|
|
Post by lindsaywhit on Aug 10, 2023 16:33:09 GMT
^^^ Thank God. When I saw this in the line-up I thought there was another one.
|
|
|
|
Post by constancespry on Aug 10, 2023 18:43:21 GMT
^^ Me too. I noticed the update with much trepidation. Cannon needs a vasectomy, along with baldwin and leon musk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Froogy on Aug 11, 2023 0:45:30 GMT
^^ Me too. I noticed the update with much trepidation. Cannon needs a vasectomy, along with baldwin and leon musk. Wouldn't it be great if we could reversibly sterilize people at birth until a litmus test could be passed? Think of all the world's problems we could solve! |
|
|
|
Post by constancespry on Aug 11, 2023 0:57:43 GMT
^^ Me too. I noticed the update with much trepidation. Cannon needs a vasectomy, along with baldwin and leon musk. Wouldn't it be great if we could reversibly sterilize people at birth until a litmus test could be passed? Think of all the world's problems we could solve! Yes, that would be ideal!! But the christians and capitalists wouldn’t like it. 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by no1novice on Aug 11, 2023 5:52:11 GMT
Wouldn't it be great if we could reversibly sterilize people at birth until a litmus test could be passed? Think of all the world's problems we could solve! Yes, that would be ideal!! But the christians and capitalists wouldn’t like it. 🙄 They would be the first on my list! |
|
MsDark
OGs 
Posts: 3,105
Member is Online
|
Post by MsDark on Aug 11, 2023 12:16:58 GMT
If you can find a way to start a buisness and make a profit, market it well, the captalists would potentially be for it.
Same with christians if they threw some of that (tax-free, of course) money to the church.
|
|
|
|
Post by lindsaywhit on Aug 11, 2023 16:04:35 GMT
Christians would love a litmus test as long as it could be theirs.  |
|
|
|
Post by ❤️ NickiDrea ❤️ on Aug 12, 2023 23:25:07 GMT
^^ Me too. I noticed the update with much trepidation. Cannon needs a vasectomy, along with baldwin and leon musk. Wouldn't it be great if we could reversibly sterilize people at birth until a litmus test could be passed? Think of all the world's problems we could solve! It wouldn't be great because there is no litmus test for knowing who will be a good parent. Who should get to decide other people's reproductive rights? The idea is very creepy to me because you know it would end up being bigoted in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by coppercatseye on Aug 12, 2023 23:48:13 GMT
I always look for the number 13 when this thread is bumped. You know it’s only a matter of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by constancespry on Aug 13, 2023 16:00:46 GMT
Wouldn't it be great if we could reversibly sterilize people at birth until a litmus test could be passed? Think of all the world's problems we could solve! It wouldn't be great because there is no litmus test for knowing who will be a good parent. Who should get to decide other people's reproductive rights? The idea is very creepy to me because you know it would end up being bigoted in some way. But it would be reversible, and the litmus test could just be a strong desire to procreate and a reasonable situation to provide for a child. There is nothing wrong with expecting people to be in a good place and to really, really want kids before they have them. Also, more than half of pregnancies are unwanted, and parenthood is much too difficult to embark on when a person doesn’t want it, or doesn’t have the necessary basic resources. So a consistent conscious decision to procreate would be much better for everyone, from the parents to the kids to society as a whole. Especially now that many states have basically banned abortion (i believe a 6 week cut off is a ban) and many people are forced to carry out unwanted pregnancies because they can’t afford to travel to a state where it is legal. If you can’t afford to travel to another state to have an abortion, can you really support - and should you have to provide for - a kid you don’t want?? With climate change and dwindling resources we do not need people who don’t want kids, or who put no thought into what it means to have a kid and the need to provide a good home, to add to the population. |
|
|
|
Post by beeyotch on Aug 13, 2023 21:43:21 GMT
It wouldn't be great because there is no litmus test for knowing who will be a good parent. Who should get to decide other people's reproductive rights? The idea is very creepy to me because you know it would end up being bigoted in some way. But it would be reversible, and the litmus test could just be a strong desire to procreate and a reasonable situation to provide for a child. There is nothing wrong with expecting people to be in a good place and to really, really want kids before they have them. Also, more than half of pregnancies are unwanted, and parenthood is much too difficult to embark on when a person doesn’t want it, or doesn’t have the necessary basic resources. So a consistent conscious decision to procreate would be much better for everyone, from the parents to the kids to society as a whole. Especially now that many states have basically banned abortion (i believe a 6 week cut off is a ban) and many people are forced to carry out unwanted pregnancies because they can’t afford to travel to a state where it is legal. If you can’t afford to travel to another state to have an abortion, can you really support - and should you have to provide for - a kid you don’t want?? With climate change and dwindling resources we do not need people who don’t want kids, or who put no thought into what it means to have a kid and the need to provide a good home, to add to the population. I agree, but in practice, it really does turn into a racist, able-ist, classist exclusive system. A far easier and more effective option is to make all birth control, from pills to plan B to abortions, fully free and truly accessible to all. The goal of people having kids they truly want--so kids would have better lives--would be better achieved through simple free will and free medical access. But no. Because puritanical, racist, misogynistic, poor-hating Republicans. |
|
|
|
Post by constancespry on Aug 13, 2023 22:50:19 GMT
But it would be reversible, and the litmus test could just be a strong desire to procreate and a reasonable situation to provide for a child. There is nothing wrong with expecting people to be in a good place and to really, really want kids before they have them. Also, more than half of pregnancies are unwanted, and parenthood is much too difficult to embark on when a person doesn’t want it, or doesn’t have the necessary basic resources. So a consistent conscious decision to procreate would be much better for everyone, from the parents to the kids to society as a whole. Especially now that many states have basically banned abortion (i believe a 6 week cut off is a ban) and many people are forced to carry out unwanted pregnancies because they can’t afford to travel to a state where it is legal. If you can’t afford to travel to another state to have an abortion, can you really support - and should you have to provide for - a kid you don’t want?? With climate change and dwindling resources we do not need people who don’t want kids, or who put no thought into what it means to have a kid and the need to provide a good home, to add to the population. I agree, but in practice, it really does turn into a racist, able-ist, classist exclusive system. A far easier and more effective option is to make all birth control, from pills to plan B to abortions, fully free and truly accessible to all. The goal of people having kids they truly want--so kids would have better lives--would be better achieved through simple free will and free medical access. But no. Because puritanical, racist, misogynistic, poor-hating Republicans. Yes, here in TX the 6 week ban (which fucking abbott is refusing to put on the ballot so people can vote on it) has resulted in well over 10,000 additional estimated births, no doubt mostly to women who could not afford to travel to sanctuary states and who had problems obtaining Plan B. Bad situation for everyone and yet another reason to vote these zealots out in droves next year. |
|
|
|
Post by lindsaywhit on Aug 14, 2023 12:31:42 GMT
It wouldn't be great because there is no litmus test for knowing who will be a good parent. Who should get to decide other people's reproductive rights? The idea is very creepy to me because you know it would end up being bigoted in some way. But it would be reversible, and the litmus test could just be a strong desire to procreate and a reasonable situation to provide for a child. There is nothing wrong with expecting people to be in a good place and to really, really want kids before they have them. Also, more than half of pregnancies are unwanted, and parenthood is much too difficult to embark on when a person doesn’t want it, or doesn’t have the necessary basic resources. So a consistent conscious decision to procreate would be much better for everyone, from the parents to the kids to society as a whole. Especially now that many states have basically banned abortion (i believe a 6 week cut off is a ban) and many people are forced to carry out unwanted pregnancies because they can’t afford to travel to a state where it is legal. If you can’t afford to travel to another state to have an abortion, can you really support - and should you have to provide for - a kid you don’t want?? With climate change and dwindling resources we do not need people who don’t want kids, or who put no thought into what it means to have a kid and the need to provide a good home, to add to the population. I get what you're saying but still can't see any way this wouldn't become a terrifying slippery slope. |
|
|
|
Post by constancespry on Aug 14, 2023 14:37:24 GMT
But it would be reversible, and the litmus test could just be a strong desire to procreate and a reasonable situation to provide for a child. There is nothing wrong with expecting people to be in a good place and to really, really want kids before they have them. Also, more than half of pregnancies are unwanted, and parenthood is much too difficult to embark on when a person doesn’t want it, or doesn’t have the necessary basic resources. So a consistent conscious decision to procreate would be much better for everyone, from the parents to the kids to society as a whole. Especially now that many states have basically banned abortion (i believe a 6 week cut off is a ban) and many people are forced to carry out unwanted pregnancies because they can’t afford to travel to a state where it is legal. If you can’t afford to travel to another state to have an abortion, can you really support - and should you have to provide for - a kid you don’t want?? With climate change and dwindling resources we do not need people who don’t want kids, or who put no thought into what it means to have a kid and the need to provide a good home, to add to the population. I get what you're saying but still can't see any way this wouldn't become a terrifying slippery slope. Beeyotch has the perfect solution for all of it, but the rightwing christo fascists will do what they can to prevent it. As scrotus thomas made clear last year after they overturned Roe vs Wade, “ Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.” |
|
|
|
Post by ❤️ NickiDrea ❤️ on Aug 15, 2023 16:34:03 GMT
It wouldn't be great because there is no litmus test for knowing who will be a good parent. Who should get to decide other people's reproductive rights? The idea is very creepy to me because you know it would end up being bigoted in some way. But it would be reversible, and the litmus test could just be a strong desire to procreate and a reasonable situation to provide for a child. There is nothing wrong with expecting people to be in a good place and to really, really want kids before they have them. Also, more than half of pregnancies are unwanted, and parenthood is much too difficult to embark on when a person doesn’t want it, or doesn’t have the necessary basic resources. So a consistent conscious decision to procreate would be much better for everyone, from the parents to the kids to society as a whole. Especially now that many states have basically banned abortion (i believe a 6 week cut off is a ban) and many people are forced to carry out unwanted pregnancies because they can’t afford to travel to a state where it is legal. If you can’t afford to travel to another state to have an abortion, can you really support - and should you have to provide for - a kid you don’t want?? With climate change and dwindling resources we do not need people who don’t want kids, or who put no thought into what it means to have a kid and the need to provide a good home, to add to the population. It would be racist and sexist. And eugenics. What is "in a good place" and who gets to decide that? What is a "good home" and who decides that? The majority of the world is poor/lower income and non white but those wouldn't be the people making up this litmus test. But they would end up being controlled by people who don't look like them, aren't culturally identical, and have totally different morals, values, and standards than for what a good parent is. A hunter/gatherer tribe in Tanzania might not have the financial resources of a rich American, they may not gave the same educational or social expectations that our culture does. They may prioritize respect for nature, not taking more from the earth than what you actually need, and minimalist living. They may be totally happy, but may live in a way that people from other cultures deem poor or not ideal for kids. Does that mean they shouldn't be able to have them? We've already seen this before and it was racist. You could literally wipe out entire groups of people under this theory, how do people not see this as scary and dangerous as hell? |
|
