• 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!

Should childless couples be considered inferior?

Should childless couples be considered inferior?

  • Yes. Having children is a moral obligation to God/society/family/etc.

    Votes: 4 2.8%
  • No, they are free not to have children. They don't have to answer to anybody

    Votes: 105 74.5%
  • Not if they have reproductive problems.

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Yes, even if they have reproductive problems. They can adopt, you know.

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • They should get a medal for lowering world population.

    Votes: 20 14.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 6.4%
  • I don't know.

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Total voters
    141
Keep in mind that every thug, criminal and lowlife parasite alive also had a mother and a father. Did those "contributions to society" help more than if they had not been born? Simply making babies is not enough, IMHO, to count as a contribution to society. Those that chose not to procreate and simply let those children run wild have also perhaps contributed to society.

From the viewpoint of raising healthy, well-adjusted children simply Making Babies, agreed, is not enough. Children need parents, and ideally they need an actively involved mother and father (there's a reason social scientists call that "the gold standard"). That fact does not change the reality, however, that child-raising is an intensively time and resource consuming act.
 
Nope.

You owe nothing to society which is nothing more than a concept in the first place.

Every persons life is his or her own to do with as they see fit.

:shrug: sure. If you live by yourself on a tropical island, I suppose. If, however, you live inside of an actual society, you do indeed owe it lawful participation. Having had society make the necessary investments to keep you from being killed, for example, you owe it to society not to kill random people yourself, and they are right to demand remuneration from you (possibly in the form of your own life) if you disregard that burden upon you.

If you are going to honestly disregard the Social Contract (as you seem to do), then I think you need to consider whether you should replace your "libertarian" self-assignment with "anarchist".
 
Now that's interesting. You deliberately warp the position of those you disagree with to present them as some kind of 2-D cartoon character, apparently confidently assuming that you understand what we believe far better than we could, and then try (and fail) to back it with data that is half a century out of date, and yet try to accuse others of being patronizing.

When you are ready to debate people rather than strawmen in this discussion, you're going to be a lot more effective. As for JB :shrug: if you could link that, I'd appreciate - I'm in the process of dramatically cutting down DP time, and it's quite possible I simply never got back to the thread.

CP, not only does nothing you said here make any sense in reference to my own posts, but you probably get thrashed on your evidence more consistently than anyone else on this entire forum. I just can't take you very seriously.
 
:shrug: sure. If you live by yourself on a tropical island, I suppose. If, however, you live inside of an actual society, you do indeed owe it lawful participation. Having had society make the necessary investments to keep you from being killed, for example, you owe it to society not to kill random people yourself, and they are right to demand remuneration from you (possibly in the form of your own life) if you disregard that burden upon you.

If you are going to honestly disregard the Social Contract (as you seem to do), then I think you need to consider whether you should replace your "libertarian" self-assignment with "anarchist".

No it applies aywhere you live. Every personslife is his or hers to do with as they see fit. Living in and participating in society may benefit one in many ways but in no way does this constitute a debt owed to society.

The concept of oberying the law is not a debt a debt is something one most do. Obeying the law implies certian things one is NOT permitted to do. It is not because of some debt that most people refrain from stealing murdering and raping it is because most people understand that it is wrong to do so and in fact the law forbids it.

Actually going giving or contributing something to society is a whole other matter and no one owes any such thing.

The social contract is an idea it is not nor can it ever be construed as enforceable law. Perhaps you could show me the written document where you, I and others sign the contract.

No one owes anything to society and that is not a strictly anarchist idea
 
No it applies aywhere you live. Every persons life is his or hers to do with as they see fit. Living in and participating in society may benefit one in many ways but in no way does this constitute a debt owed to society.

Agreed, assuming that the "as they see fit" part doesn't include willingly breaking the law. Thankfully, there is NO law requiring that all women and men must become parents by a certain age or something equally insane.

Parenthood is OPTIONAL, not required.
 
I think an childless couple can be a big brother or big sister to many children thereby helping much more tan one or two.

Why would anybody look down on a childless couple?

Hell in China they might win a prize.
 
Considered inferior by whom? Other people? Don't care, by the state absolutely not.

I think couples that adopt patentless children should be celebrated, because they are fixing problems. A lot of problems at that.
 
Last edited:
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

My first question is: Why?
 
Considered inferior by whom? Other people? Don't care, by the state absolutely not.

I think couples that adopt patentless children should be celebrated, because they are fixing problems. A lot of problems at that.

Which kids come with patents? Could be quite an investment...
 
I think an childless couple can be a big brother or big sister to many children thereby helping much more tan one or two.

Why would anybody look down on a childless couple?

Hell in China they might win a prize.

Tan children would get a Big Brother or Sister much more easily than some little pasty looking child. Good point.
 
CP, not only does nothing you said here make any sense in reference to my own posts, but you probably get thrashed on your evidence more consistently than anyone else on this entire forum. I just can't take you very seriously.

cpwill getting thrashed? Nope. Seriously... nope.
 
Umm.... I don't get this.

Which kids come with patents? I don't really understand this question.

The other sentence fragment I am more confused about.

You said: I think couples that adopt patentless children should be celebrated

That would indicate that some children come with patents. Seems pretty simple.
 
You said: I think couples that adopt patentless children should be celebrated

That would indicate that some children come with patents. Seems pretty simple.
Come from where with parents? Do you mean to say some children have parents?

I was talking about children that don't have parents. They are at a disadvantage.

So I still don't understand. Please take some time and think about what you are trying to say.
 
Come from where with parents? Do you mean to say some children have parents?

I was talking about children that don't have parents. They are at a disadvantage.

So I still don't understand. Please take some time and think about what you are trying to say.

I was making a joke out of your misspelling of the words "parentless". ;)
 
Not according to my ex it wasn't...

A little more detail would be helpful here. Are you saying your ex didn't consider parenthood to be optional but a requirement?

If the "ex" was an ex-wife rather than an ex-girlfriend, that issue should have been discussed at length and resolved before marriage was even considered. When you have a marriage where one partner wants children and the other does NOT want them, it usually leads to divorce down the road.
 
When you have a marriage where one partner wants children and the other does NOT want them, it usually leads to divorce down the road.

We got divorced...
 
Sorry. That is usually what happens when the partners can't agree on the "kids or no kids" issue.

All good... but we got divorced because she has mental issues... not about kids.
 
Back
Top Bottom