When faced with a future for children that is less than ideal, not having them makes a lot of sense. And yet it’s viewed as somehow sacrosanct.
“Stop killing our children”? Why would you have them in the first place when they aren’t likely to have an enjoyable life?
Having kids is not a need, and it certainly isn’t some odd “that’s what organisms do” thing even more insulting than suggesting that’s what people do.
Bluntly: Kids you don’t have can’t die. The easiest way to ensure your kids don’t have bad outcomes is not having them.
Don’t have kids in a world that doesn’t want them. That’s true in Palestine, the U.S., and literally everywhere else.
You must log in or register to comment.
When you are a member of a safe, advantaged group, and this choice is being made wholly voluntarily, I 100% agree (and am myself “childfree”).
But telling a group that is under attack that they should not have kids is just furthering that group’s diminishment. Once Israel isn’t trying to wipe out Palestinians, and their survival isn’t at stake, and they can make that choice without duress, then it’s fair. Until then, this just seems to inherently create an argument that any group that is under threat should let itself die out rather than struggle on.
Why would you have them in the first place when they aren’t likely to have an enjoyable life?
Making a personal choice is one thing. Telling people that they shouldn’t, based on their socioeconomic situation, is entirely another. “Survival of the wealthiest” is not an ideology I can conclude to be moral.
You point out the nuance quite well. Regardless of whether I think having kids is good, forbidding people from doing so is at best eugenics and at worst genocide (not that there’s a lot of air between the two).
This take is pretty gross. People are allowed to have families, and those families should be safe.
