Anonymous #1 3w

I was an Air Force brat so my birth brought monthly income to my family. After a change in life circumstances I was raised by my catholic nun esc grandmother who only valued Money, Time, and Hard Work. Safe to say our philosophies on life butt heads, but inter generational living can be fun.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

There are different levels of poverty, if a parent can sacrifice everything they have to give their child a healthy and fulfilling life, great, but then there are others who have children knowing they won’t be able to do that. Also, I don’t think that’s eugenics, it has nothing to do with genetics

11

Anonymous #1 3w

Eugenics is not *solely* based on our modern understanding of genetics, because yes, trying to “breed out poverty” is a form of eugenics, classically so. Originally because of the false idea that complex human traits such as poverty were completely determined by genes (which we know is obviously incorrect) and could thus be removed from society by manipulating breeding

0

Anonymous #3 3w

It’s not about trying to “breed out poverty” but instead ensuring that we don’t force children to suffer. Similar to how people can get abortions if they learn their baby will be born with horrible physical defects that will cause pain or any kind of extreme suffering throughout life. If we want to get rid of poverty, we need to pressure the government into changing policy

9

Anonymous #3 3w

You’d have to be on something to think poverty is Genetic and not environmental. For some I would say poverty is a fate worse than death. I have seen people living on less than $2 a day providing a better Homelife than too many Americans. Mindset, Intelligence, Resources are probably key aspects of parenting.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

No, we cannot (and should not) force people who can’t provide for children to get abortions, but we certainly don’t have to have respect for people who *could* choose to do that knowing the consequences for the child it would avoid, and still choose not to

11

Anonymous #1 3w

Ofc people *can* get abortions for these reasons, and we should support them if they want to. But again, pro choice means being pro any choice, and pushing abortions onto people facing poverty or potentially disabled children to coerce them into choosing one is a form of eugenics.

2

Anonymous OP 3w

Well yeah, OG eugenicists were on some crazy shit. They thought a lot of shit was genetic, and could be bred out (like “moral” failings).

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Either you didn’t read my comments or you’ve severely misinterpreted them. I’ve already said that forcing abortions is bad, just like banning them is. That doesn’t mean we have to be nice and supportive when someone who KNOWS their child will be born without access to clean food and water, clothing, shelter, healthcare, emotional support, and still has them anyway. I don’t have any respect for people like that

9

Anonymous #1 3w

Advising people to abort babies that will be born with extreme disfigurements or will be without access to necessary resources is NOT the same as believing all moderately disabled people should be aborted, and that is not eugenics. We need to address the difference between being something that’s just slightly unfortunate and something that will have major negative impacts on the quality of life to the point of constant pain or near/actual death

9

Anonymous #1 3w

It’s not forcing abortions. But pushing them as a form of coercion. Making people who choose to keep their child despite being incredibly impoverished feel bad about their choice is a form of coercion. Mentioning abortions at every appointment is coercion. Pushing the idea that not getting one is a moral failure is coercion. I think you’re missing that aspect of it

4

Anonymous #1 3w

It’s one of those “support teen mothers not teen pregnancy” type of deals. Just replace teen with those facing poverty. Don’t support them getting pregnant and popping out kids right and left knowing they’ll be undue burden, but accidental pregnancies happen, and when they choose to carry them support the families

4

Anonymous #3 3w

I agree that not everyone should be advised to get one since not everyone can afford to or find a local abortion clinic. But if someone definitely has access to that, and knows for certain that if they had a child it would be severely neglected, I think it’s ok to judge them! It’s not about just being poor, it’s about knowing you will be causing great harm to another person despite having every opportunity to avoid it

10

Anonymous #1 3w

I doubt you meant it this way, but this comment implies you believe there’s an inherent threshold of what’s too disabled to be acceptable in society. Only people with disabilities that are comfortable for you to approach should be allowed to be born.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

If you’re pregnant and the doctor tells you “this child’s organs aren’t developing correctly, there is a very high chance they will die shortly after birth and if not they will need to live connected to machines.” You’ll just say oh ok no biggie, I know my baby will suffer but I’m not ableist so I’ll have it anyway (?) Because this sort of thing does happen

5

Anonymous #1 3w

Poverty doesn’t automatically equate neglect, I think that’s important to note here too. And when the neglect does come from a result of the poverty faced by the parents, the government does step in and remove the child from that care. Ofc our foster system is shit, and isn’t a perfect solution, but to assume all parents who live below the poverty must neglect their child is also outdated thinking about poverty

1

Anonymous #3 3w

No, poverty doesn’t inherently lead to child neglect. The entire point of this conversation is about the extreme circumstances, that’s all I’ve been talking about this entire time if you go back and read through what I say instead of being reactive

4

Anonymous #1 3w

I haven’t been faced with that issue personally, so I’m not sure what I would personally decide. But I do know someone very close to me who got that news. She was told her child was incomparable with life, and would die shortly after birth. She chose to carry the child to term, and it passed within an hour of his umbilical cord being severed. And do I think she made the “wrong” choice to carry her child to term? Knowing the result was death? Absolutely the fuck not

1