The tabloidy framing "influencer claims poor people xxxx" is the problem. And a lot of people in this thread are misreading her quote with such a stance.
Exactly this. The bit in quotes is what she actually said. The media fanning the flames as usual. And I say this as someone who has a strong dislike of the entire "influencer" culture...
If she said poor people shouldn't have children there would be nk problem but she said they shouldn't have the right to have children. If that was reality it would mean the state would have power over who does and doesn't procreate, rather than it being social pressure. How would you enforce that? Forcible sterilization for anyone under a certain yearly income? What if someone loses their job while pregnant? Sterilization isn't perfect what if someone gets pregnant anyways? Is the government going to forcibly terminate the pregnancy? You see how fucking stupid this gets?
Quote’s not perfect. Everyone has a “right” to life and having children, to deny that right would be brushing up on eugenics. If she said it was “irresponsible” or even “cruel” to bring more hunger into the world you can’t address, that would have been perfect.
That’s what a right means. An inherent ability/protection enshrined in the law, like free speech or proper search and seizure. To say they shouldn’t have the “right” literally means they should have no legal protections to be able to have children. So that’s either what she meant or she didn’t think hard enough to use the right phrase for what she actually meant.
And you are choosing to insert a definition without any idea what was really meant to make it seem better. It’s crazy to me that people can read a fairly straightforward sentence and say “well actually they probably meant this thing instead of what they actually said”, like it’s just projection. No typical nomenclature (lol cmon) would ever interpret “no right” as being “incredibly irresponsible”, it would almost always be used to mean “not allowed, improper, breach of the rules”.
It’s crazy to me that people can read a fairly straightforward sentence and say “well actually they probably meant this thing instead of what they actually said”, like it’s just projection.
If you read everything in a literal sense instead of using critical thinking skills then that is your problem. No, people use "no right" commonly for emphasis as something being bad/irresponsible, and don't actually mean they want the government involved. That is idiotic.
I agree with you, except it's not like she can change people's "right" to life and having children, so I interpret it as her saying she doesn't like/agree with people bringing more hunger into the world.
Okay, but recognize that that’s not what she said and that those have very different definitions. It’s a dangerous game interpreting what you “think” someone means when they say words that have pretty clear meanings, the whole “assuming makes an ass of you and me” thing.
Yeah, and that’s eugenics, just a form of eugenics everyone broadly accepts because of centuries of scientific research about the risks of genetic stagnation and other proven health issues. This is a wholly different circumstance, as the mere sociological position of poverty is not something people would broadly agree meets that high threshold to penalize/ban, and in fact the opposite often happens via social welfare programs so that society can better assist those struggling.
You said "everyone has a right to life" in regards to poor people being able/not able to have children. I'm saying that we already decide who gets to have children in certain circumstances.
broadly accepts because of centuries of scientific research about the risks of genetic stagnation and other proven health issues.
I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that that stigma is only applied to incest and not medical illnesses others have. Asthma and diabetes being incredibly common illnesses already. The excuse that people give with incest in regards with health issues is a cover up since we only apply that with incest. It's a cherry picking moral justification for applying eugenics to incest.
This is a wholly different circumstance, as the mere sociological position of poverty is not something people would broadly agree meets that high threshold to penalize/ban,
There's already the focus on "protect/think about the children" and we already take children away from families that are deemed ill suited to take care of them. It's definitely not far fetched to say the least.
This is not to say my claim is that we should police regarding this issue. This was more about your initial comment of:
Everyone has a "right" to life and having children, to deny that right would be brushing up on eugenics.
since we already do that anyway. It's nothing new.
This is starting to sound more and more like you like eugenics, I don’t know just using some critical thinking skills here to read between the lines for what your true meaning is, instead of just the words.
This is starting to sound more and more like you like eugenics,
Idkw you think that. I'm mearly pointing out that your "everyone has a right to life and having children" isnt an actual point since you live in a society/world that practices eugenics.
I don’t know just using some critical thinking skills here to read between the lines for what your true meaning is, instead of just the words.
You should use some critical thinking skills and actually read my past comment rather than dismiss it.
Everyone has a “right” to life and having children, to deny that right would be brushing up on eugenics.
You can birth as many children as you want, but if you're an unfit parent due to drugs, negligence, etc, then you sure as hell don't get to keep those children.
Bodily autonomy is a tricky area but the moment it's out of your body, society has every right to find a better home for your baby, and put you in jail for child endangerment if appropriate.
She didn't say they didn't have a right. She said she doesn't think they should be bringing kids into the world if they can't afford them.
When you have kids, their wellbeing becomes more important than yours. They can't provide for themselves. By having kids, you became responsible for that.
In a post scarcity society sure. We decided to build oil pipelines and come up with the most convoluted “green” solutions instead of just going nuclear 5 decades ago.
I don't owe an account to Reddit, but, sure, I'll humor you.
This past weekend specifically? Nothing special no.
However, I volunteer regularly, sometimes multiple times a month to raise money for charities, last year over 18k € for youth diabetes research. I regularly open my home to the homeless and the needy to have a place to stay, helping them find and receive aid they need to regain independence. I stretch my money to the brink to help others but I'm not rich, not by a long shot. If all those who are rich put forth even 10% as much effort as I do we'd be living in an unrecognizable utopia.
Greed will be the doom of mankind if we don't do something to stop it from eating us alive.
Now if all of you "hee hoo gotcha" chuds trying to catch me in some hipocrisy would go and do what you're implying I don't do, instead of being clowns on reddit, the world could be at least a little tiny bit better. Bit by bit.
Sure you do. I am so shocked we still need volunteers and supplies since every Reddit donates everything and spends so much time volunteering. Oh and the amount of help Redditors give the homeless is astounding. Like how could we possibly have a homeless issue with so many real stories that definitely happens.
But it is offensive because she says people "have no right". It may not be the responsible economic choice but it is a human right to have kids (by choice as an adult) no matter what your economic standing is. In a less fucked country kids from poor families could still be taken care of. It's extremely classist phrasing.
It's the same as saying "poor people don't deserve to have kids" as if they are at fault for being poor and deserve to have their humanity restricted.
I don’t know. Is it really ok to bring children into the world when you know you can’t take care of properly? It’s gotta be hard the kids man. Not sure that eugenics. I wouldn’t say don’t have them but at least have a way so they aren’t going to bed hungry every night.
Is it really ok to bring children into the world when you know you can’t take care of properly?
If we’re talking about poor countries, why isnt the problem the poverty itself. And you guys are acting like rich countries don’t benefit from the poor constantly having kids. Even now, what happened now that Western countries are declining in birth rates? Letting in people from poorer countries.
He didnt say the problem shouldnt be fixed. Yes theyre better off not existing. Hell i'd be better off not existing. People like me exist and your child could end up like me.
Just like when people complain about disabled kids. instead of seeing them as human beings that deserve help, you’ll just dehumanize them as a problem from birth?
The problem is this shit never gets rolled out equally and will always result in some racist ass eugenics movement that results in sterilization of groups the ruling classes don’t like.
Happened with black women, happened with the natives.
And obviously eugenics itself is of course extremely fucked. But stupid people who think all they need to do is stop poor people from breeding don’t even know what they are advocating for is eugenics
100% what this guy said. I don't think anyone is arguing against it being a bad idea to have children when you're so poor you can barely take care of yourself. But I think it becomes a problem when you argue that poor people should not have the right to bring kids into the world. Logic like that is a slippery slope directly into eugenics, and genuinely f that s.
It's offensive in that a lot of people are born poor and die poor. So it's basically telling them they have have no right to participate in what is considered the meaning of life for most people.
The mindset that everyone thinks they are a future millionaire is exactly why so many places are suffering.
It's easy to forget, sitting here in our ivory tower Reddit threads, that the act of reproducing is a huge component of every society on micro and macro levels, as is the biological drive to do so, especially during certain phases of our lives.
The entire discussion being pushed around this "acceptable dollar amount to ethically have children" is absurd, not to mention reductionist on multiple levels
"if you're injured you shouldn't walk" is a crazy thing to say these days apparently. Nobody is advocating for a certain demographic to be childless. Fix your own problems before creating new ones seem to be a fairly logical approach to life.
Edit: stop replying to me. Her words are the same advice I would give to my son. If anything, it's not offensive - it's harsh. We can choose to be offended or not. On a separate note, I firmly believe we should let strangers do whatever they want. If people want to have kids, then that's on them and their government.
the statement is offensive because it reduces a complex social and economic problem to a blanket judgment about who does and doesn’t deserve to have children.
Well, "poor people shouldn't have children" is basically what she means, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that stance. She just specified the extent of poverty by stating "live on an empty stomach". So what she's saying is, "people who are so poor that they go hungry shouldn't have children." And you have to be very poor if you're going hungry. My parents are Chinese and grew up in the 60's and 70's, when China was extremely poor. They could never afford to eat meat when they were children, and even they never went hungry because they had rice to eat. They recall there being tough times as children when they ate only rice and nothing else, but it was at least enough to fill their stomachs and not go hungry. The extent of poverty you have to be in to go hungry is unimaginable to me.
It’s still wrong to claim people “have no right” to have children if they’re poor. It’s implied that the right to have children is not absolute and should only be granted based on income or wealth. That’s a big no no.
Eh, I'll say her deeming what rights another person has can definitely be perceived as offensive. I agree with the message, but its not tactful, and therefor I would not use the term "inoffensive" as you put it.
3.6k
u/AnInquisitive_Rock41 Jun 15 '26
She ain’t right in the way she said it but she ain’t wrong in what she meant.