It's literally in the article.
Rediphile
joined 1 year ago
And when/where/to who.
Edit: it states in the article what she said, which is that Israel should not exist.
Why would those other medications be more appropriate. What's the problem with Ketamine in the first place?
To be clear, I'm anti-capitalist and not blaming poor people for anything, nor suggesting they should not have any children. But I stand by my position and wording.
Don't have more children (or even pets) than one can support. It's objectively cruel.
Would I prefer a world where there wasn't such dramatic (or ideally any) inequality? Definitely. But even in a world where every single parent could support 6 kids I'd be against people having 17.
I'm never having kids, by choice. How is that eugenics?
I'm just saying good parents consider what is best for their children before having them. Having 6 when you can only reasonable support 3 is a 'poor' choice. Bad parents, on the other hand, have children to benefit themselves rather than the child.
And anyway, statistically, lower income people have more children per person so no one is preventing poor people from having kids. I'm just questioning if that is what is best for those children, because I care about children's suffering.
Well yeah, but you probably make good choices which is arguably cheating.
And it has literally nothing to do with ethics and is profit driven. The entire point of advertising is to make money.
They will suffer. And I'm willing to be among them as it's worth it long term. The alternative of infinite growth isn't a realistic possibility in a world with finite resources.
Good. Lowering the birth rate at the global scale = more resources per person.
The article itself...