- If you are too stupid to refrain from breeding “inadvertently”, you deserve no respect.
This goes for both of my “parents”. My “mother” (in particular) used to make a huge deal both about the fact that she “forgot” to take her birth-control pills and about the fact that shedidn’t have access to legal abortion when she found out about the pregnancy. I know that she didn’t explicitly “want” me (until she figured out that she could use the fact that I was visually-impaired (most likely because of having been born prematurely, because she smoked during the pregnancy) – to score “sympathy” from others.
I realize that.
I am also aware that my (burnt-out drunk of a) “father” only impregnated my mother because he “doesn’t like condoms”. Moreover, he was off fucking other women/blowing money which should probably have gone stuff like mortgage payments and food and suchlike.
Again: mere consanguinity is no “reason” for me to ignore those facts.
Quite frankly, I am also aware that (as with most other “parents” of that generation), they attempted to “parent” as little as possible – electing instead to hand my schooling off to supposed “professionals”, instead of actually attempting to (for example) home-school/un-school me.
Yet again: parental “buck-passing” on a massive scale.
so I ask again: why should mere consanguinity (“blood” kinship) even enter into it?
It is a well-known fact that the ones most likely to inflict physical/sexual/psychological abuse on any given individual — especially during childhood – are those “closest” to hand: typically a “close” relative.
So again: would-be apologists for “kinship” would need to actually answer the above questions — but they can’t.
Perhaps if my “parents” were even slightly apologetic, thinks might be different.
Perhaps if they had even attempted to rein in the junkie psychopath – but again, they didn’t.
Having said that: even among the sort of savages who typically buy into the “kinship”/tribalism bullshit, infanticide via abandonment and exposure is exceedingly common:
So again: it is up to the tribalist/”kin”-fetishist/neo-savages to explain exactly why my failure to acquiesce to the Pavlovian Conditioning with regard to “kinship” is problematic:
The notion that “kin”-type relationships should be held to a different standard than what you would apply to any random stranger amounts to the tacit (or explicit) claim that some “kin” exist merely for the purpose of being victimized by other such “kin”.
Again, I don’t buy it.
I discontinued all contact with by burnt-out drunkard of a “father” for over twenty years. Oddly enough, at the time, both my “mother” and my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother explicitly supported my decision to do so.
But somehow, the mere fact that I refuse to further enable THEIR antics rubs some random nonentity the wrong way?
Again: why would you actually think I gave two liquidy shits about your (idiotic) prattle?
Because you attempted (ineptly) to defend “race”-based chauvinism?
Or was it because you explicitly believe that individual conduct should take a back-seat to the incidental fact of mere consanguinity? (“Kin”-fetishism).
Moreover, even if I was somehow convinced that your “kin”-blather had merit, that still doesn’t answer the question of which of my “kin” are entitled to such favoritism?
My (burnt out drunkard of a) “father”?
My enabling shrew of a “mother” (the woman who straight out told me to my face that she would have had me aborted, if Roe V. Wade had been decided a few moths earlier/such a clinic had been readily-accessible in that area of PA?)
Or maybe you’re thinking about my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother?
Or the miscellaneous half-siblings (most of whom I’ve barely even met) in Virginia?
Now, if you had “parents” who actually parented, or siblings who weren’t dangerously violent, drug-addled trash – then your respect/love/value of them is deserved – and has nothing to do with the (incidental) fact that you happen to be “blood relatives”.
Exactly how hard is this to understand?
(Oh wait – never mind.)