so....Not having children=Selfish?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Frankly I can't believe this has like 300 replies. I could have been first to say something, but I realised everyone would say the same thing- that's stupid, it's not selfish. But simce it's 300 replies I'm guessing there is some sort of debate? Who in the hell thinks not having kids is selfish'. That's absurd.
I'd love to get the snip, sadly it seems you can't until you've had kids in the U.K, which is hilarious.
It would be selfish for me to actually have children, particularly unfair towards the child in question, me being a **** and all that.
It would be selfish for me to actually have children, particularly unfair towards the child in question, me being a **** and all that.
yeah this basically, having a child is pretty serious business, it isn't something small like you lie when your say "oh i love your mothers cooking!" or something like that.Cheery Lunatic said:
but yeah float of the boat is true.
me personally? yeah i want kids, and i really don't think i could be with someone who doesn't want at least one of their own. and i've been this way as long as i can remember, so i don't see why that would change anytime soon, personally i think i could be a great father and if being the oldest of 4 has anything close to it, it's a great feeling when you know someone looks up to you and you helped shape them into a great human being.
still, after I have one or two of my own, i will probably adopt 1 or 2, maybe 3 depending on circumstance and such. too many kids grow up in life with no one to properly guide them and i'd prefer to know i can make a difference for a child or two.
the ones who are "selfish" are the ones who have the mistake of having children, then dump them off in the system or leave em as a dumpster baby. that's what is selfish above that. there are plenty of safe ways to have sex than using one thin ass rubber each time, not to mention gorging your gravy machine in spermicide.Svenparty said:
i see absolutely nothing wrong with this, however just curious, if you did make the mistake of having a child un-intentially, would you be "man" enough to try and be a decent father? that is relative of course as to how you think "being a good father" is, but just curious.Diddy_Mao said:
Saying someone who refuses to procreate is being 'selfish' is a tad short sited, should a low-income couple have a child that will put a large stain on them (both emotionally and economically), forcing kids on everyone who can have them is cruel in and of itself, it's saying that everyone who lives in the (insert X country) has no say in how they plan their life and their life is subject to the whims of the economy, or majority, if a minority doesn't want kids, well, they don't want kids, I don't want kids now because I'd rather wait until I am older and financially stable, is that selfish, selfish to want a better life for any kids I may have, while the job I currently work pays fine for just me, were I to factor a child (and a wife whom would have to take care of the child for a period of time before even THINKING of going to work) , it would likely force me on to public services.
If someone doesn't want kids, it's likely better they don't have any, no they aren't producing a new person for the work force, but were if they had kids forced on them, the quality of life for that person (and child) would suffer, that person would have something they didn't want forced on them, causing them to be embittered to whomever forced a child on them (likely their partner) and to the child themselves (straining them economically and financially).
If someone doesn't want kids, it's likely better they don't have any, no they aren't producing a new person for the work force, but were if they had kids forced on them, the quality of life for that person (and child) would suffer, that person would have something they didn't want forced on them, causing them to be embittered to whomever forced a child on them (likely their partner) and to the child themselves (straining them economically and financially).
The notion that it's selfish to not have kids in the society we have today is so absolutely absurd and draconian. I'd bet more damage to society would be caused by resistant or inept parents having kids they did not want just because they were socially pressured to do so. Sometimes I think this sentiment is propagated by parents that secretly regret the fact that they have kids and are trying to make themselves feel better by demeaning those that chose a different lifestyle than them.
I would absolutely to everything I'm able to in order to do what's necessary to make sure the kid is safe, healthy and provided for.gmaverick019 said:
The problem comes during all of other times when I'd be expected to rely on a paternal instinct that I just don't seem to have.
I'm dead serious when I say that every extended interaction I've ever had with a child has had all the emotional impact of an elevator ride with a stranger.
If I'm being perfectly honest it's that lack of basic human nurturing instinct that tells me it would be damn near criminally irresponsible for me to sire any offspring.
I'm going to post in this thread, despite the fairly obvious consensus against parenthood.
Bias declaration: I have a two year-old son, I love him very much.
When I was in my rebellious-teenager stage I once had a discussion (I think he was discussing, I was probably just arguing) with my father. I was complaining that I couldn't see why anyone would bring a child into a world with such obvious injustice/intolerance/suffering/etc. He said that those kinds of problems didn't go away in a single generation and that if I really wanted to change those things I personally would need to try to fix it myself, but I would need someone else to continue my work. He said that it made sense to him that creating a successor who he could instil the values that were necessary to improve the world was one of the best contributions he could make. I didn't buy it at the time (rebellious-teenager).
Now I understand his point. If I want things to change I must change, but I also need to teach others. I'm not in a position of power to spread my message, so I'm going to try to ensure that at least one of the next generation is a better human being than I was/am. I consider it my duty to the human race as a whole to do so. Those that can spread the message (or devote themselves to improving things so much that they are the message) have done their bit, but that's not within my reach (unless I start standing on street corners with a sign reading "Don't be dicks").
From that point of view, I could see the argument that moral people refusing that duty is "selfish". I would never accuse someone of that - the "better" human being I want to be doesn't go around forcing people to have children they won't care for. But I can still see how you could get from my feeling of duty to attacking others without it. I would suggest that anyone doing that probably resents that duty though.
Bias declaration: I have a two year-old son, I love him very much.
When I was in my rebellious-teenager stage I once had a discussion (I think he was discussing, I was probably just arguing) with my father. I was complaining that I couldn't see why anyone would bring a child into a world with such obvious injustice/intolerance/suffering/etc. He said that those kinds of problems didn't go away in a single generation and that if I really wanted to change those things I personally would need to try to fix it myself, but I would need someone else to continue my work. He said that it made sense to him that creating a successor who he could instil the values that were necessary to improve the world was one of the best contributions he could make. I didn't buy it at the time (rebellious-teenager).
Now I understand his point. If I want things to change I must change, but I also need to teach others. I'm not in a position of power to spread my message, so I'm going to try to ensure that at least one of the next generation is a better human being than I was/am. I consider it my duty to the human race as a whole to do so. Those that can spread the message (or devote themselves to improving things so much that they are the message) have done their bit, but that's not within my reach (unless I start standing on street corners with a sign reading "Don't be dicks").
From that point of view, I could see the argument that moral people refusing that duty is "selfish". I would never accuse someone of that - the "better" human being I want to be doesn't go around forcing people to have children they won't care for. But I can still see how you could get from my feeling of duty to attacking others without it. I would suggest that anyone doing that probably resents that duty though.
Whenever I hear about this kind of thing, it always has some utilitarian or Darwinist bullshit behind it. It's your job as a "Member of the pack" to keep the race going
A: We're overpopulated as is
B: I never signed up to be a part of any pack, and I sure as hell never singed up for your psychotic, egocentric cult. The strong make the rules you say?, then what if I were to shatter your spine and declare that you be devoured by your followers?
A: We're overpopulated as is
B: I never signed up to be a part of any pack, and I sure as hell never singed up for your psychotic, egocentric cult. The strong make the rules you say?, then what if I were to shatter your spine and declare that you be devoured by your followers?
I personally see a greater selfishness in having children. A lot of this comes down to my own personal issues but if I ever fathered spawn they would probably be disposed to similar ones. I have never enjoyed Life everything has always been pain and hate for as long as I can remember the only thing I kind of enjoy is the company of little people so yes part of me does want to make my own desperately but if I did that then I would be subjecting some poor innocent creature to everything I have been through for the sole purpose of my own meager happiness and s/he would probably end up hating and resenting me for it in the same way that I feel towards my raisers. adoption on the other hand I can so get behind especially considering severe overpopulation in some parts of the world makes even more sense not to make moreVault101 said:
The world is already overpopulated. You're being selfish if you have children.
Besides, children are awful.
Besides, children are awful.
I've come up against "But WHY don't you want children?", to which I offer this reason:
I want to travel. I want to explore this glorious planet that I've been deposited on for this duration of mortal existence. I DON'T want to be lugging mewling brats everywhere I go because not only is that going to ruin the experience for me, but also for my fellow travellers.
Secondly, yes, I am selfish. Self-preservation has always been high on my list of priorities.
Thirdly, I'm not about to bring a child into the world if I know I can't look after it, financially or emotionally. I'm almost half-way through my twenties and I'm not in a stable relationship. That's not what I want for a child.
Finally, I did kids parties for two years straight with McDonalds. Put me RIGHT off having my own. How does anyone put up with them?
I want to travel. I want to explore this glorious planet that I've been deposited on for this duration of mortal existence. I DON'T want to be lugging mewling brats everywhere I go because not only is that going to ruin the experience for me, but also for my fellow travellers.
Secondly, yes, I am selfish. Self-preservation has always been high on my list of priorities.
Thirdly, I'm not about to bring a child into the world if I know I can't look after it, financially or emotionally. I'm almost half-way through my twenties and I'm not in a stable relationship. That's not what I want for a child.
Finally, I did kids parties for two years straight with McDonalds. Put me RIGHT off having my own. How does anyone put up with them?
I would think it would be just the opposite, considering we're already over tapping certain resources.
I mean think about it, if population went down dramatically, so would beachfront property values. Less people equals more resources and space for everybody. Isn't that what we all want anyway? To live somewhere nice that's not too crowded where everybody has ample things made from resources?
I mean think about it, if population went down dramatically, so would beachfront property values. Less people equals more resources and space for everybody. Isn't that what we all want anyway? To live somewhere nice that's not too crowded where everybody has ample things made from resources?