Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Kah Roh Seh ([info]kahrohseh) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2006-10-18 21:51:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Parenthood, Like Homosexuality, Is Not A Choice
Or so sayeth a wanker in Poor Skills, anyway, LJ's dominant source for incredibly tedious whiny advice posts, stupid food spoilage questions, and the occasional, very rare speck of useful information.

This is not one of these.

It starts when someone posts the following, which has since been deleted:

Poor Skills & Children
Let me preface this post by saying that it will probably offend someone. However, it's really not my intention to offend anyone, I'd just like some honest answers/opinions.

Okay, so we talk about poor skills in this community, ways to cook cheaply, rent cheaply, repair credit and old cars, etc. However, never in this community have I seen much reference to the one poor skill that can save you more money than any other, which is choosing to not have children or at least to not have them until you're financially stable enough to do so (kids are REALLY expensive). I've seen online articles saying that children cost roughly $100,000 (not sure if that figure is accurate) to raise. That's PER child. So why, if you can't even support yourself financially are you bringing a child into this world? I understand that s*** happens and so do accidents, but with modern birth control, there is absolutely no reason for accidents to happen (unless of course you're part of the 0.03% that had The Pill fail). Answers/opinions? Again, I'm not a troll, nor am I looking to start a huge debate.

(Taken from the mouse on Wank Report)

Then, tonight, Danaseilhan makes this statement: No poor-bashing! And btw, if you guys don't cut it out, I'm making my own comm where I can BAN j00. Also, hear my tragic tale.

To which I thought, meh, because I sort of have a midterm to write here, but then I noticed the ~250 comments and decided to investigate.

OMG SO OFFENDED bitching spawned from bad wording and some people quick to up-hackle? You don't say.

Random flaming disguised as civil discourse? You bet.

My fav, though? Apparently, parenthood, like homosexuality, is not a choice omg.

That's as far as I got before realising I reeeeally needed to back away and go do my homework. However, I do encourage you all to enjoy.

(And yes, the childfree are mightily in abundance, as are their many detractors. There's no sense to link because, really. Just click randomly and you'll get a face full of their spooge. Salty.)

ETA: Danaseilhan has gone and made her comm.

ETA2: Noooo! Bahleeted! Original mouse saved the text of the comm advert post, but does anyone have stuff from the main spooge post?


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]scarah2
2006-10-19 07:49 pm UTC (link)
Wow. No, a human being is not an object. Would you be cooler with the analogy of those unable to pay vet bills adopting Pomeranians?

You are correct, I do pay for people to maintain children that they don't afford. So perhaps that is the most convenient of desires beyond means.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]altoidsaddict
2006-10-19 07:53 pm UTC (link)
A Pomeranian is also not a communal good. Dogs are still recognized as property - while I may not agree with that because they are living beings, societies do not center themselves around dog ownership. I don't care how many doggie daycares open, they're not the same thing.

There are few societal absolutes - the obligation of a society to recognize the need to reproduce and balance the rights of parents with the needs of future generations comes closest to an absolute. Simply because you believe the poor should be stripped of their children and right to reproduce does not make it a societal value. And thank God.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]scarah2
2006-10-19 08:02 pm UTC (link)
Hi, words in my mouth. I said the poor have options (not everywhere, but in many communities) and I think that those with less resources (dude, I'm poor) are people with thought processes and responsibilities and choices, not idiots to be handled with kid gloves. Did I recommend poisoning the water anywhere here?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]altoidsaddict
2006-10-19 08:58 pm UTC (link)
You said the poor should go to Planned Parenthood for birth control, and that they had no more right to children than they do to a Rolex or a boat. "Options" seem to be pretty limited here.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]scarah2
2006-10-19 09:11 pm UTC (link)
You said the poor should go to Planned Parenthood for birth control, and that they had no more right to children than they do to a Rolex or a boat

"Should?" "Right?" I don't think I ever said these words. I think I said that PP is available in many places and that a child is an expensive liability.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map