• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Why were African "Americans" still having children?

 
 
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
14,457
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
non-practicing agnostic
Apparently a mother gave birth in Maryland and the Wikipedia article focuses on how terrible the conditions were. Well it really was terrible, but the mother was responsible for having brought babies into this situation. Slavery had been raging for centuries, and continuing to bring more children into this situation was very irresponsible.

After escaping as a slave illegally she returned back across the state border illegally to retrieve the children.
 
The reason people have kids in situations that they shouldn't is the same reason people have kids in situations where it's not as bad, but they probably still shouldn't.

The reason is that people aren't inherently rational. The other reason is that we're genetically inclined to pursue people we're attracted to until we have sex with them, and sans birth control babies are usually the result.
 
Add in the factor that trading sex for security, and other resources is a thing that has been going on for probably all of the human genetic history (Other primates do it too). And I'm not just talking about prostitution. Finding a "Sugar Daddy" can be a major score for the desperate. Even finding a partner of equal means as yourself can help you through difficult situations. Even when they aren't attracted to their partner, a desperate person may try to make any bond they can.

And, of course, the people who are least secure are the ones most willing to do make these exchanges. For some women that leads to pregnancy.
 
Just to clarify...

The op is meant to mirror the op in the forum about Syrians in a refugee camp having children. I imagine most people already knew that.

Further, the woman here is Harriet Tubman. She did have children when a slave and not because her master told her to. She also illegally escaped and illegally crossed borders to get them.

If one accepts many explanations as to why the Syrians are "irresponsible" one also should say the same things about Harriet Tubman. Or maybe not?

Will we hear negative statements directed at Harriet Tubman such as "you know those radical Christians, they sure love to f***?" Or creating a child is unethical because purposefully producing substantial risk of an unhappy life to an involuntary third-party is...? etc etc...

Wouldn't the non-existence of millions of African Americans be an unacceptable outcome if African Americans should not have had children up to year X (say until Emancipation Proclamation, for example)? Any day before X would have created unacceptable risk in creating unhappy lives?

Or do we make exceptions under despotic regimes? We do what we can under despotic regimes? But then civil war is also a despotic regime. Even harsh economic conditions could be analogous to a despotic regime. Do we do what we can regardless of what other immoral people do to create risk to our decisions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom