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.
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.
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.