• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you want children?

Do you have children?

  • Female: I have kid(s)/ I want kid(s)

    Votes: 6 10.0%
  • Female: I don't want children

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • Male: I have kid(s)/ I want kid(s)

    Votes: 28 46.7%
  • Male: I don't want children

    Votes: 17 28.3%
  • other

    Votes: 7 11.7%

  • Total voters
    60
Fair enough but that isn't very nice to say that about your unborn children. I have to be one of the most pessimistic, negative people in the world and that is even to negative for me.

My point is that he has no idea who my future children will be... nobody does. It's a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance
 
I have five kids and four grandbabies.
 
I said my kid would most likely be a nobody, not an Edison and not a Hitler

a nobody??? wow. Everyone is a "somebody". A person may not be president... may not be evil.... may not be ghandi .... but everyone is somebody.
 
Well, she's right. Why is that such a hard thing to say, especially about a "person" who doesn't even exist?

Be totally honest with yourself, and ask how many people on this earth have much of an impact. In the very strictest sense, everyone has an affect on something simply by existing. But... someone else could just as easily exist, if that's the extent of the effect they're having. And for a lot of people, it is.

Neo - I get how you'd think that. But on the other side of the gender aisle, as CP so beautifully illistrated, things are no quite so easy. And it gets a million times worse than simply sexism for some women, going off into the realm of being disowned, bullied, and sometimes even assaulted.
 
Last edited:
Well, she's right. Why is that such a hard thing to say, especially about a "person" who doesn't even exist?

Be totally honest with yourself, and ask how many people on this earth have much of an impact. In the very strictest sense, everyone has an affect on something simply by existing. But... someone else could just as easily exist, if that's the extent of the effect they're having. And for a lot of people, it is.

Neo - I get how you'd think that. But on the other side of the gender aisle, as CP so beautifully illistrated, things are no quite so easy. And it gets a million times worse than simply sexism for some women, going off into the realm of being disowned, bullied, and sometimes even assaulted.

I think that even if someone talks one person out of suicide or gives one person personal advice or is there one time for somebody having a bad day then they are somebody to someone. They might not be everything to everyone, but to that someone they matter. That very will might be what they were "meant to do."
 
I think that even if someone talks one person out of suicide or gives one person personal advice or is there one time for somebody having a bad day then they are somebody to someone. They might not be everything to everyone, but to that someone they matter. That very will might be what they were "meant to do."

People often under estimate how important each of us are. If even a single one of Einstein's ancestors didn't exist, of course Einstein wouldn't have existed. But I can almost guarantee that his ancestors were likely average people. Potential is important, and very few of us can ever understand what impact our actions, and the actions of others can have on the world.
 
a nobody??? wow. Everyone is a "somebody". A person may not be president... may not be evil.... may not be ghandi .... but everyone is somebody.

My future kid will more than likely be nobody important to cpwill, that was my point. You guys are acting like I am a bad person.
 
I will never understand the shade that is tossed towards women who do not want kids. It is their choice and I would much rather them go with their heart about not wanting kids than bring an unwanted child into this world. Not everybody wants kids and that should be fine.
 
I will never understand the shade that is tossed towards women who do not want kids. It is their choice and I would much rather them go with their heart about not wanting kids than bring an unwanted child into this world. Not everybody wants kids and that should be fine.

I have no hard feelings towards women who don't want kids. My cousin Heather is my role model and she doesn't want kids ever.
 
Neo - I get how you'd think that. But on the other side of the gender aisle, as CP so beautifully illistrated, things are no quite so easy. And it gets a million times worse than simply sexism for some women, going off into the realm of being disowned, bullied, and sometimes even assaulted.

I will never understand the shade that is tossed towards women who do not want kids. It is their choice and I would much rather them go with their heart about not wanting kids than bring an unwanted child into this world. Not everybody wants kids and that should be fine.

Would-be grandmothers have to grieve the loss of the preconception they probably always had that their daughter(s) would follow after them and create their own litters. The decision not to very subtly sends a message to the mother "I don't want to be like you" and that hurts, so they sprinkle seeds of guilt all over the daughter to try to make it happen. Sisters and sisters-in-law will also do this. (Men might do it too but personally I see this being a woman thing and I think that's a reasonable generalization so don't even bother to nitpick with accusations to gender stereotyping.) People everywhere are insecure, at least in certain areas. A close relative says "I don't want kids," and people can't help but read into that. "Are you depressed?" "So that means you don't like my kids?" "So that means you think I didn't raise you right? Did I not do a good job? Was I not a good role model?"

Emotion city.

People often under estimate how important each of us are. If even a single one of Einstein's ancestors didn't exist, of course Einstein wouldn't have existed.

If Einstein had never existed, maybe there were two next-Einsteins growing up in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the forties. Guess we'll never know, since Einstein lit that fire under FDRs ass.

All I'm saying is one can carry this butterfly effect nonsense in any blindly positive or negative direction one wants. This speculative free association won't lead you to a higher ground on this topic.
 
Last edited:
I'd have to agree with that generalization. It is especially bad when dealing with older generations of women... who often had no choice about what kind of life they wanted. No one asked my grandmother if she wanted 6 kids.

The reproductive lives of women have been heavily affected by sexism from all directions. And sometimes when people don't feel they were given a fair shot, they don't want anyone else to have it either. It makes sense to me that this attitude mostly comes from women for that reason. This can go off into really extreme directions. I have a friend whose mother says she will disown her and write her out of her will if she doesn't have a biological child. I know a woman whose ex-boyfriend beat her when she refused to agree to have his child. It's true a lot of things can bring out the crazy in crazy people, but that this is something that would bring up some peoples' heckles so extremely underlines how much more restrictive the box of female expectation STILL is to this day.

On the flip side of that, people are nonchalant about men not wanting kids because there's an underlying assumption that men don't really care about their kids. Equally sexist and incorrect, but at least people don't tend to bug men about it no matter what they decide.
 
Who is this "we" you speak of? I'm done raising children, and MN isn't having any. So who are you talking to?

"we" as in "the United States of America"

You are ****ing kidding me. You're a man of faith. You really think God's gonna be stymied by a woman's choice not to reproduce?

I think God gives us free will. not really sure how that comes into play here.
 
This comment deserves an award for being a big load of crap and the worst argument made in this debate.

"You don't know who you aren't reproducing."

The child I never have, with male whom I don't know, could be the next Hitler too, but chances are my unreproduced kid will be the next nobody. My kid won't be fully white or culturally American, so I guess you don't want ME to reproduce anyway... :shrug:

if your children wouldn't be culturally American, but would be living in America, then probably not. however, the outlier argument remains foolish - the fact remains that the vast majority of citizens are a net benefit to society.
 
What's the difference between racial superiority and cultural superiority....

what?


well. for example, racial superiority would make a statement such as "a chinese person is better than a vietnamese person". cultural superiority would say something like "slavery is bad", "all people are inherently equal", or "freedom of speech is good". cultural superiority isn't about the pigmentation involved; rather it references that series of beliefs that is central to cultural identity - for example I believe that cultures that treat women like slaves are inferior to those that do not.


I'll admit to being surprised that you have to have this explained to you.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea where you get this stuff.

i read alot of history.

The problems our society is facing isn't due to a break down in the patriarchal structure..

that is correct. though much of it is due to the breakdown of the family structure; and part of that is indeed our declining birthrate.

You can't raise your children to be cultural superior or raise your children to fix this nation's problems.

well i certainly intend to give it my best shot. i value civilization quite a lot.

All other people have a different idea of parenting, and fixing this nation entails constructive thinking and problem solving. It also takes leadership skills and things that cannot be taught to a child, they are skills a child has to develop.

in fact constructive thinking, problem solving, and leadership skills are things that can be taught.

It's like your turning motherhood into a form of nationalism, and your arguments are tinged with sexism btw.

my primary argument here is a straight numbers game. the society that does not reproduce, dies. My secondary argument is culturally centered - I like my society, and don't want it to die.

I have talked with you before about this issue in some ways, and I know you think raising these cultural superior children is the woman's job.

this is incorrect. I think women are generally better at taking the primary role - with plenty of room for a healthy percent of outliers.
 
My point is that he has no idea who my future children will be... nobody does. It's a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance

in fact i have a pretty good idea of who they will be. they will (most likely) be workers and taxpayers.
 
My future kid will more than likely be nobody important to cpwill, that was my point. You guys are acting like I am a bad person.

on the contrary, each person is of value.
 
Would-be grandmothers have to grieve the loss of the preconception they probably always had that their daughter(s) would follow after them and create their own litters. The decision not to very subtly sends a message to the mother "I don't want to be like you" and that hurts, so they sprinkle seeds of guilt all over the daughter to try to make it happen. Sisters and sisters-in-law will also do this. (Men might do it too but personally I see this being a woman thing and I think that's a reasonable generalization so don't even bother to nitpick with accusations to gender stereotyping.) People everywhere are insecure, at least in certain areas. A close relative says "I don't want kids," and people can't help but read into that. "Are you depressed?" "So that means you don't like my kids?" "So that means you think I didn't raise you right? Did I not do a good job? Was I not a good role model?"

Emotion city.



If Einstein had never existed, maybe there were two next-Einsteins growing up in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the forties. Guess we'll never know, since Einstein lit that fire under FDRs ass.

All I'm saying is one can carry this butterfly effect nonsense in any blindly positive or negative direction one wants. This speculative free association won't lead you to a higher ground on this topic.

I guess you missed my point. People do not have to be celebrities to be important. Maybe it is something their children will accomplish instead. It's really about potential.
 
"we" as in "the United States of America"



I think God gives us free will. not really sure how that comes into play here.

You said she could be choosing not to give birth to the next Edison. I figure if God's sending Edison down, he'll actually send him to someone having children.
 
You said she could be choosing not to give birth to the next Edison

no, i said that depending on outliers as a measure of worth was a poor way to approach the discussion. specifically, someone suggested that i couldn't say that children were of worth because the kid might be a sociopath - and I was pointing out that if you are going with outlier odds, he could just as easily be a genius that makes the world a better place.
 
no, i said that depending on outliers as a measure of worth was a poor way to approach the discussion. specifically, someone suggested that i couldn't say that children were of worth because the kid might be a sociopath - and I was pointing out that if you are going with outlier odds, he could just as easily be a genius that makes the world a better place.

So the what-if arguments are useless in this discussion? I agree. No case is made for either side by venturing speculation as to what value or burden a kid might ultimately have on/to society.

But since kids cost big money and make some of my current goals in life more difficult if not impossible, then for me personally there can be no logical argument for having kids. So unless I decide logically some day that I want to become a more emotional person (which is possible I suppose), I might never necessarily WANT kids. It's unfortunate that this so obviously upsets some of my (but mostly my wife's) family, whose worldview on children has already been shaped by raising or having raised them.

If we do have a kid, our entire world will suddenly then revolve around the kid. Other goals or drives won't matter anywhere near as much as the kid. And when the time came I'd be fine with all that emotionally (financially could be another story, depending on a lot of things). But I'd be "happy" in a different way than I can currently experience it. I get how it works.

The emotional will not overcome all logical and financial for me. I don't want the responsibility unless I know beyond a reasonable doubt I'll always be able to handle that responsibility. To pay or provide for the kid come what may, to spend a lot of time with the kid, teach a wealth of skills (that I don't even have yet).

I've just got some serious prereqs. I think it'd be a favor to the kids everywhere if more parents had more prereqs.
 
Back
Top Bottom