290
PS: The point here is NOT that poor people shouldn't have kids, it's that no one should be having kids without having the basics of childcare covered, which necessitates widespread systemic, societal, and economic change so that no parent needs to worry about those basics, and kids can grow up in secure, healthy environments. I completely forgot to mention this when I originally posted it, and that's my bad.
That's just false. It's literaly what the last sentence says. Otherwise they would advocate for child welfare instead.
I'm pretty sure it is advocating for child welfare. Like, that's the whole subtext of it.
That is not the subtext of it. That is a Motte OOP would retreat to after being challenged on their anti-poor-people advocacy.
It literally specifically says they're not advocating against poor people having children and specifically that it refers to people that knowingly have children that they cannot materially provide for. Then started that systemic change ought to occur to prevent this nonsense discussion in the first place. It's the subtext of the sentiment and the plain text of the follow-up. The intention is plainly stated.
Are you referring to this?
First of all, these two sentences mean the same thing. If anyone is supposed to wait, then we're talking about discouraging poor people from having kids.
Secondly, this text is not from the image. I have fuck all to say to this reposter on Lemmy—at least I think. They want more welfare, I want more welfare; it seems like we agree. I have no beef with them.
Come on. They literally state "love does not pay for childcare" instead of advocating free childcare. And the subtext is falsely trying to reframe it, which was my whole point.