[ 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)]

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.

[diet_poison]

The right not to have kids and the right to have kids are actually fundamentally pretty different imo. Though at the core they both rely on the same basic principle: once a kid enters someone's life, they become a huge priority, and that kid has a RIGHT to be in a situation where s/he isn't experiencing abuse, neglect, starvation, etc.

That's how I look at it, anyway. People have the right to decide whether they can take on that responsibility, but they don't have the right to be in possession of a being that is suffering negative consequences just because they wanted it to exist for them (I mean severe negative consequences, not mild ones). In fact providing access to contraception is an important tool in making sure people don't have kids before they are ready to do so.

To sum up my thoughts in another way: having kids is ABOUT THE KIDS, not about the parents. If you just want a kid for yourself, to live vicariously through or to make you feel validated or for whatever reason, in MY OPINION you are having a kid for the wrong reasons and kids deserve to be had for the right reasons.

[diet_poison]

We don't disagree on that.

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

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not even talking law though? Just that I think people shouldn't. As in, I think it's common sense not to. I have no way to stop people from having kids and if I had enough power to actually do stop anyone, I'd rather use it to improve schools/health care/food availability.

Re: Controversial opinions

[dethtoll]

Okay, fair enough. I jumped to a conclusion there, sorry. :)

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)]

Uhm, if you can afford the basic necessities, you CAN afford a child. I said you shouldn't have children if you can't afford them. I never said you had to be rich. That's your interpretation. And I know rich people can suck as parents just as much as anyone else, thanks.

No. I never said anything about law or government. I said "I think you shouldn't". You are the one who started in with rights. You mentioned the rights of the parents, so I countered with the rights of the child.

Re: Controversial opinions

[fingalsanteater]

Children are afforded rights, and there are organizations whose job it is to protect children. Children can never give consent to be born, which is why we must give the rights to choose to reproduce to their parents.

Like I said, I agree with the principle that children should be taken care of, but the suggestion that people should wait until they can "afford" children is not a suggestion that has any basis in reality. I don't believe in curtailing the reproductive liberty of anyone.