Kids are expensive, they really are. I don't have the money to afford one, much less more than one, and when I do have the money I may (depending on my partner and I wanting to make the commitment) or I may not. Given the whole nine months of carrying the baby and extra few years of no sleep, I'm thinking not right now. But before then, bringing one into the world would be cruel and there are too many kids out there without enough food or a roof over their heads.
Is that selfish? I don't think so. I think it's more selfish to have children when you are unprepared both monetarily and psychologically for them. It's one thing to bring a baby into this world, it's another to bring it into the world for purely selfish reasons. Its even worse when those children must suffer through neglect due to bad parenting. Most people who have kids shouldn't be having them anyway.
For some people it may be a cultural imperative to have children, but not for me. I'm perfectly happy for now without kids of my own.
If some sort of worldwide pandemic were to hit that wiped out 99.9% of the world's population and you happened to be one of the survivors... then I'd say there is something very wrong with you if you don't want to have kids. But until that situation happens, to each his own.
Why would something be wrong with them for not wanting kids? In their own personal lives, has anything actually changed that would make kids better for their aspirations in life?
Wenseph: I think that having more than one child is very selfish. The planet is already overpopulated and that's just you, who already had a child then gets another one for no real reason. It's not beneficial to anyone, except you and not really that either.
Adopting is kind of good I guess, but I wouldn't do it.
Um, but the country someone is living in may not be overpopulated. Looking at it on a global scale doesn't seem very productive. For instance in Japan they really could use more people having kids. Certain countries are overpopulated, others are not.
I could go into a whole rant about it being expected of women and all that malarkey but I think I'll just skim it cause I'm tired and I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't already been mentioned.
Anyways, at least for women, it's the view that you're not willing to give of yourself to raise a child. It's extremely flawed logical but for a lot of people it is a common view, especially for older generations, that women are SUPPOSED to have children (not able, not possibly, SUPPOSED TO), which means that if you're not going to do that, then you're selfish, you're more concerned with yourself than what you're SUPPOSED to be doing as a woman.
As for have I personally experienced it? Well no one has ever walked up to me and declared me a heathen for it, but I know that in my family people are kind of just...waiting for me to have kids. No one woman in my family before HASN'T had children. I often state that I hate children and babies, I don't want kids, and that I don't see myself as good mom material...but then they pony out that phrase "oh it's different when it's your own!" Yeah and I believe you, squirt out a brat, hate it as much as everyone else's kids and end up on the five o'clock news for doing something truly heinous.
Sleekit: it wasn't the opening gambit in a debate it was a stated pov.
you disagree. how interesting...
Nothing interesting about it, actually. While I'm done with that particular issue, that doesn't mean I'm going to sit idle as you put words in my mouth in an accusatory manner as if there were ulterior motives. This is a discussion forum. Discussion is the key word there. If you're not prepared to actually discuss something you post with other people on the aforementioned discussion forum, then what are you doing there?
And I recommend that if this continues, it be switched over to private messages.
Vault101: discussion value, have you or somone you know ever encountered this kind of attitude? can you explain why not having kids is somhow selfish/non-selfish? and what do you think about it in general?
I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick.
My mother's view is that people with children are less selfish than those without, but that this isn't because the decision to have kids is unselfish. (There are many arguments to support the view that - in an overpopulated world - it's better if some people don't!) Instead, it's simply because the experience of bringing up children makes people less selfish.
People with children get used to having to make sacrifices. They have less money, less time, and more stress. Children are demanding and unreasonable, meaning parents are forced to stop prioritising their own life. My mother's childless friends express outright disbelief that anyone would get up at 5am just to drive their child to a sports competition. But my mother really did do this not long ago. And I'm twenty-four! (I don't own a car and couldn't get there any other way.)
To stress: The idea that childless couples are "selfish" really has nothing to do with whether or not having kids is "good" for humanity or not. It's about how highly people tend to prioritise their own wants and needs.
Is that a reason to have kids? Of course it isn't. But - since you asked - that's the reason why childless couples are sometimes referred to as "more selfish".
Mortai Gravesend: Why would something be wrong with them for not wanting kids? In their own personal lives, has anything actually changed that would make kids better for their aspirations in life?
If a pandemic really did wipe out 99.9% of the world's population, then it's pretty damn likely that their aspirations of life underwent a massive shift, unless somehow they had always dreamed about growing up to become one of those people who would have to rebuild human civilization after a worldwide calamity. Not one of those things that usually comes up in career counseling.
No, but seriously, in that kind of situation, human society would be at a much more fragile state and would largely hinge on every person doing their part for the revival of the species (in the words of Dr. Isaac Kleiner). I'd say it'd be each person's responsibility to have kids in that case. Naturally, people still have free will, so they could decline to reproduce if they so desired -- but I think very few would refuse.
Wenseph: I think that having more than one child is very selfish. The planet is already overpopulated and that's just you, who already had a child then gets another one for no real reason. It's not beneficial to anyone, except you and not really that either.
Adopting is kind of good I guess, but I wouldn't do it.
Um, but the country someone is living in may not be overpopulated. Looking at it on a global scale doesn't seem very productive. For instance in Japan they really could use more people having kids. Certain countries are overpopulated, others are not.
Yeah............................. Except that people in rich countries use a lot of the resources and adopting from overpopulated countries would still be better than getting more than one child.
For the big picture of your own ethnic group, yes it is selfish and even dangerous. Look at all European peoples today. Most have 1 child or sometimes maybe 2. Everyone needs to have atleast 2 to have a stable population. Preferebly 3 and upwards. If you have 1 child you literally half your ethnic groups population as alot of others only have one. It's selfish and technically leads to a slow genocide of your own group.
Wenseph: I think that having more than one child is very selfish. The planet is already overpopulated and that's just you, who already had a child then gets another one for no real reason. It's not beneficial to anyone, except you and not really that either.
Adopting is kind of good I guess, but I wouldn't do it.
Um, but the country someone is living in may not be overpopulated. Looking at it on a global scale doesn't seem very productive. For instance in Japan they really could use more people having kids. Certain countries are overpopulated, others are not.
Yeah............................. Except that people in rich countries use a lot of the resources and adopting from overpopulated countries would still be better than getting more than one child.
A great suggestion if one wants to add to the effect of the destruction of ones ethnic group, yes.
Wenseph: I think that having more than one child is very selfish. The planet is already overpopulated and that's just you, who already had a child then gets another one for no real reason. It's not beneficial to anyone, except you and not really that either.
Adopting is kind of good I guess, but I wouldn't do it.
Um, but the country someone is living in may not be overpopulated. Looking at it on a global scale doesn't seem very productive. For instance in Japan they really could use more people having kids. Certain countries are overpopulated, others are not.
Yeah............................. Except that people in rich countries use a lot of the resources and adopting from overpopulated countries would still be better than getting more than one child.
It's not necessarily simple to go and adopt a kid from an overpopulated country.
Wenseph: I think that having more than one child is very selfish. The planet is already overpopulated and that's just you, who already had a child then gets another one for no real reason. It's not beneficial to anyone, except you and not really that either.
Adopting is kind of good I guess, but I wouldn't do it.
Um, but the country someone is living in may not be overpopulated. Looking at it on a global scale doesn't seem very productive. For instance in Japan they really could use more people having kids. Certain countries are overpopulated, others are not.
Yeah............................. Except that people in rich countries use a lot of the resources and adopting from overpopulated countries would still be better than getting more than one child.
Why would anyone go for damaged goods when they don't have to?
Heimir: For the big picture of your own ethnic group, yes it is selfish and even dangerous. Look at all European peoples today. Most have 1 child or sometimes maybe 2. Everyone needs to have atleast 2 to have a stable population. Preferebly 3 and upwards. If you have 1 child you literally half your ethnic groups population as alot of others only have one. It's selfish and technically leads to a slow genocide of your own group.
No Pressure.
No, it isn't selfish or dangerous. It doesn't matter if the ethnic group vanishes in the end through lack of breeding. Other people will still exist in society, they're not going to die violently. It's ridiculous to look at things in terms of an ethnic group. It's primitive.
discussion value, have you or someone you know ever encountered this kind of attitude? can you explain why not having kids is some how selfish/non-selfish? and what do you think about it in general?
My wife and I both agree having kids right now would be a bad idea. We are way to poor and way too much of kids ourselves to support a child the way we would like to. We also decided that if we ever do have children it will be through adoption, because there are so many kids that no one wants that could use a good home. She always wanted to have a autistic child.
So I would say its not selfish. In fact I would go as far as to say having children can be selfish. There are far to many parents that have kids who don't belong having them. When your flat broke that you have to sell yourself for money you don't belong having children. To a bring a child into that world because you feel its your right to have one seems far more selfish than someone who doesn't want to have one because they want to just to alone together.
Um, but the country someone is living in may not be overpopulated. Looking at it on a global scale doesn't seem very productive. For instance in Japan they really could use more people having kids. Certain countries are overpopulated, others are not.
Yeah............................. Except that people in rich countries use a lot of the resources and adopting from overpopulated countries would still be better than getting more than one child.
Why would anyone go for damaged goods when they don't have to?
You're not the kind of person I want to discuss with.
Um, but the country someone is living in may not be overpopulated. Looking at it on a global scale doesn't seem very productive. For instance in Japan they really could use more people having kids. Certain countries are overpopulated, others are not.
Yeah............................. Except that people in rich countries use a lot of the resources and adopting from overpopulated countries would still be better than getting more than one child.
It's not necessarily simple to go and adopt a kid from an overpopulated country.
Maybe not, but that doesn't mean you should get several children just because you couldn't adopt. Maybe it should be made easier.
I'd just like to say thank you for providing such backward ass logic that were all "created to procreate". It just makes me laugh so much at how STUPID IT IS!, thanks!! *Continues to giggle*
Heimir: For the big picture of your own ethnic group, yes it is selfish and even dangerous. Look at all European peoples today. Most have 1 child or sometimes maybe 2. Everyone needs to have atleast 2 to have a stable population. Preferebly 3 and upwards. If you have 1 child you literally half your ethnic groups population as alot of others only have one. It's selfish and technically leads to a slow genocide of your own group.
No Pressure.
No, it isn't selfish or dangerous. It doesn't matter if the ethnic group vanishes in the end through lack of breeding. Other people will still exist in society, they're not going to die violently. It's ridiculous to look at things in terms of an ethnic group. It's primitive.
Well, I feel sorry for whatever ethnic group you belong to. They likely deserve better kin. And genocide need to necessarily be violent either. It has to be intentional however. Wich by decidedly and selfishly not having children is.
Each life form exists to continue the existance of its group and genes. This cannot be changed, no matter how scientifically illiterate you choose to be.
Yeah............................. Except that people in rich countries use a lot of the resources and adopting from overpopulated countries would still be better than getting more than one child.
Why would anyone go for damaged goods when they don't have to?
You're not the kind of person I want to discuss with.
I have to say I agree there. That comment was just tasteless.
Yeah............................. Except that people in rich countries use a lot of the resources and adopting from overpopulated countries would still be better than getting more than one child.
It's not necessarily simple to go and adopt a kid from an overpopulated country.
Maybe not, but that doesn't mean you should get several children just because you couldn't adopt. Maybe it should be made easier.
Maybe it should. But it seems like a bit of a big expectation that everyone be adopting kids from other countries. You're... kind of telling everyone else to stop reproducing and have all the future human race be the kids of people from those countries.
Um, but the country someone is living in may not be overpopulated. Looking at it on a global scale doesn't seem very productive. For instance in Japan they really could use more people having kids. Certain countries are overpopulated, others are not.
Yeah............................. Except that people in rich countries use a lot of the resources and adopting from overpopulated countries would still be better than getting more than one child.
Why would anyone go for damaged goods when they don't have to?
....I hope youre not talking about adopted kids
if I had to choose between having my own and adoption I wouls adopt...why? because I am giving that child a chance at a life that they might not have had otherwise, somone who loves them and can take care of them and give them a better chance...
and they arnt "damaged goods" they are children, possibly of a different race (if you go down that path) but that doesnt matter
Heimir: For the big picture of your own ethnic group, yes it is selfish and even dangerous. Look at all European peoples today. Most have 1 child or sometimes maybe 2. Everyone needs to have atleast 2 to have a stable population. Preferebly 3 and upwards. If you have 1 child you literally half your ethnic groups population as alot of others only have one. It's selfish and technically leads to a slow genocide of your own group.
No Pressure.
No, it isn't selfish or dangerous. It doesn't matter if the ethnic group vanishes in the end through lack of breeding. Other people will still exist in society, they're not going to die violently. It's ridiculous to look at things in terms of an ethnic group. It's primitive.
Well, I feel sorry for whatever ethnic group you belong to. They likely deserve better kin. And genocide need to necessarily be violent either. It has to be intentional however. Wich by decidedly and selfishly not having children is.
The ethnic group of... people with mixed ancestry? And I feel sorry for whatever group you belong to. Trying to put insular, borderline racist ideas into their heads.
It isn't genocide. It isn't intentional, it's a side effect of not giving undue weight to things that don't matter.
Yeah............................. Except that people in rich countries use a lot of the resources and adopting from overpopulated countries would still be better than getting more than one child.
Why would anyone go for damaged goods when they don't have to?
You're not the kind of person I want to discuss with.
I'm sorry, did I at any point give you reason to believe that I give a fuck what you want? Nope.
Why should anyone deal with the hasstle of not only adopting the kid, but then actually raising it?
You realize that you don't just have those feelings for any 1 child, matter of fact, relationsships shatter because the child or a parent do not build up a good relationship to one another.
Or how about that they will typically be another ethnicity entirely? Also a issue bound to cause complications.
Or that the kid could be coming from any given situation.
Seriously, it seriously is like saying ''Why won't anybody go for the damaged goods that are harder to get then the brand new stuff? herp derp''
It's not necessarily simple to go and adopt a kid from an overpopulated country.
Maybe not, but that doesn't mean you should get several children just because you couldn't adopt. Maybe it should be made easier.
Maybe it should. But it seems like a bit of a big expectation that everyone be adopting kids from other countries. You're... kind of telling everyone else to stop reproducing and have all the future human race be the kids of people from those countries.
LOL. I think I missed the part where I did that, but go ahead, make shit up.
What I said was the planet is overpopulated and getting children is selfish, if you get more than one. Adopting would be good, if you really want more than one. If the planet weren't overpopulated anymore, than people could start having more children.
Vault101: discussion value, have you or somone you know ever encountered this kind of attitude? can you explain why not having kids is somhow selfish/non-selfish? and what do you think about it in general?
I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick.
My mother's view is that people with children are less selfish than those without, but snip".
you that actually makes sense, and yeah, I can kind of see that
I sort of do respect the amount of effort/work/self sacrifice it takes to properly raise a child, and somtimes wonder how they can do it and not go insane
Regnes: 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.
Mmm... no. Your point is wrong on several counts. See, on the one hand, I fail to see how choosing adoption over giving birth constitutes "jeapordizing the economy and stability of your country". If anything, you're giving someone a better life and turning someone who, from your point of view, would be a drag on society, into a benefit. Net gain, from your point of view, even assuming that your point is valid.
Which it isn't, because countries aren't closed systems. If there's one thing that Canada is big on (funny you should mention it), it's immigration. If you look at the demographic history of Canada, it's immigration that does all the damn work - not counting the First Nations peoples, EVERYBODY here is descended from immigrants. The immigration rate EXPLODED in the late 1800s, and it's been fluxing back and forth since, and once we stopped being racist about it, it's kept going. Yeah, people are saying they don't necessarily want to produce kids as much. But where are you getting those statistics? Cities, that are constantly expanding in order to keep up with the rising populations? It's not a CONCERN in cities, it's a concern in areas with lower populations, and they don't die out because "people don't feel like having kids any more", it's because changing economic factors.
Furthermore, this in no way is a patriotic duty, but I see you've already shifted your position towards a stance of a global necessity to maintain a certain population level. This ALSO makes no sense as the global population continues to grow massively, and while the growth rate in Canada may be slowing (Yeah, we do still have a birth rate higher than the death rate), it is MORE than balanced out by the fact that other global regions are growing like wildfire due to the increasing standard of living there.
And you're also operating on the assumption that the current global population level SHOULDN'T shrink, when there is no reason to think that. The points we should be concerned about are when the global population is too low to sustain sufficient genetic diversity (not happening short of uber-plague), or so high that resources become strained. As it is, there are many countries with high rates of malnutrition, and a few notable ENORMOUS countries that are industrializing, and as such will have the power to demand and acquire more resources. In short, maybe having less people, globally, might work out better?
By your logic, all women should be required, by law, to have children. There's clearly no need for this, despite your posturing, but this is such an enormous infringement upon personal liberties, basic human rights, that it boggles the mind.
So yeah, I sort of think your point isn't that good.
OT: I don't think I've ever encountered this attitude. Frankly, though I'll likely want kids in the future, I'll seriously consider adoption, because given the option, I'd rather that my children not be burdened with my genetic frailties. An attitude I do often encounter that I find somewhat confusing is the conviction not to have kids on the grounds that the person in question hates children. I don't really understand that, beyond an unfair projection of childhood troubles and insecurities onto children as a general group. Kids are people too, and it's always seemed rude that people discriminate against them as a group, just because they find some of them annoying.
You're not the kind of person I want to discuss with.
I have to say I agree there. That comment was just tasteless.
Maybe not, but that doesn't mean you should get several children just because you couldn't adopt. Maybe it should be made easier.
Maybe it should. But it seems like a bit of a big expectation that everyone be adopting kids from other countries. You're... kind of telling everyone else to stop reproducing and have all the future human race be the kids of people from those countries.
LOL. I think I missed the part where I did that, but go ahead, make shit up.
What I said was the planet is overpopulated and getting children is selfish, if you get more than one. Adopting would be good, if you really want more than one. If the planet weren't overpopulated anymore, than people could start having more children.
So you have an arbitrary limit of one kid? What kind of logic justifies that?
And you really haven't justified looking at it on a planet wide scale.
Heimir: For the big picture of your own ethnic group, yes it is selfish and even dangerous. Look at all European peoples today. Most have 1 child or sometimes maybe 2. Everyone needs to have atleast 2 to have a stable population. Preferebly 3 and upwards. If you have 1 child you literally half your ethnic groups population as alot of others only have one. It's selfish and technically leads to a slow genocide of your own group.
No, it isn't selfish or dangerous. It doesn't matter if the ethnic group vanishes in the end through lack of breeding. Other people will still exist in society, they're not going to die violently. It's ridiculous to look at things in terms of an ethnic group. It's primitive.
Well, I feel sorry for whatever ethnic group you belong to. They likely deserve better kin. And genocide need to necessarily be violent either. It has to be intentional however. Wich by decidedly and selfishly not having children is.
The ethnic group of... people with mixed ancestry? And I feel sorry for whatever group you belong to. Trying to put insular, borderline racist ideas into their heads.
It isn't genocide. It isn't intentional, it's a side effect of not giving undue weight to things that don't matter.
Borderline racist? What? Since when was caring for your own people racist? You can't change the fact that what I say is true. No matter how lofty, snoblike and pretentiouss you act. And deciding, the key word being "deciding" to not have kids is intentional, it's hardly accidental now is it.
Each life form exists to continue the existance of its group and genes. This cannot be changed, no matter how scientifically illiterate you choose to be.
Scientifically illiterate? Is that code for 'not a racist'? Because quite frankly science does not say that we exist for a purpose, so it obviously isn't science you're worried about. Biologically our bodies do have certain things that push for procreation. Though nothing at all suggests your ethnic group racist crap is right. It would at most be to continue the existence of the species.
Each life form exists to continue the existance of its group and genes. This cannot be changed, no matter how scientifically illiterate you choose to be.
Scientifically illiterate? Is that code for 'not a racist'? Because quite frankly science does not say that we exist for a purpose, so it obviously isn't science you're worried about. Biologically our bodies do have certain things that push for procreation. Though nothing at all suggests your ethnic group racist crap is right. It would at most be to continue the existence of the species.
You have no arguement so you pull out "You think differently, therefor racist" card. How immature. Good luck with that, you puffed up, ignorant. And have a nice day because im through with you as you can't even have a normal discussion without trying to silence people with false accusations and titles.
Well, I feel sorry for whatever ethnic group you belong to. They likely deserve better kin. And genocide need to necessarily be violent either. It has to be intentional however. Wich by decidedly and selfishly not having children is.
The ethnic group of... people with mixed ancestry? And I feel sorry for whatever group you belong to. Trying to put insular, borderline racist ideas into their heads.
It isn't genocide. It isn't intentional, it's a side effect of not giving undue weight to things that don't matter.
Borderline racist? What? Since when was caring for your own people racist?
It's when you decided to divvy people up on ethnic lines in deciding who your 'own people' are. You're not gonna be likely to see it though. Thankfully your sort will necessarily die out as society continues to mix.
You can't change the fact that what I say is true.
Well I can't change something that doesn't exist. Given that it isn't a fact that it's genocide or any such thing. I do note that you seem to have given up on trying to pretend you have a legitimate argument and have resorted to just saying "Well I'm right!" Not surprising.
No matter how lofty, snoblike and pretentiouss you act.
Pretentious with two 's's for extra power! But irrelevant jabs aside...
And deciding, the key word being "deciding" to not have kids is intentional, it's hardly accidental now is it.
The results are a side effect. And one that doesn't matter for those of us who don't worry about stupid things like our ancestry.
Vault101: yes, I know this is kind of the wrong kind of topic for....well a gaming site (full of people probably less inclined to get excited about babies), but hey Im bored and Ive been thinking of this
now Im going to go out on a limb here and say this gets labelled on you more if you are female, obviously because child rearing has always been "our" thing..but anyway
Ya you got that right.
There's groups that whine about it on reddit. I figure if you don't really, you know, give an idea of what brought this about, this discussion just doesn't seem to go anywhere.
well..we seem to be having some interesting discussions
nothing overly interesting, just a hot topic on some opinion blog I ocasionally go to
and its somthing I think about, right now I dont want kids.....Im not naive enough to think that I will NEVER want kids..theres every chance that will change (as it often does with people)
I mean having kids is somthing women are "suposed" to want..kind of, and I wonder if Ill ever change my attitude, I somtimes imagine myself older, without kids and wonder if Im fine with that
soo..uhh yeah, just my random introspection (<-Ive always wanted to use that word :D)
Each life form exists to continue the existance of its group and genes. This cannot be changed, no matter how scientifically illiterate you choose to be.
Scientifically illiterate? Is that code for 'not a racist'? Because quite frankly science does not say that we exist for a purpose, so it obviously isn't science you're worried about. Biologically our bodies do have certain things that push for procreation. Though nothing at all suggests your ethnic group racist crap is right. It would at most be to continue the existence of the species.
You have no arguement so you pull out "You think differently, therefor racist" card. How immature. Good luck with that, you puffed up, ignorant. And have a nice day because im through with you as you can't even have a normal discussion without trying to silence people with false accusations and titles.
Hmm. Interesting. Does racist-vision make it hard to see the part where I pointed out you were wrong about science, and that any kind of biological urge is not nicely divided along ethnic lines like some racists would have you believe?
I puffed up ignorant? Well if you're going to insult someone do try to do it properly next time?
Anyway, it's funny what people like you do. Cling on to old views that should be discarded. And when challenged cry about how I am supposedly attacking you because... you think differently? And trying to silence you with false accusations and titles? Well you kind of have been proving my accusation. Such a silly and dishonest defense. Nothing of the sort happened at all.
The ethnic group of... people with mixed ancestry? And I feel sorry for whatever group you belong to. Trying to put insular, borderline racist ideas into their heads.
It isn't genocide. It isn't intentional, it's a side effect of not giving undue weight to things that don't matter.
Borderline racist? What? Since when was caring for your own people racist?
It's when you decided to divvy people up on ethnic lines in deciding who your 'own people' are. You're not gonna be likely to see it though. Thankfully your sort will necessarily die out as society continues to mix.
You can't change the fact that what I say is true.
Well I can't change something that doesn't exist. Given that it isn't a fact that it's genocide or any such thing. I do note that you seem to have given up on trying to pretend you have a legitimate argument and have resorted to just saying "Well I'm right!" Not surprising.
No matter how lofty, snoblike and pretentiouss you act.
Pretentious with two 's's for extra power! But irrelevant jabs aside...
And deciding, the key word being "deciding" to not have kids is intentional, it's hardly accidental now is it.
The results are a side effect. And one that doesn't matter for those of us who don't worry about stupid things like our ancestry.
Wow insulting people over misspelling in a language that isn't their own. Classy.
I understand your points. But I disagree with you. Preserving ones people and culture is a good thing and is in no way wrong. Ofcourse people like you, who only care for themselves cannot comprehend such things.
Vault101: 3.Child rearing is a lifestyle choice, is it selfish of me to not have children because I want to pursue my own goals...rather than have children and be a terrible parent because I dont want to give up everything to raise them?
This is the main reason I don't want kids. Once you have kids, you have to devote HUUUGE amounts of effort to them. And considering I have ADD and aspergers, I might end up passing those genes to any kids I have, making their lives even harder and making it harder to raise them.
I might change my mind someday (assuming I or my partner lands a DAMN good job), but really, I'd prefer not to.
Is it selfish? Maybe. But it's also an attitude that helps prevent overpopulation.
I agree with the sentiment that having ADD is a good reason not to have your own kids. I only have ADD myself but just based on that I have no desire to take the chance of forcing a kid to have to deal with it, I don't understand how anything can be more selfish than that. If you know you've got crappy genes that make you dependent on medication to function properly why pass them on just for the sake of passing them on?
Why would anyone go for damaged goods when they don't have to?
You're not the kind of person I want to discuss with.
I'm sorry, did I at any point give you reason to believe that I give a fuck what you want? Nope.
Why should anyone deal with the hasstle of not only adopting the kid, but then actually raising it?
You realize that you don't just have those feelings for any 1 child, matter of fact, relationsships shatter because the child or a parent do not build up a good relationship to one another.
Or how about that they will typically be another ethnicity entirely? Also a issue bound to cause complications.
Or that the kid could be coming from any given situation.
Seriously, it seriously is like saying ''Why won't anybody go for the damaged goods that are harder to get then the brand new stuff? herp derp''
Because the damaged goods you're talking about are people. Because they're only damaged insofar as they don't have parents. Because you're actively improving someone's life. Because your own genes mean that maybe having children isn't the greatest idea when adoption is viable. Because maybe some people don't want to go through the physical trauma of giving birth when they don't have to. 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. Hell, my relationship with my parents has nothing to do with the fact that I happen to have the same genes as them, except when my dad projects on me and erroneously interprets personality quirks as OCD.
Regnes: 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.
In that case I'm probably doing the right thing over here in Northern Ireland where the average catholic family has about 10 kids.
Kids are expensive, they really are. I don't have the money to afford one, much less more than one, and when I do have the money I may (depending on my partner and I wanting to make the commitment) or I may not. Given the whole nine months of carrying the baby and extra few years of no sleep, I'm thinking not right now. But before then, bringing one into the world would be cruel and there are too many kids out there without enough food or a roof over their heads.
Is that selfish? I don't think so. I think it's more selfish to have children when you are unprepared both monetarily and psychologically for them. It's one thing to bring a baby into this world, it's another to bring it into the world for purely selfish reasons. Its even worse when those children must suffer through neglect due to bad parenting. Most people who have kids shouldn't be having them anyway.
For some people it may be a cultural imperative to have children, but not for me. I'm perfectly happy for now without kids of my own.