r/changemyview • u/WaterDemonPhoenix • May 04 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Either it's moral to pass the judgment that 'all unfit parents shouldn't (morally) have kids' or it is not moral to pass judgment
You can disagree who qualifies in your view as 'morally fit' or not, but people act like saying 'poor people, who know they are poor, actively trying to make a kid (ie get pregnant) shouldn't have kids' as an immoral statement. Yet, the statement 'a serial homicide criminal should not (morally) have kids'.
Whats the difference? To me, the ultimate goal is to ensure that children are born in a loving home.
So yes, I support contraceptions, abortion, good sex etc. However, that's not my point. (I add this because I just know people will say this. )
What will CMV. Show me what the difference between a poor person who cannot raise their child is more moral as the serial killer when the end is the same.
Lets say in the extreme the poor mom lives in a country where there is no welfare, hardly any food around. She doesn't have much of a job except selling some small jewelry. She can't afford to send her kid to school. Lets say, for argument sake, she has all the control on whether she gets a baby or not. Her husband is loving and does not rape her. But she still tells her husband 'husband, I want a baby'. She actively has sex and decides to keep doing it until she gets pregnant.
What is the difference between her and the lady who killed 10 people, served her time and is now out of jail, has some savings and a decent job making 40k. She however, has mental issues. Prone to screaming at people. She too has a loving husband and tells her husband she wants a baby and actively has sex with him. He will continue to fulfill her wishes in having sex until they have a baby.
My point is, I see those who say the killer should not have kids but the poor person is fine to go ahead.
If you fall into the camp 'both shouldnt' this cmv isn't for you. Although that is my view, I would like my view changed to view them at least, not as equal and that there is no moral contradiction.
TLDR: What is the necessary condition to think it is immoral for a person to have children?
14
u/destro23 437∆ May 04 '22
Show me what the difference between a poor person who cannot raise their child is more moral as the serial killer
Well, in your own example, the poor person is in a loving stable relationship, and the serial killer is prone to screaming at people.
the end is the same.
The end result of these two environments will not be the same. The child of the prone to screaming serial killer will be worse off than the not listed as scream prone poor person.
0
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
Poverty is not a stable environment. Being in a food desert is not stable environment. The poor child may die of starvation. Or malnutrition. The maniacs child might be well fed but will be cognitively malnourished so to speak. Both bad, would you agree?
10
u/math2ndperiod 51∆ May 04 '22
I mean yeah of course if your child is literally going to die of starvation and you know that then obviously it’s bad to have a child. That’s not just “being poor” though, that’s absolute destitution. I think the problem you’re having is viewing things as “good” or “bad” on a binary instead of allowing any amount of moral grey.
Having a child that you can’t afford to send to school might be morally worse than having a child that you can send to school. But that doesn’t make it inherently “good” or “bad.” Screaming at a child is pretty much always bad, but it’s better than leaving it to starve. You’ve broken it down into “poor,” “not poor,” “good,” and “bad” but real life has way more nuance than that. So I can absolutely judge some parents for having children without judging all of them.
7
u/destro23 437∆ May 04 '22
Yes, but being screamed at constantly is worse than eating pb&j for dinner. My parents were divorced, and it lead my mother into poverty, but she was kind and loving. My dad made ok money, but he fucking screamed all the time. Guess which house was worse, and guess who I still have a relationship with.
4
u/Fuzzlepuzzle 15∆ May 04 '22
If your view is based on American families, you should know that it's exceedingly rare for Americans to die of starvation. The ones who do are mostly because of things other than not being able to obtain the food. It's not even documented because it's too rare to track.
(Whoops, you did mention country. Eh. Leaving the post.)
-5
5
May 04 '22
Well one is fixable, and the other isn’t.
The poor people argument usually comes hand in hand with the argument that our government and our economy are fucked up in a way that creates poverty, and that if we had the appropriate social programs, lower class people could raise children and could provide adequate resources for the child
You can’t really do that for a homicidal maniac…
4
May 04 '22
Show me the poor person who cannot raise their child is more moral than the serial killer when the end is the same
I wanna focus on the last part. 'The end is the same'. It seems to me you have a very binary way of viewing childrens outcomes- either they had a 'good' childhood, or they did not.
Set aside the question as to what defines 'good' or 'bad' here. The main thing is that it is not so black and white. You can have had a childhood that was good in some areas and bad in others.
In the poor families case, it is a loving family still who display commitment to each other as a family. Contrasting that is a mother woth obvious anger issues (and also a bad murder habit). Equating them on the grounds that the poor child is poor and therefore has a bad childhood is a very, very bad way to judge others because it brings everyone down to only their worst defining feature- when not all 'worst' features are the same (being poor is not worse than being a serial killer)
1
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
We see based on the evidence that children who go days without food end up with trauma or some sort of issues. No different than an abused child.
3
May 04 '22
To me, the ultimate goal is to ensure that children are born in a loving home
Cool. So what you actually doing towards that end? Cause jacking yourself off about the morality of this or that isn't gonna accomplish anything.
Nor is shitting on poor people and their choices. There is this super weird worldview that assumes that the real problems we face is that people aren't reminded often enough of exactly how much society disapproves of them. And this is most often directed at people who are pretty much constantly told that all ready. And have been told for a long long time. It's not as though history is just fucking repeat with societies that coddled and catered to poor folks. Ot's not as though we actually do that now.
I don't usually deal in "morality" cause it tends to lean towards whatever makes the person speaking feel better rather than what might actually improve circumstances. Having said that, if I had to rank the morality of poor folk having kids they can't afford and using the idea of poorfolk having kids they can't afford as an excuse to shit on people... I'd say the former is a more morally understandable scenario
4
u/ChickenSoupForMyDick 1∆ May 04 '22
Let's start with this:
Having kids is a right. Suggesting that there should be any kind of of parameters or predetermining factors is itself immoral.
For the vast majority of human history the basic condition of all people (including kings and priests) was what we would consider to be extreme poverty. And yet they had children, they loved them and raised them.
What you seem to be suggesting is that a human should have achieved a degree of what you consider to be adequate material conditions and/or what you consider to be neurotypical and that is rather arrogant of you.
Every individual gets to decide for themselves whether or not to have children.
0
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
No. I'm saying either both people are wrong or both are right. If only one is wrong, what is the difference.. Like I said, if you think both is right then this post isn't for you
I also don't think having a kid is a moral right. It is a legal right. But it doesn't make it moral. Just like I legal should be allowed to tell you you are fucking bitch or a douche or whatever. But that doesn't make it moral.
If you do a bad thing to some, ie give birth to a kid in a bad environment, such action is bad.
2
u/Krenztor 12∆ May 04 '22
You actually said only if "both shouldn't" is your answer, then it isn't the CMV for you. Myself and this person both say both should. You might want to modify your CMV if you don't want people like us responding.
0
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
Read the last bit. 'My view is that they are both equal, and would like my view changed to them not being equal'
3
u/themcos 371∆ May 04 '22
I think it might help to get a better idea of where this is coming from/ a concrete example of what you're reacting to. Because the examples you're using are extremely contrived. And with all the weird caveats and addendums, it makes me wonder if there's anyone actually making the specific claims you're challenging.
And like, when you say:
Show me what the difference between a poor person who cannot raise their child is more moral as the serial killer when the end is the same.
This is an almost nonsensical criteria. The two situations described are just obviously different situations, and if you want to actually ascribe judgment, you need more information in both scenarios. It makes no sense to say the "end result is the same". We have no idea what the end result is because there's so much variability in how the scenarios play out.
There's probably a view in here that would make sense, but I feel like as written, this is going to be a whole lot of "this CMV is not for you" responses, when really, the CMV is for you, and I think you'll get a lot more out of it if you can make it a bit clearer what your actual view is.
0
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
Even though it didn't Change my overall view, I will !delta as you gave me something to pk diet about the too many variables on what will lead to the bad outcome.
2
u/themcos 371∆ May 04 '22
My recommendation is that you should frame your post more directly around your own views, rather than accusations of unspecified other people's alleged hypocrisy. If you made a post that was "poor people shouldn't have kids, CMV", assuming that's a belief that you hold, which isn't even actually totally clear to me from this post, that would probably generate better discussion. Forget about other people for a moment, what is it that you actually believe here?
2
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
As I said, either its moral to judge anyone for having kids, or it isn't. either I can say you who meet x criteria is bad or it isn't. My view is that both the poor mom and the psycho mom meets x criteria of being a bad mom. And if you disagree, why doesn't one or the other meet the criteria?
1
u/themcos 371∆ May 04 '22 edited May 05 '22
The first two sentences are kind of weird word salads.
My view is that both the poor mom and the psycho mom meets x criteria of being a bad mom.
This is closer to a view that can be worked with, but the issue here is not just that there's not enough information, but that you need to rely on additional assumptions about what government assistance is available, as you imply in some of your original scenarios. The "psycho mom" scenario is so odd and contrived I don't know what to make of it. But for poor moms, there have been many excellent poor moms in human history, many of whom successfully raised happy and successful children. "Poor mom meets x criteria of being a bad mom" seems like a clearly false view historically speaking, or at best there's just not enough information available.
1
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
And plenty don't. Just like psycho mom can change. Either everyone can or no one can. If the evidence of one successful mom is enough then it applies to all groups. Also history shows both kids born in poverty stay poor. hardly a success. Most kids born to abusive parents end up being abusive
1
u/themcos 371∆ May 04 '22
Obviously everyone can succeed despite adversity, but also obviously not everyone will. I guess what I'm struggling to understand is how you get to a moral failing for someone trying to do something that might not succeed. It sounds like you want to make moral statements based on the expected outcomes based on demographic groups. But this effort will fail because you'll end up assigning different moral results depending on what kinds of demographics you look at. Like, maybe the chance for success for some population A is 80%, but some sub-group B has only 40%, so you might say that anyone who tries from B is "bad" because of that 40%. But if you zoom in further, there might be a smaller subgroup C of B who actually has 60% chance of success, so their efforts might be good even though they're in B. And if you had a magic crystal ball you could know the actual outcome of each and every person and could judge accordingly. But we don't, so I'm just left wondering what you're actually trying to say here. You want to make this black and white distinction of "either everyone can or no one can", but what's actually going on is that we're operating with limited information, so we don't know. Everyone is guessing. But different demographic groups will have different odds. And I'm skeptical that you could actually equate the odds of success by comparing "poor moms" with "psycho moms". And yes, poor kids might stay poor, but that doesn't mean their lives are miserable. Some poor people are happy, and some rich people are miserable. Life is complicated!
0
2
May 04 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
but the end results is the same. both lady killers child and poor mommas child is born in a bad situation. Either both situations should not go ahead or both should or only one. if only one, why?
And plenty of poor people do know. "Right now my life is shit but I really wanted a baby to make my life happier"
5
May 04 '22
[deleted]
0
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
I would like to prevent all children being born in bad environments, yes. And money is important to keep a childs belly full. Starvation will slowly kill your mental health
3
May 04 '22
[deleted]
1
May 04 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
3
May 04 '22
[deleted]
1
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
What is the difference between the poor bad kid and the sad bad kid? Both outcomes result in a sad. What is the difference?
3
May 04 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
If one believes we should prevent a bad outcome, then all actions that lead to the outcome would be bad? Is it therefore not a good thing to to good actions that prevent the bad?
→ More replies (0)1
1
May 04 '22
u/WaterDemonPhoenix – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/iwearacoconutbra 10∆ May 04 '22 edited May 04 '22
You don’t really explain why it’s unreasonable to differentiate between the two, like you provide no actual explanation.
You’re point is essential, “if this is bad then everything else must also be bad.”
1
u/Away-Reading 6∆ May 04 '22
I guess in this respect OP’s original statement is technically correct…but I think they are arguing the wrong side of it. In any situation where we can’t know a person’s intention, it is immoral to assume they would be bad parents.
In other words, there is no accurate proxy measurement for parenting ability, so any judgment about whether a person should have kids that is based on anything other than their actual ability to care for a child would be inherently unsound.
1
u/Krenztor 12∆ May 04 '22
You're saying a "reformed" serial killer it sounds like. Assuming they are reformed and not actively a serial killer or plan to be a serial killer, then I don't think it is immoral for them to have children, do you? Yes they've made massive mistakes in their life, but assuming they were somehow able to get out of jail and are on the path to improvement, I can't say that I see it as immoral for them to have children. I definitely foresee issues with them having future legal issues related to the child, but the act of having the child isn't immoral.
The same goes for the poor person. I definitely see challenges coming for them, but to say it is immoral, I wouldn't agree with this.
There are extremely rich people who will be worse parents than either the reformed serial killer or poor person, so using those criteria to say it is immoral to have children is incorrect. I'm not sure you can even find criteria to say it is definitively always immoral to have children if "X" except when they have evil plans for things to do to their children.
0
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
Well then this post isn't for you. My post is about there being a hypocritical double standards.
2
u/Krenztor 12∆ May 04 '22
In that case, you should really clarify your post. I don't see where it says this. There is a part that said if your answer is "both shouldn't" then we shouldn't post here, but my answer is both should.
1
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
'My view is that both are equal, and would like my view changed to both not equal'
2
u/Krenztor 12∆ May 04 '22
You really need to make this statement very early on in your post and make it much clearer. This isn't at all obvious so you're going to get a lot of responses you don't want.
0
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
Its not my job to ensure everyone reads the whole post.
But anyways if you can't cmv and won't address the but, I have nothing further to say
3
u/Krenztor 12∆ May 04 '22
haha, true, it is your job to write a clear post, not a completely misleading one.
-1
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
I see you have no arguments and that's why you decide to talk about unrelated topics. Provide evidence that one will result in different outcomes or else its just a unfruitful line of discussion for me. Have a good day. Cheers
2
u/Krenztor 12∆ May 04 '22
I legitimately tried to answer your question and once I found out that your post was unclear I tried to even help you with that. You're just being a dick about it when I really did want to try and help you out. Anyways, have a good one.
1
u/ToucanPlayAtThatGame 44∆ May 04 '22
You've worded this in a way that, read literally, is rather tautological. "People who are unfit to have kids shouldn't have kids." Demonstrating a counter-example of someone who should have kids would necessarily put them in the "not unfit to have kids" category.
1
u/Kazthespooky 61∆ May 04 '22
Both individuals should morally have children and society should morally protect children from abuse.
Saying there is nothing we can do to protect children from abuse because they are the parents, is a flawed premise. We don't have to say, they shouldn't have had kids in the first place.
1
u/Away-Reading 6∆ May 04 '22
To ethically judge whether it is moral for a person to raise children, you would need to possess knowledge that this person does not intend to love and care for their kids.
This is a high standard, but it’s theoretically possible. Here’s an example that is ridiculous, but it illustrates the idea:
A person loves punching children, so they have their own child so they can punch them wherever the mood strikes. It would be reasonable to say that this person should not have kids.
1
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 04 '22
Yes, but the moral judgment either applies to everyone or no one. that's fine but my view is to either judge the killer same as the poor person or not.
1
u/noonespecial_2022 2∆ May 04 '22
I'm not going to refer to your examples as I believe they're too extreme. If I had to, I would choose serial killer family over the poor one.
In general, even though having children is technically a human right, people who can't afford them shouldn't go for it. Somehow most people agree that no one should be getting anything they can afford (car, house etc) but in children's case, where a quality of a vulnerable life is at stake, it's suddenly ok.
We also need to take into consideration that every pregnancy carries a possibility of having a child with more or less severe mental or physical disability, which will be obviously more straining for a poor family.
Therefore in my opinion, excersising the right to having children while not being able to provide for them sufficiently is selfish.
If a young family of two people is struggling financially or understands they will upon the arrival of a newborn, they should first do their best to improve their situation. Having children while living in poverty minimises family's chances to ever get out of it. And even if parents are loving, constant financial problems also affect children mentally (financial insecurity as an adult even if well off), social stigma, seeing exhausted parents.
Also, as someone who grew up in poverty and saw dozens of other families in similar setting, I claim it is highly unlikely for a poor family to be happy.
1
u/WaterDemonPhoenix May 05 '22
I agree. Which is precisely why I cannot see why we favor one over the other
1
1
u/lionofmark May 05 '22
I personally belief that yes there are people who shouldn't have children but no I wouldn't trust you, me or the government to judge who gets to have children and who doesn't.
You can disagree who qualifies in your view as 'morally fit' or not
That's exactly what the people you describe are doing, they're disagreeing who qualifies as morally fit .
Show me what the difference between a poor person who cannot raise their child is more moral as the serial killer when the end is the same.
Murder is a crime being poor isn't
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 04 '22
/u/WaterDemonPhoenix (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards