you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

It wasn't a moral judgement, just a statement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Bullshit. It's literally impossible to say "some people should not have children" without making it a moral judgment. You're just gaslighting everyone by pretending your morality is objective. You're literally pulling an Ayn Rand.

    Pick the worst case you can think of, the kind of person who is unlikely to be able to support children. Imagine a profoundly disabled person, themselves a ward of the state. You would like to pretend that objectively, they shouldn't have kids. But a hell of a lot of disability advocates would disagree with you. They would argue that anyone who wants should to should be able to have kids. And if they can't support them, well that is why we have welfare programs.

    "Should" is by necessity a moral statement. You're literally saying how you think the world should be and how people should act. That's the literal fucking definition of morality!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I mean this is 1/2 pedantry 1/2 not, I'm sure there is a situation that almost anyone in existance would agree a person shouldn't have kids, but that doesn't make it a fact that they shouldn't have kids. Almost anyone would agree having a kid in a family that is constantly screaming and toxic that leaves the child a depressed anxious adult is immoral. That's about as close to "objective" as you can get with morality, even if it is still subjective.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago

    it is a moral judgement. you just won't define who it is you think shouldn't have children, because you know it would make you look bad.

    so you hide behind it as if it were a fact, without articulating who it is you think is unworthy, and who you think it is worthy.

  • source
  • parent