Fed up with the 'you must have children' propaganda

[mikey3000]

Especially babies with loving parents who will raise them into decent adults.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Eight billion AREN'T enough!

 

[Vitamin]

This thread reminds me of the one conversation I had with a group of Catholics that thought one day soon homosexuality will be "treatable" and gays would flock to this treatment because we want to have children so badly.

I have no idea what they were smoking.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

I have no idea what they were smoking.

Sounds like they were smoking that Whitney Houston, that heavy.

 

[Kulindahr]

I believe that almost the entire world population was an accident.

Not a pretty thought... but who has kids on purpose?

Lots of people. Rural folks have kids to help around the property. Career-oriented folks plan them to fit in with their future aims.

 

[Kulindahr]

This thread reminds me of the one conversation I had with a group of Catholics that thought one day soon homosexuality will be "treatable" and gays would flock to this treatment because we want to have children so badly.

I have no idea what they were smoking.

That's ludicrous.

 

[Kulindahr]

It occurs to me that the "have children" propaganda I most despise is Roman Catholic authorities urging people who already have too many to have even more.

 

[mikemizanin729]

There is nothing wrong with having children as long as you"re prepared to take on the responsibility of taking care of them in the way they should be.
A huge problem within the "UK" is young chav women giving birth to several children in order to claim "benefits" and get the all important council houses they desire meanwhile treating the child like a nonexistent toy while they use the child tax credits to get drunk, smoke, abuse drugs then having no money to feed the children and clothe them. It should never be it's cruel.

 

[mikemizanin729]

What is a nonexistent toy?

A toy nobody wants.
Though i suspect i misspelled.

 

[JPGhost]

Everybody..adopt!!

that's our purpose as geys in the world.

 

[mikemizanin729]

It is not uncommon to reach and get the wrong word in a longer writing. You likely meant unwanted or neglected. Nonexistent means the toy is not there, which is confusing.

Yeah, that's what i meant.

 

[Disturbance]

You will laugh at me but I want 4 kids.

 

[IamNoah]

I think people who don't have children by choice are normally *really* weird. Gay or straight, the hardcore anti-child crowd tends to be narcissistic, unpleasant, and a drag. In fact they suck about as much as first time parents of under-fives who are...tedious.

 

[Nishin]

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "biological imperative." It is the drive to breed. The other divergence early in the thread, the one referring to breeding as something different than the sex drive, is in error. The two are one. We have evolved as intellectual beings, able to practice contraception, able to exploit the sex drive for recreational pleasure, but it is an extremely recent development for the vast majority of the species. As you well know, it is still unavailable for vast populations of our race, and not only in third world countries. Statistics on American babies born to teenagers is still a scary number, not increasing, but high.

[...]

The topic is the need to breed, resulting in children, and the supposed unethical nature of it.

I didn't understand the topic the way you did, to me it wasn't as much about the ethics applied to a natural need to breed (which I also disagree with, I'd rather talk of a natural thirst for physical pleasure provided by sex... breeding in itself doesn't need pleasure or sexual intercourses, ie. ART) as about the social pressure encouraging and promoting reproduction as a factor of increased social value to a 21th century 1st world human and denying the egocentric aspect in modern human reproduction.

But to comment on some things you mentioned in your post...

In poorer countries, where social security, retirement pensions or savings don't exist, people usually have many children in order to provide for there own living/benefit when they can't make a living by themselves any more, this is egocentric (but logically understandable).

In wealthier countries, people have children for various reasons, including social ones (that's the thing to do and since I want to be highly integrated/regarded in society I shall oblige), religious ones (that's what God commands and since I want to secure my afterlife, I obey God), economical ones (gov. grants to buy me a big TV !), desire for parenting (= transmitting my DNA/name/values) or provide granny with grand-kids to play with (therefore gaining myself legitimacy in her eyes), ignorance or accidents of contraceptive means...

All these, in a world that does NOT need even more humans, which is why I consider all the above (but the last pair) egotistical... the same egoism/individualism we all share as humans and that is contradictory in the idea of expanding our specie number even more while not being at the same time willing/prepared to downgrade our standards of living and comfort to share/accommodate resources with that expanded population ... That's where I see ethical incoherences in our behaviour (as a supposedly evolved specie).

 

[ElmosToe]

Well I want kids and will have them even if by artificial insemination.
Not opposed to adopting a child.

After spending time with my niece and nephew, made me realize how much being a parent is almost like a need for us (for me anyway). Plus I know my kids will be absolutely beautiful, so I will be doing the world a favor. There, how is that for utterly insipid, vain and shallow.

 

[sixthson]

I didn't understand the topic the way you did, to me it wasn't as much about the ethics applied to a natural need to breed (which I also disagree with, I'd rather talk of a natural thirst for physical pleasure provided by sex... breeding in itself doesn't need pleasure or sexual intercourses, ie. ART) as about the social pressure encouraging and promoting reproduction as a factor of increased social value to a 21th century 1st world human and denying the egocentric aspect in modern human reproduction.

But to comment on some things you mentioned in your post...

In poorer countries, where social security, retirement pensions or savings don't exist, people usually have many children in order to provide for there own living/benefit when they can't make a living by themselves any more, this is egocentric (but logically understandable).

In wealthier countries, people have children for various reasons, including social ones (that's the thing to do and since I want to be highly integrated/regarded in society I shall oblige), religious ones (that's what God commands and since I want to secure my afterlife, I obey God), economical ones (gov. grants to buy me a big TV !), desire for parenting (= transmitting my DNA/name/values) or provide granny with grand-kids to play with (therefore gaining myself legitimacy in her eyes), ignorance or accidents of contraceptive means...

All these, in a world that does NOT need even more humans, which is why I consider all the above (but the last pair) egotistical... the same egoism/individualism we all share as humans and that is contradictory in the idea of expanding our specie number even more while not being at the same time willing/prepared to downgrade our standards of living and comfort to share/accommodate resources with that expanded population ... That's where I see ethical incoherences in our behaviour (as a supposedly evolved specie).

For all your words, you forgot the most important one: love. When two people love each other, they often decide to make a life together. From this love and this life, often comes new life and new love. Certainly people have children for all the wrong reasons, but not all people, just some. While the love between two people is exclusive it also overflows to include their own family, hence children.

 

[The Fly]

I see children like cats................I really have nothing against them, I just don't want any of my own. And I don't want to be bothered with or by yours. Children aren't the problem, lousy, irresponsible parents are.

 

[Willie Boy]

For all your words, you forgot the most important one: love. When two people love each other, they often decide to make a life together. From this love and this life, often comes new life and new love. Certainly people have children for all the wrong reasons, but not all people, just some. While the love between two people is exclusive it also overflows to include their own family, hence children.

Quoted for truth.

Then I started wondering why more people don't understand this from the beginning.........

 

[mikey3000]

There is nothing wrong with having children as long as you"re prepared to take on the responsibility of taking care of them in the way they should be.
A huge problem within the "UK" is young chav women giving birth to several children in order to claim "benefits" and get the all important council houses they desire meanwhile treating the child like a nonexistent toy while they use the child tax credits to get drunk, smoke, abuse drugs then having no money to feed the children and clothe them. It should never be it's cruel.

Those are the ones that need to be sterilized. Reproducing should be a privilige, not a right.

 

[crubbed]

All these, in a world that does NOT need even more humans, which is why I consider all the above (but the last pair) egotistical... the same egoism/individualism we all share as humans and that is contradictory in the idea of expanding our specie number even more while not being at the same time willing/prepared to downgrade our standards of living and comfort to share/accommodate resources with that expanded population ... That's where I see ethical incoherences in our behaviour (as a supposedly evolved specie).

Big agree on this. It's interesting to see I'm not alone in this.

For all your words, you forgot the most important one: love. When two people love each other, they often decide to make a life together. From this love and this life, often comes new life and new love. Certainly people have children for all the wrong reasons, but not all people, just some. While the love between two people is exclusive it also overflows to include their own family, hence children.

Don't get me started on Love lol

Those are the ones that need to be sterilized. Reproducing should be a privilige, not a right.

Yeah, sometimes I think that also. Or voting shouldn't be allowed to everyone. If I keep thinking like this I think I might turn into hitler