I’m tired of seeing this recycled argument. Implying that poor people shouldn’t have children because they’ve been disadvantaged by a system that offers them no support is eugenics adjacent.
https://twitter.com/madblackvegan/status/1325078388759912449
it rests on an assumption that poverty is intrinsic and it drives a refusal to provide material aid to children in poverty. You think you shouldn’t help pay for a child to eat because you think his mother should have known not to have him.
There's an enormous difference between neglecting a child and not having the income to feed your family.
Is it harder to raise children without resources? Sure but it doesn't mean poor people shouldn't have children. The emotional capacity to care for a child is not defined by economic status
Children are *not* a manifestation of the irresponsibility of the people having them, but rather the irresponsibility of a system unprepared to support its people
“Barely 40 years ago, it wasn't uncommon for a single mother on welfare, or a patient in a mental hospital in North Carolina, to be sterilized against her will.” npr.org/2011/06/22/137…
anyway my last two cents: I think the best way to go about this wouldn't be to say "how do we keep people who don't have the resources to care for children from having them" but instead "how do we make sure every child and family has what they need"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
