We need to start using U.S. troops to make these food deliveries. These types of “mistakes” would stop immediately.

Alternatively: murder

People have kids at 22. That’s a really big permanent decision too that completely changes the trajectory of one’s life. If having a kid at 22 is ok, then taking steps to make sure that you don’t have one should also be ok. Otherwise that is promoting a double standard.

Hundreds of thousands

The OP isn’t about eugenics of any sort. No one was talking about (negative) eugenics either until someone shoehorned it into the conversation.

I think it is intellectually dishonest to mention one type of eugenics while completely ignoring the other type, hence my bringing attention to a topic which has already been broached.

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything here. Just explaining what the position is. You obviously disagree with it, as does the majority of the population. It is an unpopular position.

Not “$50K” of equity, an entire lifetime(s) of equity. A child will have a lot more than $50K of impact of their lifetime if we are talking about first world developed nations.

Obviously it can make life easier on the would-be parents as well, but that isn’t really the main focus here.

You (and a great many number of people) disagree with it. I’m simply explaining the concept.

The point for people adopting this mindset isn’t to win. It’s too avoid losing. It’s a risk management strategy.

No future workers. No future consumers (including being bent over a barrel for essential goods). No future taxpayers. No future people to fight their wars.

Yeah, I don’t think you can really apply eugenics to yourself. It’s more something that one exerts on others.

Alternately: choosing to reproduce for genetic reasons. Positive eugenics is still eugenics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter human gene pools by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.

Emphasis mine, though seems people rarely get called out for the latter.

“Positive” eugenics is also eugenics, i.e. nations that want more (insert racial or ethnic group) and encouraging those groups to reproduce are engaging in eugenics.

Getting a vasectomy is the biggest possible middle finger I could have hoisted to the parasite class

I went with a media center PC and haven’t looked back.

I’m vegan, so I never get to truly vote my conscience and won’t be able to until someone takes a stand against factory farming. I’m not interested in debating factory farms here nor am I making a direct comparison to genocide, just noting that it is a significant moral issue for me and has never been up for a vote, just as the genocide in Gaza isn’t up for a vote.

it’s immoral to vote for bad people.

One could argue that it’s immoral to not vote in a way that prevents the worst choice from winning.

As I see it, the genocide is not up for a vote since neither candidate will stop it. It’s the other issues that are up for vote.

They’ve decided to do genocide regardless of what the voters want.

Indeed, you’ve spelled it out plainly: there is no vote option to end the U.S. funding of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

I can either make a vote that won’t end it, or I can make a vote that won’t end it (and may actually make it worse, as you alluded) and will also lead to significant negative consequences for many groups of people here.

If there’s a single bone in your body that cares about the lives of your trans friends you will too.

Not just trans, but homosexual, non-white, non-religious, women.

I think they’re disgusting. Since they’re disgusting I don’t want their flesh in me.

Isn’t this the basis behind some religions’ prohibition against eating pigs? Basically that they are disgusting and disease-ridden.

This is a very sobering read: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/27/23893028/farmed-animals-animal-welfare-human-progress-poverty-climate-change-environment

Endless nightmare indeed