I count three distinct ethics fouls, but there may be more. For example, is it ethical to have children if you’re this stupid?
___________________
Source: Not the Bee.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Ethics Alarms 
Poor kids. This sign sums up how the progressive left looks at the world. It’s nihilism, moral relativism, and moral absolutism all mixed together in a nasty concoction.
I wouldn’t force kids on anyone. If someone doesn’t want to have children, I’ll respect that decision. But as it has been said over and over again, the moment you engage in the activity that is the sole* cause of kids coming into existence, you have at some level agreed to children.
And those poor kids in the photo. Children who grow up with parents who make it obvious how much they don’t want the kids and blame the kids for everything going wrong in their lives have it very tough.
* with one recorded exception, of course.
That’s my feeling as well. If you don’t want kids fine, but you aren’t entitled to consequence free sex.
Bingo. But too many women want to carry on like a cross between a perma-drunk sorority girl and the Fokkens twins on a busy weekend, and too many men want to act like a cross between Don Juan and American Gigolo.
There is something about that which makes my brain cramp. If you told anyone else that you couldn’t stop, or were not willing to stop, a certain activity to avoid a negative consequence, they’d tell you to sign up for a 12 step program. Drinking too much? Go to Alcohol Anonymous. Gambling too much? Go to Gambler’s Anonymous. Eating too much? Go to Overeater’s Anonymous. Can’t go two weeks without sex? Here’s a pill and government subsidies for that!
I used to think “sex addiction” was a bogus thing dreamt up by psychologists who have a penchant for being really weird. Seems like our culture might be suffering from it though.
And then they say that behavior is just self-expression.
Kant was against using people as a means to an end, and hookup culture is basically both parties using each other purely for sexual gratification.
I sense this is a pro-life plant. The sign is quoting another one held by a pregnant woman:
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Regardless, the parents are still using their kids as political props. Unethical even if it’s reverse psychology,
That never occurred to me for a second. What’s the matter with me?
Reality and satire are now interchangeable. How is anyone supposed to figure out what is real? The left is fully capable of doing something this disgusting, and in fact does do things this disgusting on a regular basis, so what would trigger you to question it?
Didn’t there used to be organizations that investigated stuff and told the public what actually happened? Shame they all got replaced by rage click companies and propaganda generators.
Where do you get that information? I am not convinced it is a plant.
jvb
Click the “June 27, 2022” link (I tried to embed the tweet itself). It’s a picture of a pregnant woman with a sign that also says “Don’t force this on anyone”.
I don’t know if you saw it, there was post here a few years back about a Hillary Clinton supporter who went to an anti-Clinton with a sign that blatantly stated she wasn’t fit to be president because she was a woman. After taking flak for it (because he was a schoolteacher who people recognized), he said that’s what Clinton opponents were really saying, and he wanted to get it out in the open. I suspect this mother is doing a similar stunt. The pro-abortion crowd has generally been careful to avoid talking about children who’ve already been born, except to say that pro-lifers “doesn’t care enough about them”, and the anti-abortion crowd has always insisted there is no moral difference between the born and unborn. Hence, I think it unlikely that an actual “pro-choice” advocate would be so stupid as to call her children a burden in such a blatant manner, but an overzealous “pro-life” advocate would, in order to make the pro-choicers look bad.
Interesting.
jvb
Wow. I thought she was using “THIS” as a generic reference or something. But she’s referring to having a family? And there’s even an arrow pointing to her lovely little daughter (not sure)? Caramba!
And shouldn’t the dad have his left hand on his son’s left ankle rather than the dog’s leash? The dog could bolt at any moment and the little boy could plummet to the asphalt headfirst from six feet.
I’m not advocating for the child to be hurt, but a four-year-old with a closed head injury would fit in just fine with these parents, I think.
The children should be carrying something similar to this…
That’s a favorite aphorism of a dear Economist friend, right alongside “get woke, go broke.”
MB
MB
Hey, at least the kids have the option of growing up and leaving their bad parents in the rear-view mirror. The poor dog is stuck with them.
He may very well be looking to run away.
How about this one?
Someone needs to start a GoFund Me appeal for the mental health intervention that surely will be needed by those children
Nature creates a complex dichotomy for us. On the one hand, without powerful antibiotics and birth control methods, sex – particularly promiscuous sex – has potentially life altering consequences. Profoundly life altering. And on the other hand, nature blesses us with raging hormones and desires at a very young age, as a woman’s prime child-bearing years end before age 30.
Pop culture and society provide the mixed message that uninhibited sexuality should have no boundaries, and that families should be small, and a later-in-life decision. Combined with the above-referenced nihilism, it is no wonder that most young adults feel entitled to unfettered sexual adventures without the responsibility of a family.
Having come of age during the sexual revolution, I am glad that women have been blessed with greater control over their bodies and family size. Nevertheless, I am appalled that so many are cavalier about ripping a life from their wombs.
Re-read Brave New World. In its dystopian future world view, sex and drugs are used by the government to maintain compliance. Strictly recreational, sex has lost its sacred purpose.
Sorry for the rambling … a bit overwhelmed today as I become ‘great’ grandma Lisa …
I’m dumbfounded by the unleavened, animal enthusiasm for murdering children. Wouldn’t even a hint of ambivalence be appropriate? I’m not sure suffragettes were as enthused about the right to vote.
And great comment. I’ve been thinking a lot about the ’60s and the really crazy time it was. Toxic in so many ways.