Yes. Having children is a moral obligation to God/society/family/etc.
No, they are free not to have children. They don't have to answer to anybody
Not if they have reproductive problems.
Yes, even if they have reproductive problems. They can adopt, you know.
They should get a medal for lowering world population.
I don't know.
Last edited by Fiddytree; 03-16-14 at 11:20 PM.
"We all of us know down here that politics is a tough game. And I don't think there's any point in being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart eventually."-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, December 5, 1963
No, **** that. Some people feel like they don't need children to be happy in their lives. Doesn't mean they are contributing anything less to society if they wish to put their energy into pursuits other than raising a child.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
Procreation is a natural event that serves a natural purpose. Yet even in nature, the idea of "nurture" is clearly how most animals are programmed.
My comment about having children was a personal observation that applied to me, however I don't believe you can understand my point of view unless you have had children.
I have a younger brother who loved his dog like it was kid--- so he believed. He and his wife would even claim that their dog was their "baby" and that the dog brought so much joy to him and his wife. They even let the dog sleep on their bed. Then one day I made him a bet that after he had his fist child he would never look at the dog again the same way. In fact I told him that if his child fell down and was hurt he would probably step on the dog trying to get to the kid. My brother only responded with you have no idea of how I feel. Yep, and he had no idea of what I already knew--- at least not until after he and his wife had their kid.
... After the baby was born I noticed that the dog slept in the garage.
I was born into a household with multiple animals. You know how I learned how to treat them? Whatever I did to them got done to me. My mother would have pitched a fit if I had hurt the dog, or if anyone had suggested he sleep in a garage. Same for my father and his cat.
Anyway, I see no evidence parental love is somehow "superior." Parents drop their children off at adoption agencies by the millions. Parents abandon their children for the stupidest reasons -- political beliefs, their sexuality, etc. It is quite clear some parents love their children very little, and even for those of whom that isn't true, they often have something that can break that tie.
On the other hand, there are people willing to die even for strangers simply for the damn principle of the thing, and for love of humanity. Some of the best romantic work of the Renaissance was written about close friendships. Steely romantic relationships have persisted through things most parent-child relationships probably wouldn't survive. And back to animals, it's not unheard of for people to report a bigger sense of loss from losing their pets than from losing their parents or other relatives.
The strength of ones own personal love means nothing about love in general; all our experiences are personal. What baseless narcissism for you to believe your love is superior, when you can't even find it in you to maintain love of a dependent creature who loves you.
And for my part, I have a good enough sense of empathy that I don't need to demote other loves just because a new shiny one comes along.
The road to Hell and the road to Jahannam is the same damn road.
I became a conservative by being around liberals. I became a libertarian by being around conservatives. ~ Greg Gutfeld.
...Well, I should day that I do let one dog sleep in a bathroom once a year on the fourth of July because she is really disturbed by all of the fireworks, so I wonder if proves I have at least some "empathetic development"? But then the bathroom has to be sanitized, so not too sure if the dog has any empathy for the extra work that is this for me?
Your dog, you, myself, and my child are adrift in a lifeboat. After a week at sea I kill your dog for food to feed to my starving child even under your protests. After we are rescued you accuse me of murdering your dog, but no court in the world will hear your case. At the very most I owe you an amount of money equal to the value of your dog.
Now same situation but this time you try to kill my child to feed to your starving dog and in the process I kill you to protect my child. There is no court on the planet that would call me a murderer for protecting my child.
So my question is:
Which love is justified and which one isn't?
Last edited by Del Zeppnile; 03-17-14 at 12:46 AM.