Presented without agenda:

[zianuray]

Saw a bumpersticker yesterday that read "Can't feed 'em?  Don't breed 'em."






At least these dragons don't need to be fed!

  

Comments

[chatrient.livejournal.com]

All clicked, and LOVE that bumper sticker!!

[ivorywitch.livejournal.com]

Awesome idea! I need that one!

[sunk.livejournal.com]

What chatrient (both of 'em) said!

(Edited because I not so good at remembering words, it seems. D'oh.)

[reynai.livejournal.com]

I suppose I'm the dissenting opinion on the bumper sticker: I think it presents a worldview that has a definite problem to it.

I was considering whether or not to even write this comment -- because I know that Zia specified that she was submitting it without agenda or comment, but some of the commenters definitely took it a certain way.

I have a problem with the idea of "If you can't afford kids, don't have them." It sounds, on the surface, like a fairly obvious and unoffensive idea, yeah? If you can't provide for a human being, don't bring them into the world.

Well, how do you define 'can't afford them'? Or, in this particular case, 'can't feed 'em'? There are social programs in existance to help struggling mothers feed their babies and children.

There's a idea that's nice in theory that parents who aren't doing well fiscally should hold off until they're in a better financial position before they procreate. The problem is that our capitalist system is kinda set up so that the poor stay poor. Should, therefore, poor people not breed? From there breeds (pun intended) eugenics. If you're not successful enough (by X arbitrary standpoint), then you don't deserve to continue your line. Societal darwinism.

Didn't really mean to write out a whole essay...

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

On the other paw, there's a whole level of irresponsibility-- and not a little arrogance-- behind the idea that a couple wants to have children and expects others to feed it for them. (I'm leaving out single mothers at this point for the sake of discussion.) Especially in a time when the economy is down and government waste is high.

But who says this is about children at all? The agenda is left free for you to consider. This could be about people like my neighbors, who were unable to feed themselves, and yet kept getting more dogs. Then they had to give the new dogs away after a time because they could not feed them (nor could they train them properly). Again, that goes with the irresponsible nature of the pet owners. They know that they don't have the means to raise their new pets, yet they get them anyway because they aren't satisfied with only two animals in the home. Thus, they were using EBT-- paid for by my taxes-- to feed these poorly raised, and eventually untrainable, animals.

To me the bumper sticker says, "Be responsible for your own actions!"

-=TK

[jeffs-page.livejournal.com]

When I see a sign like this, I flashback to a previous job I had. The supervisor would shift the schedule all over the place to fit "HIS" life. He would work when his wife would be at home to watch the kids, and vice versa. That way they didn't have to pay for daycare. Fine, but I had nothing to do with making those children so why should my schedule be disrupted because of them? I'm not talking about minor disruptions either. I'm talking about working until 1am on a Monday having Tuesday off and being back to work at 5am on Wednesday.

Oh and this same boss was always talking about the concert he saw the previous weekend, or the movies he went to see or the new albums he bought, so money for "the children" wasn't the issue.