[mschuster91]

> It is frightening how eagerly parents want to give up freedom for everyone,

It's not like parents have much of a choice. When you gotta work 2 jobs to barely make rent and groceries, you need some sort of "safe space" to pawn your children off to.

[therealpygon]

Just my opinion but…

I’m all for helping people in the situations that aren’t of their own creation, so using the excuse “what are they supposed to do” doesn’t really fit for me? The first option is to use a condom if they are in a bad financial situation. It’s been amazing how every time I’ve used one, I haven’t had a child.

When did we stop making people responsible for their choices? I’m not against assistance, I’m against the idea that it is my responsibility to give up rights and freedoms because <insert person> made poor personal choices and now society is once again a surrogate to yet another child of irresponsible parents. If you aren’t able to parent, don’t have children. Don’t care what your situation is that rule stays the same.

And of course, someone will jump in with “but maybe” and “what if the situation changed”. Again…I’m not against helping parents who fall on hard times to get back on their feet — society SHOULD be there to help with assistance and programs, even help with getting your kids watched. And all of that exists. I’m against expecting every individual of society to not only help bear the costs, fund and administrate these programs, provide countless charities, etc…

But now the suggestions is also somehow that we are required to be the surrogate parent to every one of their offspring by giving up our rights to create an entire society of a padded playground?

No, I think that’s the line for me.

Parents can give up all their own rights they want and live in their padded kingdoms, but that ends at your doorstep when you walk out to the space you share with every other person…including digitally. You can build the physical and virtual walls around your padded kingdom as high and thick as you want to keep your children shielded from the world.

[coldtea]

>The first option is to use a condom if they are in a bad financial situation. It’s been amazing how every time I’ve used one, I haven’t had a child.

That's what they've been doing in unprecedented numbers. Which via demographic collapse is going to cause an even worse crisis, economic, social, political, and more, further down the line.

[therealpygon]

Good. If people can’t afford their own livelihood, then they probably shouldn’t have them. If they can and choose not to, arguments could be made about why someone would rather they make a different decision. But if “we need poor children in a welfare system or I can’t live my comfortable life” is what someone would think is the answer, there is something desperately wrong with the people who would think it.

[coldtea]

>If people can’t afford their own livelihood, then they probably shouldn’t have them.

"Poor people shoulnd't breed" - Follow me for more ivory tower advice

[therealpygon]

What a stupid take.

Being poor and not being able to afford your OWN responsibilities at your income are two different things. I grew up poor, so yea, you can f off with your own ivory tower inventions while you go read what I actually said about how we SHOULD provide safety nets.

It’s incredible how idiots think living beyond your means at any income and then adding children is a good thing. If you can’t care for yourself then you can’t care for others. Not being able to afford your own needs is not caring for yourself, so no, shocker, you shouldn’t add an additional person BY CHOICE to that situation. People who would advocate that they SHOULD are seriously messed up in the head.

[pocksuppet]

It's also why some political factions are trying to ban condoms. Often the same factions that are trying to ban VPNs.

[coldtea]

Yeah, I'm sure Kier Starmer is pro-natalist...

[Saline9515]

"Being able to parent" is something you don't know about before you have your first child, and each child increases exponentially the difficulty. You can manage ok the first one and be overwhelmed when the second one is born.

Also not everyone is a trust fund kid that works at a FAANG: people get sick, lose jobs, divorce, change homes, and so on.

I'm really happy that you found the perfect antifragile optimum in your life, but this kind of "vae victis" thinking will only make parents more miserable and decrease birth rates.

[therealpygon]

love that not having kids when you can’t actually afford your own existence at that time is a hot take that no one could know in advance that they shouldn’t do. Also love that I SPECIFICALLY called out your argument, almost like you couldn’t even finish reading before needing to get in your super well thought response. That’s sarcasm, figured I’d make sure it was clear since the reading thing is up in the air.

[Saline9515]

I think that you should try to have kids (plural) before trying to make grand and contemptuous theories about parents.

[therealpygon]

Ah yes, the old “you can’t have an opinion if you aren’t a parent” argument. How quaint.

[Saline9515]

I think that you should try to have kids (plural) before trying to make grand and contemptuous theories about parents.

All of the people who say you should have kids if $X... will be quite happy in their old days to have the other irresponsible parents' children to wipe their ass and bring them food in the fridge. I really hope that public pensions get scrapped for this exact reason.

[Saline9515]

I think that you should try to have kids (plural) before trying to make grand and contemptuous theories about parents.

All of the people who say you should have kids if $X... will be quite happy in their old days to have the other irresponsible parents' children to wipe their ass and bring them food in the fridge.

[zombot]

That's fussing around with symptoms. The real cure would be to remove the reasons parents don't have time for their children anymore.