Ok, so I tried having a debate on the page earlier but just got repeatedly attacked. I would like actual feedback instead of being called "stupid". I had higher expectations from adults....
In my opinion bringing a life into this world to quote "enjoy the family life" is selfish. To bring a being into the world that will inherently suffer just because you have maternal instincts or want a family is selfish. This child would grow up through who knows what: poverty, bullying, school shootings, politics problems, economic problems, global warming, friend drama, you name it. If you don't exist you cannot suffer nor regret not having some joys in life. You cannot regret, you cannot hate, you do not exist. Also note that I am not arguing the extinction of the whole goddamn planet. Apparently people thought that in my original post... This question is on an individual basis, not for the whole freakin human race.
A supporting point I have is happier countries have less kids. That is a fact. In less happier countries they have more kids for an attempt at self fulfillment. Now that I do not know for sure but I'll admit that is my guess or assumption.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Sorry you got beat up.
That's a negative view imho. People may suffer some problems but also enjoy their lives too. As long as the birth rate approximates the death rate I don't see a problem. You should be able to feed and look after your sprogs properly though.
Aquinnah, where is that debate?
I posted it on the Atheist Republic page.
On FB?
Yup
Sure it's selfish. Living is selfish. I have four children, so I'm probably more selfish than many other people posting here.
On the other hand, my husband and I (he's the father of all of them) are healthy, intelligent and reasonably stable, if eccentric, individuals who have the economic ability to support our children. I don't think our reproductive activities will diminish the overall health of the species, nor the overall health of the world. We put no pressure on our children to reproduce. And there are now four more atheists in the world than there were, who all vote.
Nations who have more children may be more unhappy because their people are having more children to ensure that one or two survive into adulthood in order to support their parents in old age (another expectation that we have no need to put on our children). If this is the situation, there is great poverty and disease, and possibly environmental degradation, so of course those nations are unhappy.
Some nations also have yet to recognize women as fully realized human beings. If the women of a nation are oppressed or discriminated against in such a way that they can't advance themselves as people, but are expected to reproduce as their main role in their society, their nation will be unhappy as well.
You may have noticed studies which show that countries in which women have education and meaningful work have a lower birth rate and a lower child mortality rate. It might be a coincidence, but I doubt it.
In any case, being able to choose parenthood is an important part of personal liberty. I chose it five times. Once didn't work out, but the other four did. Some may call that selfish. I call it hope. Their father and I made a serious investment in the future.
"You may have noticed studies which show that countries in which women have education and meaningful work have a lower birth rate and a lower child mortality rate. It might be a coincidence, but I doubt it."
Yea nice point there.
It is usually mentioned by Christopher Hitchens too.
That one of the best effective way to end poverty is the empowerment of woman.
Basically give them power over their reproduction and the economy will improve drastically.
"Sure it's selfish. Living is selfish."
Yeah, totally agree, you were born thinking about yourself first.
One could call it instinct, and no matter how hard one may try, he will always think for himself first by instinct even if in the end he decides to not be selfish in his choices.
It is evil religions like Christianity who put shit inside people heads like "love everybody like yourself" which is not even possible to make you feel guilty.
It is OK and normal to be selfish a bit, we do it every single day, even for who does not want to admit it.
Even if it is selfish, I think many children born for this reason grow up as adults who seem well adjusted.
That is an interesting question, because I hear a lot more of the opposite viewpoint: "It's selfish NOT to have children." The reasoning goes that since I'm a married, relatively financially secure thirtysomething, I have an obligation to procreate and thus supply my family with little cuddlies / preserve the human race / live for something other than my own health and happiness.
In my family, I see a sad example of someone having kids who should not have done so, especially not in the financial or personal circumstances she found herself at the time. Now she depends primarily on the help of others to keep her kids clothed, fed, and looked-after. The dads aren't around much, and the mom continues to live as self-absorbed a life as she did before becoming a parent. In this case, I would say that it was highly selfish of her to purposely have not only one, but three kids who seem little more than pawns she uses to manipulate others.
Choices around having children are only as good as the results they yield. If you're not committed to doing the work to raise healthy, educated, contributing members of society, then it seems the unselfish thing to do is not to reproduce.
Not directly related, but I learned recently that there are about 400,000 children waiting for foster/adoptive homes and 320,000+ churches in the U.S. So if just one or two people from every church adopted one of these children, the crisis would disappear. Maybe they should preach on that instead of demonizing birth control.
I'm going to assume most of these churches dont have a lot of money. Because of stuff, it's expensive to adopt a kid in america.
I can certainly understand not having enough money to adopt and/or raise a child; I'm in that boat myself until I pay off my student loans. However, certain churches have plenty of money - enough to drop six figures on cosmetic improvements, top-of-the-line sound and lighting, generous salaries for pastors, etc. Typically these are the nondenominational churches that set up in affluent neighborhoods so they can draw in rich white families and make more money, thus allowing them to build bigger, nicer churches in even richer, whiter neighborhoods. All in the name of saving souls, of course.
I have no beef with the scrappy UCC and Lutheran churches in my town that spend all their money feeding the poor. They're doing the work no one else seems to want to.
well I can't disagree with you there. but do you know how they make that much money? By keeping it
I think it's selfish to have children if you are not able to provide for and take care of them as they grow, if you have a hereditary disease that you could pass on to them that would either put them at great risk or negatively affect their way of living, if you are not ready to be a parent physically, emotionally, psychologically, financially, which would prevent you from performing your responsibilities/obligations, among other things. These are only a few factors that need to be considered, and I am sure there are some more that I failed to mention. Coming from a 3rd world country, I have seen all the negative effects of overpopulation and the suffering of people who are not fit to have children. Of course, some of these cases, it was not really a choice but merely the outcome of not getting the right education and information on family planning--thanks to the strong influence of religion here.
many heretible diseases can be treated in utero. What do you think of that circumstance, Lily?
Well, if that is the case, then there shouldn't be any problem.
One could also see it this way:
People who live in reality without the delusion of Theism, have an OBLIGATION to have children and raise them to think for themselves, to think critically.
Although, as already mentioned, adopting children would probably be an even better option. But adoption is expensive and requires the parents to pass rigorous checks. None of which is required when getting children the normal way.
And of course, it's quite possible to help children escape indoctrination without adopting by actually going to the poor and uneducated and help out, like working as teacher...
The Pragmatic, that sounds pedantic. The only obligation people have is to themselves
I don't get what you mean, how is it "pedantic"?
"The only obligation people have is to themselves"
Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion.
I remember how I thought like that myself, as a teenager. But I have an obligation to my family, friends, coworkers and the society I live in.
In my opinion, that kind of self centered thinking is a major part of the problems in today's world. If people cared about other's than themselves, the world would be a lot less harsh in many ways.
I'm with you on this one, Prag.
I have an obligation to not purposefully or by willfull ignorance, hurt others. I have an obligation to those with whom I've a relationship built on any amount of their dependence upon me.
To think one has no obligations, other than to themselves, is disturbing.
but why do you feel an obligation for these people?
Pedantic - " of, relating to, or being a pedant(see pedant)
2
: narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned
17 of the finest words for drinking »
3
: unimaginative, dull
pedant: c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching "
Source " Merrian Webster Dictioanry website"
I know what the word means. I just don't get what you mean by saying that it is "pedantic"
"but why do you feel an obligation for these people?"
Because I empathize with others. Because I don't want others to be completely self centered and selfish towards me. And because I want to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem.
I'm glad my parents were selfish and had me :)
I don't think the act of having children is selfish... but motives definitely can be! But just the act is like driving a car... it can be used for either good or bad purposes. I assume people mostly have good reasons for wanting children (again, I'm assuming... people would differ on what is a "good" reason to have children).