014-05-13 00:10 (UTC) - Expand

(reply from suspended user)

Re: Controversial opinions

diet_poison - 2014-05-13 01:22 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial opinions

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-12 03:48 (UTC) - Expand

(reply from suspended user)

Re: Controversial opinions

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-12 04:03 (UTC) - Expand

(reply from suspended user)

Re: Controversial opinions

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-12 21:54 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial opinions

diet_poison - 2014-05-13 00:12 (UTC) - Expand

(reply from suspended user)

You have a choice, and you are making the choice that is best for you.

When we say that something is not a right, we are saying that it is not up to the individual. We are saying that society at large can control it. And the trouble with that is that, when it comes to reproduction, society tends to opt for controls that are based on power and prejudice. Enshrining reproduction as a right doesn't completely prevent that from happening, but it does provide a decent stop-gap.

It's all well and good to educate people and to encourage them to have children responsibly. But saying that reproduction is not a right leaves us open to far too many abuses.

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?

"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!).

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.

(reply from suspended user)

This is a weird comment. We all know what the necessities of life are - food, water, protection from danger, etc. Sex is not a necessity to live. It is a necessity to reproduce, which is why we have such a strong drive for it, so if everyone stopped having sex* our race would die out. But it isn't an individual necessity for any person to stay alive. It might affect them in some way (I really don't know, having not experienced it myself), but it's not necessary. You won't die if you can't fuck.

*notwithstanding a future scenario where we grew babies in tubes or something. which would be kinda depressing tbh.

(reply from suspended user)

No? That is the definition of "necessities of life". They are the things that keep you alive.

(reply from suspended user)

Re: nayrt

diet_poison - 2014-05-12 03:18 (UTC) - Expand

(reply from suspended user)

Re: nayrt

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-12 04:01 (UTC) - Expand

(reply from suspended user)

Re: nayrt

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-12 05:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: nayrt

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-12 04:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: nayrt

diet_poison - 2014-05-13 00:02 (UTC) - Expand

You and I won't die if we can't fuck. But if everyone on the planet decided not to have sex, then the species would cease to be. From an evolutionary standpoint, that's contrary to survival.

We have to reproduce. The drive to do so is actually the most important of any of our drives, if we adopt a natural view. We have to carry on the species. If we don't, then we are nothing. We are but a blip on the radar.

You sound like an evangelical cis white male.

lol, forreal? Would an evangelical person say "we are but a blip on the radar"??

The drive to do so is actually the most important of any of our drives

It's really, really not.

I'm gonna have to agree here. Survival is our basest drive. If we're dead, sex is pointless. This is especially true because humans take longer - far longer - than the vast majority of all sexually reproducing species to reach sexual maturity.

Did you even read my comment? Because I basically said exactly that

It does not follow, from that statement, that every single human must reproduce with every single impulse they have to do so. Seriously, we all need to have about 2 kids (some people 3) in order to keep our population stable. And that's an average.

I'm super aware, in light of this conversation, how creepy that sounds. Emphasis: some people won't have kids because they DON'T WANT TO, or physically cannot, NOT BECAUSE someone said they shouldn't. Ideally, everyone who wanted to have kids would do so.

Well, it's not like people need to abstain from sex to avoid pregnancy... they just need to avoid unprotected PIV sex.

That's not a guarantee. Protected PIV sex isn't a 100% failsafe against pregnancy. However, I don't think it's necessarily irresponsible to have sex with protection as long as you have a plan on what to do if pregnancy occurs. (again, caveat: personal opinion, has nothing to do with any opinion on legislation)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only