so....Not having children=Selfish?

[Necroid_Neko]

Well, when I tell people I never want to have kids the usual reaction is for whoever's talking to me to stare as though I've just said 'I want to rip out foetuses from other women and eat them'. Seriously society, why u so backwards?

 

[Aurgelmir]

I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children. Every couple must produce at least two children on average to sustain your population

Now that is just selfish too though

Since the world is already moving towards over population, most people should really just get ONE kid at max, and considering how some people get an insane amount of kids you are in the safe.

But no I do not think it is selfish not wanting to have children. I mean most people that "demand" you to birth a child are often people with some sort of investment, like grandparents and so on. But they are not the ones that carry the child to term...

That said I think peoples views on having children change as they get older.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

With a global population of somewhere around 7 billion it would probably be better if the whole world did something similar to China's 1 child per couple rule. But that would leave the problem of a ridiculous amount of old people, who effectively do nothing but use up resources - and not enough young people to care for em.

Hmm...

 

[Axolotl]

How this relates to selfishness and having kids? Selfishness we defined as caring only for ourselves...you want a better education, a better career, better finances, none of the burdens of parenthood, freedom to travel, play the field, party all night, whatever. That is selfish. This is not an insult or using the word in a pejorative sense. It *is* dictionary definition selfish and it's absolutely true that many, many more people are now much more selfish. I have a few friends who can't/couldn't wait to have babies and settle down and alarmingly an almost equal number who "never want to have kids" because they value what they have now more than the perceived/actual joys/burdens of parenthood, childbirth, etc.

This is wrong. Something isn't selfish simply because it's what you want, for example if someone went to a cinema you wouldn't say they were selfish if they went to see a film they wanted to see instead of one they didn't. An action (or in this case lack of action) is only selfish if it's detrimental to other people as well as what they want. So regardless of your reasons for not having kids it's only selfish if it harms others. Which is ridiculous despite the idiotic claims made by some people in this thread not having childeren is not detrimental to society, if anything the opposite is true.

 

[D Moness]

a well then i rather be selfish then let others dictate my life
Don't like my opinion deal with it , not going to change it for anyone.

Waves the topic goodbye

 

[Tipsy Giant]

It's selfish to HAVE kids, adoption is the only selfless option.
When there are tons of children wishing for a family every night and you decide you'd prefer one with your own genes, that's selfish

 

[ChildishLegacy]

snippity snip snip

So your argument is that having people who don't want kids to raise children will be beneficial to society and the economy? Why don't we leave that to the people that actually WANT children and therefore will actually raise them properly, give them the childhood and nurture they deserve, so they will one day become a productive part of our society. It's no use bringing up a whole generation of children with daddy and mommy issues, who don't want to work and are in general not nice people.

I don't see why everybody should have to have children if some people want to and others don't, it's not good to put people into situations they don't want, and it wouldn't be nice for the children either.

 

[AngloDoom]

-SNIP

So? Your point? Seriously, what the fuck is your point. It's a person, great, doesn't mean I or the majority of the rest of the world has any reason to give a shit. The biological parents shouldn't have made it, doesn't make it my problem.

Wow, you're very aggressive, huh?

Anyway, here's me butting in =D

"The biological parents shouldn't have made it"? What does that even mean? What if the parents died? Should they not have had a child in case they got hit by a drunk-driver?

The proper answer here is ''Sucks to be you kid.''

I should clarify that I am specifically thinking about adopting african kids while writing this, I probably should have mentioned that. In the africa the problem can be summed up to them fucking and not knowing any better.

The entire point however isn't the circumstance of the child, the point is ''That doesn't mean anybody cares''.

So what's your reasoning for wanting to adopt, may I ask? It seems strange that you're painting it as a futile act whilst also mulling it over yourself.

Because they're only damaged insofar as they don't have parents.

HA HA HA HA HA HA

No. You don't really believe that, do you? You really think that them not having parents does nothing to them? Or that they aren't up for adoption for entirely different reasons, such as having been removed from a Household? What about Diseases?

Because kids who aren't adopted never suffer violence in their own household, never get ill, and are always totally well-grounded and healthy. That's why all the weirdos are adopted, amirite?

Nice Strawman. Try again.

Look, I know 'strawman' is a lovely term someone on the Escapist used many moons ago, but it's not a sacred 'protect all' term. I did not misrepresent your side of the argument - I used the oppositions you are comparing (biological parenting/adoption) and basically asked you to explain why one is worse off than the other. Having a child biologically does not make the kid less likely to be ill or have better-grounded parents - otherwise the children wouldn't be up for adoption in the first place.
Unless I've mistaken your point (as I may well have done) and accidentally misrepresented it in a way I'm not quite seeing, shouting "Strawman!" is just as weak as saying "That's what Hitler said!"

Because you're actively improving someone's life.

When I want a kid I'm not looking to improve the life of someone pre-existing, I'm looking to improve my own.

Agreed, no argument there.

Ok

Huzzah.

Because your own genes mean that maybe having children isn't the greatest idea when adoption is viable.

You don't get to leave the constraints of the question. Very simple situation, your own children are a perfectly viable option. No reason to adopt some random kid, all it does is cause problems.

Well, I certainly am thinking about it rather than having my own child. Why, you may ask? Because I'd rather not produce another privileged white middle-class child when I could, with a little more/less difficulty (depending on where you stand) improve another child's life. I want to improve my own life, definitely, but why not make myself feel better about helping out someone in need too while I'm at it?

No reason not too. Come back when you've actually done it, cause I doubt you will. Also, the kid sure is looking at a loving future when your entire motivation is ''White guilt''. What about white kids that are in need of adopting? Fuck them?

This is all a theoretical debate, knocking my argument aside because I haven't adopted a child is just silly. It seems you haven't adopted a child and considering your rather perplexing viewpoint on the matter you seem less likely to adopt than I am. Does this mean I've 'won' the debate? No, of course not. The whole thing is irrelevant.

I used the example of 'white middle-class' kid as an example more than anything, since due to the communities I have lived in it is far less likely that I am going to have a child biologically attached to me of a different race. I don't care what race the potential future-child is. Also, if I ever want children it is because of all the normal reasons: I want to give a stable household and loving presence to a little mini-person that I can love and that will love me back, and hopefully make its footprint on the world as it grows. I don't see why me wanting to do all that with a child in less fortunate circumstances makes me less loving.
My point is, if I want a child why don't I take a child that is already here and not having a nice time and give them a better life? It's not guilt speaking, but if I had a child I'd love to know that I didn't just help produce it into an easy world, I'd like to think I helped that child from the word 'go' by improving its life. I'd fell all warm and fuzzy, and all that jazz.

I do realise I was misleading with the 'white' statement, so forgive me there.

Because maybe some people don't want to go through the physical trauma of giving birth when they don't have to.

Doesn't seem like a good reason to me, but whatever I'll let you have that.

Really? 'Cus I've grown up with women saying "IT'S THE MOST PAINFUL THING IN THE ENTIRE WIDE WORLD". Why would you not avoid that if you could?

I'm not a woman either. I however doubt that it is the most painful thing ever.

Probably not, but "child without pain" sounds a sweeter deal than "child with agonising pain".

Because blood-ties, ethnicity, and love don't have to have anything to do with one another, and any reasonable couple and their reasonable adopted kid can probably find a way to see that.

Look it up, you'll find that you are wrong.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. That individual came up with a claim, it is up to you (as the current champion of the opposite side of the argument) to disprove it. I'd be interested to know where you're getting this information from too.

The burden of proof lies with the one making a claim. Also, I'm not your fucking teacher, look it up yourself.

Well regardless of whether or not I'm your "fucking teacher", here:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/NSAP/chartbook/chartbook.cfm?id=13

Read the key findings. The last point in particular:

"Overall, 81 percent of adopted children have parents who reported their relationship with their child as very warm and close. In addition, 42 percent had parents report the relationship as ?better than ever expected,? with only 15 percent reporting the relationship as ?more difficult? than they ever expected."

Better?

Hell, my relationship with my parents has nothing to do with the fact that I happen to have the same genes as them,

Yes, it does.

To what degree, though? How far can you prove this? I can just counter with 'No it doesn't' and we're no further into a decent discussion. Why does it? How can we see these effects in adopted children? What about if I had a wife who was unfaithful, had the child, but I was unaware? Would my nature-sense kick in and I could tell the kid wasn't mine because I couldn't feel quite so comfortable walking around my own house naked or something? That sounds rather silly, if you ask me.

Yes, as to my knowledge it actually would. Until ofcourse you see that the baby is green, you might start asking questions at that point.

Also, I didn't say it's the end all be all, just that it is simply wrong to claim that it doesn't matter at all. And once more, I don't have the burden of proof.

Of course, there are definitely going to be some differences when adopting a child rather than having a 'natural' child, however the study I've provided actually seems to find that the children who are adopted are actually "more likely to have certain of these positive experiences than are children in the general population". (From the source)

except when my dad projects on me and erroneously interprets personality quirks as OCD.

There's plenty of reasons for adoption.

No, not really, the only reasons are:

In your mind, no, and we're fortunate enough as a species not to be one hive-mind, but hey let's go through your points:

1. Being a Hive Mind would be awesome given our intellect as individuals.

Each to their own (ha) I guess. I personally find that a terrifying idea - that your partner, parents, siblings, and friends are all basically the same person.

2. These are the only reasons because they are purposely broad, I can't go into the minor details in every single case.

They're broad to the point of having no purpose. You can't make an apparently exhaustive list ("the only reasons are") that says "It's either A or B, and if it's not A or B then it's definitely C."

I am already insanely rich and this is very much like getting a souvenir

What? Where the hell did you get this opinion from?

What else would you call what Jolie does?

Jolie isn't the ambassador for humans. She's a woman with insane amounts of money living in a certain, special, privileged position. Drawing conclusions to her and other people is like saying "All women want black children, regardless of race."

I can't have children of my own and other more natural options either also do not work or do not appeal to me.

Wait, let me check that again:

more natural options either also do not work or do not appeal to me.

So a valid reason, in your words, is that having a kid 'naturally' does not appeal?

Didn't you just explode your own argument?

Except that I said MORE naturally, not naturally. Remember, Adoption is something pairs do. I could find it understandable if one partner were sterile and thus both partner would rather adopt then use sperm donations or what not. The idea being ''if it isn't OUR biological child, it is nobodies biological child''.

My mistake, then. I think. From what you're arguing, it seems you'd suggest it'd be more beneficial if the child was connected to at least one parent, but hey.

I'm just wierd like that.

Yes, weird because we don't all think the same as you. What a lovely safety-net you've deployed there to save you the effort of making any real point. If someone comes along and defeats your 'criteria' then the failsafe "You're weird" pops up and catches them before any real debate can get rolling. Well done, absolute genius.

Those are the only reasons.

Except for the one's I've already given. I suppose that makes me "weird" for not thinking that having a child pop out of someone else's body with my hair and my eyes will make that kid any more special.

No, you are wierd for your white guilt reasoning. All I ever meant by wierd was the exception to the rule that would actually adopt out of the goodness of their heart. I have to atleast acknowledge that they exist, no matter how few they are, don't I?

No, you're doing exactly what I said you would: warping the meaning of 'weird' to suit your own agenda when necessary. It wouldn't have been hard to write "Are actually good people" but you gave us an amorphous blob of an argument that would change with any opposition.

I think I'm done here, you're just plain rude and contradictory. This wasn't even pleasant debate, this was just like being bawled at by a child.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

An action (or in this case lack of action) is only selfish if it's detrimental to other people as well as what they want. So regardless of your reasons for not having kids it's only selfish if it harms others. Which is ridiculous despite the idiotic claims made by some people in this thread not having childeren is not detrimental to society, if anything the opposite is true.

Again you are misunderstanding the word selfish in this context. It is commonly used enough in the negative sense that I can understand where you're coming from, but selfishness means putting ones own needs, desires etc first, before those of others but does not in itself imply any harm to others, directly or indirectly.

And not having children is *directly* and measurably harmful to society and the human race. It might on a tiny, tiny, tiny scale whose difference can't easily be quantified, but it is a difference. If one person chooses to be dictionary-definition selfish and forgo children, it might be small. If thousands of people do the same thing, this stuff happens:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115977-Not-Wanting-a-Girlfriend-is-a-Serious-Illness
http://www.beginningwithi.com/comments/2003/05/06/generation-gap-italys-ageing-population/

These two pages are examples of precisely what happens. Italy is genuinely facing a crisis of major proportions within the next 10 years and the article on the escapist says Japan will be following suit in 40 years.

I don't see why everybody should have to have children if some people want to and others don't, it's not good to put people into situations they don't want, and it wouldn't be nice for the children either.

No one is debating that. The debate is whether or not choosing to not have any children is or isn't selfish. People have a right to choose whatever they wish. The point is that choosing not to have any is, under almost every circumstance, made for selfish reasons.

 

[Sansha]

I'm not capable of caring for a child. I don't want and likely can't handle the epic responsibility.

From what I've seen and been told, once you have a child, your life entirely revolves around them, their needs and well-being. I don't want and can't handle that kind of lifestyle.

If I grew up a bit and had better assets, I wouldn't mind starting a family. But at this point (I'm 24), no. I'm not ready for it and it'd be better for everyone if I didn't breed just yet.

 

[JoJo]

I love kids but not having them isn't selfish, it's your free choice to live your life as you want. Population decline in parts of the West is somewhat of a problem but that could be better helped by encouraging existing parents to have more children rather than coercing those who don't want them.

All that I ask in return is that I'm not badgered by people who shrilly cry that having biological or more than two children is selfish/immoral. If I want to have four or five children over my life-time then that's just as valid as your choice to have none and you should respect that.

 

[RoBi3.0]

I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children. Every couple must produce at least two children on average to sustain your population, but since there are factors such as early death, sterility, homosexuality inhibiting us, couple must produce above 2 children or the population will dwindle over the years. Then of course there's the fact that the ratio of boys to girls is not equal, so even more children need to be produced.

Lowering the national reproductive rates to below the par required for sustaining to population results in age demographic imbalances. China is famous for it's one child policy they introduced to help counter overpopulation. This has been disastrous because it actually worked to an extent and since people stopped producing enough children, the country's average age is very high compared to most countries, it's a big problem when your country mostly contains seniors for obvious reasons.

Canada's population is actually at risk because too many people don't feel it's worth their time to have kids. Personally I think the government needs to offer more incentives to parents. Sure you will have welfare bums who will only benefit further from this, but more good will come of it than bad I think.

Former Premiere of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell made the situation a little worse in 2010 with the introduction of the new tax system. Yeah, let's tax all children's clothing and goods, I'm sure more people will have kids if we do that.

What? Sorry bro you are never going to convince me that someone not having kids is going to cause real problems. The planet as a whole is facing a very real risk of over population. We are creeping up on 7 billion people with with that number iincreasing faster then ever. If for same reason your countries becoming vacant because your people aren't making babies it is probably time to step up immigration programs cause there are more then enough people in the world.

If someone doesn't wanna have kids then they shouldn't have to plain and simple it not selfish to know that you are unwilling to do what it takes to properly raise a child. Besides there are people like me who have multiply children and are more then happy to have them.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

If anything I think deciding not to have a child due to you and your partner not wanting one in the first place is a very mature decision. It would be selfish to have the fun of making said child and then to treat it shabbily.

 

[Electrogecko]

I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children. Every couple must produce at least two children on average to sustain your population, but since there are factors such as early death, sterility, homosexuality inhibiting us, couple must produce above 2 children or the population will dwindle over the years. Then of course there's the fact that the ratio of boys to girls is not equal, so even more children need to be produced.

Lowering the national reproductive rates to below the par required for sustaining to population results in age demographic imbalances. China is famous for it's one child policy they introduced to help counter overpopulation. This has been disastrous because it actually worked to an extent and since people stopped producing enough children, the country's average age is very high compared to most countries, it's a big problem when your country mostly contains seniors for obvious reasons.

Canada's population is actually at risk because too many people don't feel it's worth their time to have kids. Personally I think the government needs to offer more incentives to parents. Sure you will have welfare bums who will only benefit further from this, but more good will come of it than bad I think.

Former Premiere of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell made the situation a little worse in 2010 with the introduction of the new tax system. Yeah, let's tax all children's clothing and goods, I'm sure more people will have kids if we do that.

I'll tell you what is selfish- caring about the needs of your country before the needs of the world, which is bound to begin suffering from the natural effects of overpopulation unless we take preemptive and unnatural steps to prevent it.

 

[Axolotl]

An action (or in this case lack of action) is only selfish if it's detrimental to other people as well as what they want. So regardless of your reasons for not having kids it's only selfish if it harms others. Which is ridiculous despite the idiotic claims made by some people in this thread not having childeren is not detrimental to society, if anything the opposite is true.

Again you are misunderstanding the word selfish in this context. It is commonly used enough in the negative sense that I can understand where you're coming from, but selfishness means putting ones own needs, desires etc first, before those of others but does not in itself imply any harm to others, directly or indirectly.

Yes it does.

And not having children is *directly* and measurably harmful to society and the human race. It might on a tiny, tiny, tiny scale whose difference can't easily be quantified, but it is a difference. If one person chooses to be dictionary-definition selfish and forgo children, it might be small. If thousands of people do the same thing, this stuff happens:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115977-Not-Wanting-a-Girlfriend-is-a-Serious-Illness
http://www.beginningwithi.com/comments/2003/05/06/generation-gap-italys-ageing-population/

Italy and Japan, two of the largest economies in the world with some of the highest standards of living. That's hardly Children of Men is it?

These two pages are examples of precisely what happens. Italy is genuinely facing a crisis of major proportions within the next 10 years and the article on the escapist says Japan will be following suit in 40 years.

Going by certain estimates there will be 11 billion people on earth in 40 years, that's more than enough to carry both Italy and Japan's aging populations if need be.

This arguement only makes sense if the world had a declining population, it doesn't, it's increasing faster than ever, now I'm not one of those nut's that says we need to bring back eugenics to counter overpopulation, but it's a vastly more pressing and realistic concern than the idea that everyone will stop having children and humanity will disappear.

 

[Amaror]

Considering the huge problem of overcrowding and dwindling natural resources, you could also claim that the opposite is true; that having 2 kids each is selfish. Having a child when you don't want one harms you, the child and possibly society as a whole if you don't raise it properly due to not wanting it.

And then there is the problem of the math. If every couple has 2 kids each, it isn't going to keep a stable rate of population, it will mean that the population steadily rises. Considering medical advances, the chance of becoming a great grandparent is increasing, and following the 2 kids rule, that makes 14 direct descendants alive at the same time.

Overcrowding is not because we have so many children. Overcrowding is because we just refuse to die for much much longer, than before.
The general population is getting older and older and in wellfare states, like many european ones it is a big problem, because the number of tax payers decreases while the number of seniors, who get supported by the goverment increases.
That's why it is good to get children.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Lol my sister and her husband had children really young. One day my brother in law is arguing with me over something else and he says.

'All you do is play video games you could be doing anything it's not like you have kids to tie you down!'

LOL U MAD BRO.

If someone with kids tells you that's it's selfish not to have them, it all comes down to jealousy that you are free

FREEEEEEEEEEE!



Unless a guy that I was totally in love with wanted me to have kids I will probably never have them.