this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
1631 points (98.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
6118 readers
1692 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thank you! Reproductive freedom includes not just access to abortion, but also the choice of how many children (if any) to have. Applying arbitrary restrictions to the number of kids other people can have would be the same kind of controlling garbage.
But it's not an arbitrary restriction, I don't think.
A child in neglect would be removed from the 'caretaker(s)' who are allowing them to live in squalor, assuming CPS isn't as underfunded etc. as it is in actuality, etc. And even that isn't a full solution, it's just the first step to getting that kid into an environment that at least reaches some minimum standard.
Isn't not creating that life until/unless you're able to provide a 'better than squalor' environment for that child just a more proactive, and arguably better since there is no suffering child in the meantime, version of the exact same 'intervention'?
I see a lot of people saying things like what you're saying above, while also agreeing with the kind of 'intervention' described in the first paragraph of this comment. How is that not doublethink?