And here the arguments comes full circle.
Why are people without the means having children in the first place?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do you want/have children?
- Thread starter CalBoy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And here the arguments comes full circle.
Why are people without the means having children in the first place?
I must admit that I find it quaint that people believe that a few thousand years of 'civilisation' and a few centuries of living in crowded towns and cities can somehow override millions of years of evolution and all the animal urges that have got us here.
Seems to me that the government always finds ways to get it's cash. Just because I was a broke college student, was dumb once and got arrested, didn't mean I didn't have to pay my fines. Still had to find a way to work it out.
but then if they are pregnant and you fine them, wouldnt that be taking resources away from the kid potentially thus defeating the point of the fines essentially?
the whole idea of having fines was to enforce the idea that only individuals able to support kids could have them and thus if we had fines being enforced, it would even further take away the ability of parents to support the kids
Definitely so much anger.
Then you may want to look further into one of the guys in the band quoted in your sig, Motley Crue. If you're so into them, you'd know the story of Vince Neil's daughter, Skylar, and especially what happened to her. If not, here's a refresher:
http://www.skylarneil.org/golf/skylars-story/
After she passed away, he started to do anything and everything he could do to focus on one major thing: building and protecting his little girl's legacy. Self riotous? Absolutely NOT. Selfish? No more selfish than those protecting their fathers', grandparents', and great grandparents' legacies on the Vietnam Memorial or in Arlington.
It is obvious that you haven't had children, so I can see where some of this naivety comes from. Also, I told myself that I would not enter this thread because of what I've been through, and I would get myself worked up when I don't need it. But this really gets me. So all I will say is this.
I didn't think I would make a great parent, as having seen my parents go through a very bitter divorce (and being an only child), I didn't know if I had what it took. But my wife and I tried, and she became pregnant. But to lose our beautiful daughter at 17 weeks without any explanation whatsoever, having my wife actually deliver her, not have anything to remember her by (viable pregnancy in California for getting birth/death certificates is 20 weeks, so this is considered a 2nd trimester miscarriage), no funeral, no grave, no NOTHING...
I wouldn't wish that on anyone in the world, but I would so wish that you could experience what I have, and know that I am doing everything selfessly to keep my daughter's legacy going. Just like your Vince Neil.
When people say something like this, it really p****s me off. But like I said above, I wouldn't wish it on you, but walk a mile, my naive friend, walk a bloody mile.
And for the record, I didn't think I'd be a good parent, but when I was younger, I wanted children. Now, I want children, and I have children, whether she is here with me or not. And I dare anyone to call me self riotous about it.
BL.
Perhaps.
But I may call you self righteous.
It really does seem as if there are a lot of raw nerves being touched in this "debate".
I hope you meant to say "My sisters have made up for it." because if it's only one sister she's been busy... is she Catholic by chance?
My wife and I currently have 2 kids with the third due in March (unplanned but we were debating on whether or not we'd have a third for awhile).
Was it a selfish act on our part to bring more kids into this world rather than adopt? Probably, but that didn't stop us. As for immortality or wanting someone to take care of me as I age, I fully expect #3 to be our third daughter so my last name will probably disappear, and I fully expect them to leave me at a rest stop somewhere (they're much cheaper than rest homes and truckers make for interesting conversations and lots of new friends
).Of course if all the intelligent people on earth stopped having kids because it was environmentally/socially irresponsible, they'd soon be vastly outnumbered by the other end of the bell curve.
If genetics has anything to do with intelligence then we'd be dooming the planet by having the intelligent stopping procreation and relying on future generations to surpass their genetic limitations to advance society. If nurture can beat out nature then adoption would be more beneficial to society. We're just hedging our bets between ourselves and friends/family who have adopted kids.
Doesn't matter. The fact that I didn't have money to feed myself or pay my rent because I owed fines, didn't matter one bit to the county. Won't matter in this case either. I can tell you one thing though, I never got in trouble again.
Touche.
Too true. But I will say this. This whole entire debate reminds me of a couple episodes of Transformers; in particular, the Return of Optimus Prime.
Prime is in the Matrix of Leadership trying to find a cure to the hate plague that has infected everyone. The robot he talks to responded back that the only way to cure this hate plague (and solve pressing issues such as this debate about having children) is with Knowledge.
So what could be done the best is to inform people on what is best to do, the consequences, etc. Idealistic, yes, but there you have it.
Now.. getting them to listen and know that they understand it... that is another story.
BL.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
Are you implying that the number of children one has is somehow not under the control of the two individuals involved? Granted one form of birth control can fail, but there are always secondary and even tertiary options.
I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to take this point to the sarcastic extremity, but there are plenty of ways to reduce one's carbon footprint, and that includes with children. One needn't raise children in the wilderness to be environmentally responsible (or tear them away from their drawings).
It can't be a strawman because I haven't restated your argument at all, let alone in weaker terms. The fact is, on a per capita basis, First World children consume more resources and have larger impacts on the environment. However, I don't care to continue this in my thread; if you would, please by all means create a new one in PRSI.
This thread's purpose is simply to let people discuss having/not having children in a civil manner. All thoughts about philosophy, environmental impacts, selfishness, etc should be focused elsewhere. Thanks.
Ahh, but you would be glad you did that and it would make you feel good coz you saved them, therefore its selfish.
I think I want to have a child, but I am not planning on having one anytime soon. I need to find a guy, finish grad school, get a good job, buy a home, and then I'll start thinking about it.
I am implying that, in real life, when a normal, sane couple are planning their family the environment and earth's resources do not come into the discussion.
One does not deliberately decide to raise or not to raise their children 'following sustainable practices'. Fact is, only those living in the wilderness would be unaware of the problem. It's in the media every single day. How can children not grow up aware?
Ahh, but you would be glad you did that and it would make you feel good coz you saved them, therefore its selfish.
You feel good that you "saved them", as you put it, which isn't barely offset by the amount of work, time and money involved. You'd likely get a good "saved them" feeling from owning rescue dogs or little pets which aren't nearly as much hassle and consuming as children.
Ahh, but either way you would still get a good feeling, plus you would be proud you put all that work in to raise children.
You'd be proud if you did a good job as with anything in life.
Being proud isn't selfish. It's a reward after you realise you've done something right.
There we go then.
Ahh, but when you are proud its a good feeling, so technically that is selfish.
There is NO un-selfish act!!!
Sorry, but that's rubbish. If the reason for doing something is selfless (like anonymously giving money to charity when you have some left over, just because they need it more than you) it doesn't matter how it might make you feel as a by product as long as you're not doing it for that reason.
There are lots of unselfish things.
As I said earlier, I don't have a parental yearning and indeed find lots of children uninteresting. As for "slugs" I agree but it would be an even more hellish development. My GF's mother thinks that the right to vote should only be given to people with a high enough academic back ground. Guess what? She's an academic! I tell her wisdom and intelligence are not the same thing. As for "making things worse for all the other residents of the earth" .. I never knew i was so evil or had so much power! LOL. I don't get your point. I haven't contributed to over population and therefore I'm doing good straight away in my book. Further, the education of children is not the only thing in the world. What counts for some doesn't count for others and by that I mean that my veganism, tree planting, adopting stray cats, feeding, loving them, paying their exorbitant vets bills etc is an aberration to some, quaint to others but to me it's "doing good." Blah etc virtue blah.
Anyway, the OP's asked for this kind of thing to end so ... just thought I'd make a quick response and be done with it.
I'm male, straight and definitely do want two children in the not-too-distant future. My GF has agreed to help me with this, which is always good.
I'm with the procreation crowd, and want children because I have a natural inclination for them.
I'm with the procreation crowd, and want children because I have a natural inclination for them.