this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
1561 points (97.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
8919 readers
1273 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If abortion is an option, it is the only option worth considering.
The only kids who should be carried to term are the ones that have been planned and prepared for.
This is my reason for my answer to the pro-choice question. It is only a baby once you have decided to carry it to term. Before that decision it isn't.
Dual homicide if you kill a pregnant woman who wanted a child. Not a baby when aborting an unwanted pregnancy.
Deny owner class slave labour.
There is no excuse to have more than one kid unless you are able to properly provide for all of them.
I understand being poor with one child though, I don't understand the need to spread limited resources over multiple children.
Focus on getting family out of poverty first.
There's the problem. Instead of letting other people make their own choices, you're prescribing what they should and shouldn't do.
If you told me in my face "there's no excuse to have more than one child" while i want multiple children, i would see it as an assault and would react accordingly (that might include punching you in the face.)
That's what we need UBI (Universal Basic Income)
By the way, what you're saying feels the same as in the 1960 when women were expected to carry children (without being asked, of course). Just as we condemn that today, we should condemn people pushing other people to have fewer children.
Thank you! Reproductive freedom includes not just access to abortion, but also the choice of how many children (if any) to have. Applying arbitrary restrictions to the number of kids other people can have would be the same kind of controlling garbage.
But it's not an arbitrary restriction, I don't think.
A child in neglect would be removed from the 'caretaker(s)' who are allowing them to live in squalor, assuming CPS isn't as underfunded etc. as it is in actuality, etc. And even that isn't a full solution, it's just the first step to getting that kid into an environment that at least reaches some minimum standard.
Isn't not creating that life until/unless you're able to provide a 'better than squalor' environment for that child just a more proactive, and arguably better since there is no suffering child in the meantime, version of the exact same 'intervention'?
I see a lot of people saying things like what you're saying above, while also agreeing with the kind of 'intervention' described in the first paragraph of this comment. How is that not doublethink?
Isn't UBI just a way to accelerate inflation? How will that help anyone?
there's a certain amount of money in the economy. let's say $1 million.
of that, $500K belongs to the billionaires and $500K to the average people. Which means the population owns half of all.
Now, you distribute another $1 million among the average people.
Now, the billionaires still have $500K, but the people have $1.5 million, which is 3/4, which is more than 1/2, so it's an improvement.
If people suddenly have more money out of nowhere, shop owners will start raising prices to compensate. So the long-term effect is that how much goods people can afford doesn't really change, but the value of their savings keeps on dwindling. Unless there is a fault in my logic or an additional policy meant to prevent this, UBI just sounds like a way to make sure people never retire because their savings are made worthless by inflation.