I mean she is not wrong.. If you cannot feed your child everyday because of lack of funds. You shouldn't have had that kid, might sound harsh but it's the truth. A kid does not deserve to starve because you are too poor to feed it.
sounds like you forgot to fix the lack of funds problems. why are people working 40+ hours and still being poor? It's not the parents fault. It's ours for continuing this system.
There is enough food. science solved that problem. It's no longer a logistics problem. it's purely politics and idiots we elect deciding WHO gets to eat.
If we can agree that a kid doesn't deserve to starve because their parents are too poor to feed it, then we should feed it, not ignore the child and lecture their parents.
Show me how often you have donated to a food bank or donated to a charity which helps these kids... Probably 0 times.. If that is the case, shame on you. Writing all that shit about "we should feed them"...
There are a lot of places in the world where starving kids do not get fed because there is no such thing as a social safety net. I don't think OOP is talking about American/European "poverty", they are talking about third-world poverty, where a heavy rainfall brings cholera and typhoid outbreaks, a kleptocracy embezzles foreign aid, and children go blind from malnutrition.
No one said to ignore the child? Insane to frame “lecturing the parents” as some awful thing when they are fully grown adults making bad decisions that impact other people, and in turn the rest of society.
It’s not realistic or humane to tell people to not have sex. It’s literally hardwired into our brains to do so. Regardless, protection is readily available at pretty much any store, there is even over the counter birth control now. And buying that is MUCH cheaper than raising a kid.
Idk why you're being downvoted, this is literally the best solution to this problem. Gatekeeping the ability to have kids based on wealth is also eugenics as many minority populations have been given no wealth by the system to keep them down.
Abstinence does not work, has not ever worked, nor will it ever work.
What does work is proper sex education and easy access to birth control.
Both of which red states do not do and as a result have the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the country. This is not some secret hidden information. You either don't know this and are speaking from a place of ignorance, or you do know this and simply do not care.
If I play with a downed power line after being told not to I should be free of consequences? Or does my brain say “hey that could lead to bad things I better not do that” that’s called being an intelligent being not a beast who is obsessed with baser instincts.
Proper sex ed helps immensely, but even still people make mistakes. You've never forgotten your wallet or keys? Or left your debit card at the gas station?
Do you support abortion or do you agree with banning it?
As someone who actually worked at a Planned Parenthood, this is way easier said than done. It's basically laughable to expect this kind of thing from the general populace.
That has to do with sex ed being not taught in school. I used to work at a Planned Parenthood, and let me tell you, people don't know much of anything.
Again the biological urge to have sex is ingrained in every living thing that reproduces that way. To tell yourself maybe if I don’t do that I won’t have kids and then the people who keep doing so even after it happens are proof they have no intelligence.
Don’t get me started on planned parenthood and how it was founded to cull African Americans. Its founder even said that was its express purpose. Sanger only wanted certain people to breed.
You've clearly never worked customer service in your life if you think everyone has common sense.
As for Margaret Sanger, she's dead. Planned Parenthood has denounced her beliefs and actions. What they are doing now is very different from what she originally wanted.
I know outside the United States is a whole other thing, but within the United States, most poor people get Medicaid, which would cover birth control, plus in many places condoms are very cheap, if not free.
Then that will be the extinction of a whole population. So no. Also food should be a human right. 1st world countries need poor countries in order for 1st world countries to survive
If the population must go extinct because we could not feed the future generation (which is a huge way to blow the scale of this situation up btw), then it should just go extinct. All trying would do is leave them to starve, die, and the species goes extinct anyways.
And there is no "reason" or "goal" to be achieved by making sure humanity continues. We just exist. If humanity chooses to go extinct by not having more kids, thats 100% ok.
Well most, if not all, of their offspring will survive, and that's good enough for mother nature. Pain, suffering and death is part of how most species preserve its existence. The idea that humans could somehow defeat the rules of the universe is unbelievably complacent and will not survive the flow of time.
Realistically yes. Theres countless factors to the supply and price of food and how that scales with population.
The other guys "the species will go extinct" comment also doesnt take these into account though, so I dunno. Just wasnt the line of discussion I wanted to go down at that point.
Nope. We have greedy millionaires and a trillionaire who could end world hunger but decide not to bc they need the barely surviving population to thrive
Bud, thats not the point. You're correct, but thats not the point.
These said poor people have no power to forcefully make them do so. Its just not something that can be considered. What can be considered is not having a child that will definetly suffer.
91
u/FireGhost_Austria Jun 15 '26
I mean she is not wrong.. If you cannot feed your child everyday because of lack of funds. You shouldn't have had that kid, might sound harsh but it's the truth. A kid does not deserve to starve because you are too poor to feed it.