• 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
Yes, I was actually surprised to read race didn't play more into it, which is why it was not part of me being incredulous to bother spending an evening with it. However, I am still incredulous. This doesn't appear to be real research in the sense that the conclusion follows any facts I have ever heard of.

Then feel free to take a look at the facts. Race increasingly is a less relevant factor than behavior in America.

No, they are not. They occupy two completely different socio-economic positions in most cases.

I think you are imposing your personal experiences on the rest of the populace here. By what polling or census data are you breaking the two down?

But forget the fact that many of the childfree serve and extend the life of the next generation, right? All that matters is that people simply breed?

No, and no one has suggested such. As I prefaced in my original post in this thread that you responded to (as I recall): "All things being equal", the childless (or child-free, if you wish) have contributed less. They have not borne the costs of raising the next generation upon whom they will depend in their old age - it's a free rider problem. And, (again) even in the working years the childless tend to be less productive than parents.
 
If it refers to actual research, it should be available on the net. Not my job to back up your claims, that is yours. When your source is an add for the book "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010", pardon me if I am not swayed.

:roll: when you are unable to provide even someone who has looked at the same numbers and come to the opposing conclusion, but rather simply continue with ridiculous accusations against others, you will perhaps excuse the rest of us if we are not terribly impressed.
 
An Ad Hom is a direct attack on the person rather than the argument. Corporations may be people, but sources are not.



Oh ****, really? I had no idea.

:) well I'm happy to have been able to help, then.
 
Yes. Having children is a moral obligation to God/society/family/etc.


Sadly, this IS the only argument for those that oppose gay marriage. I wonder why there's only 1 vote so far and not more. HUMMM....
 
Yes. Having children is a moral obligation to God/society/family/etc.


Sadly, this IS the only argument for those that oppose gay marriage. I wonder why there's only 1 vote so far and not more. HUMMM....

Likely because of the extremely narrow construction.
 
:roll: when you are unable to provide even someone who has looked at the same numbers and come to the opposing conclusion, but rather simply continue with ridiculous accusations against others, you will perhaps excuse the rest of us if we are not terribly impressed.

Again, it is up to you to provide evidence to support your point. You have not done so. An add for a book is not evidence. Whether his conclusions are correct bor not, I do not know,m since I have no data to look at. Since you are the one making the claimn, it is up to you to actually support it. Crying that some one pointed out that your source was not an actual source is not going to make your claim true or false.
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

Until such time as society can adequately predict who will be a good parent as opposed to who can pop out the most offspring, I'd say any couple who chooses not to have a child has made a conscious choice that they would not be good parents, at least at that moment in time, has done society a favor. Society does not need any more abandoned or ignored children of unfit parents.

For those who are barren or infertile, I would consider them no less inferior than the mentally disabled, those who are born with disfigurements, liberals, as examples. To do so would open up the whole argument, potentially, for claiming that gay people are inferior because they can't procreate in the "normal" manner.

I find the whole discussion, in many ways, a little offensive since I feel that all people are equal regardless of their particular family dynamic and no one lifestyle choice should be valued above another.
 
I think you are imposing your personal experiences on the rest of the populace here. By what polling or census data are you breaking the two down?

"Childless" is a lumping together of everyone who doesn't have children, but may in the future. This includes infertile couples currently undergoing some kind of treatment or attempting to adopt, people who never found a partner to have kids with, and people who are too young to have gotten to that point in their lives. There is no data on the "childless," because they are a million different things. You have to look at each of those things individually.

Women who choose to be childfree feel more pressure to reproduce than other women without children, but they're less distressed about their childfree lifestyle than other non-moms, new research finds.

Unsurprisingly, women who wanted children but did not have them because of fertility or medical issues were the most distressed, according to the study published in the October issue of The Journal of Marriage and Family.

'Childfree' Women Feel Little Distress, Study Finds | LiveScience

They found that for these women the choice to be childless was multidetermined, persistent over time, and ego-syntonic. Comparison with other samples of women indicate that this is a distinct and nontraditional population.

Childless by choice: a clinical study. [Am J Psychiatry. 1977] - PubMed - NCBI

No, and no one has suggested such. As I prefaced in my original post in this thread that you responded to (as I recall): "All things being equal", the childless (or child-free, if you wish) have contributed less. They have not borne the costs of raising the next generation upon whom they will depend in their old age - it's a free rider problem. And, (again) even in the working years the childless tend to be less productive than parents.

But all things are not equal. Childfree people have an entirely different focus and purpose in life. I have already countered your claim that they haven't contributed enough, which is frankly ridiculous on its face, and you have offered no counter but to simply say "nuh-uh."

Where is your evidence that the childfree are less productive? Especially since they are the ones pulling the shifts that parents have to miss.
 
Last edited:
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

When I first read this, I didn't respond only because my response would have been rather nasty.

Many have covered the same topic, but in general, there are hundreds of reasons why a couple may not have children. To even think to ask a question as to if they should be considered inferior garners a gut response from me that exceeds polite conversation.

It doesn't change the couple's contribution to society.
It doesn't change their responsibility to the societal pool.
It is no one's business but thier own as to why they are childless.
It doesn't change the respect of their ancestors.
And they sure as hell aren't inferior to ANYBODY.
 
When I first read this, I didn't respond only because my response would have been rather nasty.

Many have covered the same topic, but in general, there are hundreds of reasons why a couple may not have children. To even think to ask a question as to if they should be considered inferior garners a gut response from me that exceeds polite conversation.

Yeah, it'll have that affect the first few times you hear it. Especially the first time you have someone actually start yelling at you or wishing ill health on you.

My partner just got his first taste of that when he told someone I'm childfree (he is what I call "baby ambivalent"). I don't think he ever really believed the stories I told... until he saw it for himself.

Trust me, the people here, with the benefit of the enforced cool time of typing, are being less offensive than most, at least in America.

Eventually you just start hearing what they're really saying: "I am SO ****ING MAD that you aren't validating my choices by living like I tell you to live! Why are you not responding to my shaming!? @#$%!"

People are like that about an awful lot of things. You just have to pay attention.

And at that point, it actually starts being a little cute.
 
Last edited:
What is the point of the poll? Might as well ask whether people look down on single parents, or just the Octamom.
 
Yeah, it'll have that affect the first few times you hear it. Especially the first time you have someone actually start yelling at you or wishing ill health on you.

My partner just got his first taste of that when he told someone I'm childfree (he is what I call "baby ambivalent"). I don't think he ever really believed the stories I told... until he saw it for himself.

Trust me, the people here, with the benefit of the enforced cool time of typing, are being less offensive than most, at least in America.

Eventually you just start hearing what they're really saying: "I am SO ****ING MAD that you aren't validating my choices by living like I tell you to live! Why are you not responding to my shaming!? @#$%!"

And at that point, it actually starts being a little cute.

I guess I have been fortunate that I haven't encountered such types. When asked if I have kids (by someone one who doesn't know me) the answer is a simple 'no'. They have no reason to know the reasons why. If they persue it, I walk away.

If in the future, they become a friend, they will eventually find out the reasons.

In this society where everyone feels they need to bare all (such as with twitter, fb, and decals on the back of their vehicle, lol) most people feel they have some ingrained right to know the why's and wherefores of your life. It doesn't work well with me.
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

No, they should not considered inferior. In this day and age, no one has a responsibility to pop kids out for the sake of having kids. Some people know they wouldn't be up to the task or have no desire for children whatsoever. Know thyself and act accordingly. Why create misery for themselves and the children they would be less than committed to raising?

I've given my kids that message. They don't have an obligation to me to provide me with grandchildren and I certainly wouldn't consider them inferior if they didn't.
 
I guess I have been fortunate that I haven't encountered such types. When asked if I have kids (by someone one who doesn't know me) the answer is a simple 'no'. They have no reason to know the reasons why. If they persue it, I walk away.

If in the future, they become a friend, they will eventually find out the reasons.

In this society where everyone feels they need to bare all (such as with twitter, fb, and decals on the back of their vehicle, lol) most people feel they have some ingrained right to know the why's and wherefores of your life. It doesn't work well with me.

Yeah, it sometimes depends on where you live. I got virtually none of that in Europe or NZ. I don't really get it in Minneapolis either. But in the surburbs and in the South? It can get pretty nasty.

I do tell people that I choose not to have them, but I do this because the more people are confronted with it, the more they'll hopefully learn how to behave themselves. I don't tell them why or any such thing -- I have no need to justify myself. But I feel it's important to remind people we exist and some of us don't take any crap.

That said, it's completely legit to just say it's none of anyone's damn business. But I'm a rabble rouser. What can I say. :lol:
 
Yeah, it sometimes depends on where you live. I got virtually none of that in Europe or NZ. I don't really get it in Minneapolis either. But in the surburbs and in the South? It can get pretty nasty.

I do tell people that I choose not to have them, but I do this because the more people are confronted with it, the more they'll hopefully learn how to behave themselves. I don't tell them why or any such thing -- I have no need to justify myself. But I feel it's important to remind people we exist and some of us don't take any crap.

That said, it's completely legit to just say it's none of anyone's damn business. But I'm a rabble rouser. What can I say. :lol:

I do live in the south, and I'm sure I've pissed some people off by not responding.

If pushed, as I react to most things when pushed, they won't like my response. :wink:

Stay your course. More people should. :cool:
 
I do live in the south, and I'm sure I've pissed some people off by not responding.

If pushed, as I react to most things when pushed, they won't like my response. :wink:

Stay your course. More people should. :cool:

Yeah, my immediate candor probably has something to do with it. I started off not thinking it was really a thing. I knew it's quite personal to many people, but it never was to me necessarily. Even before I knew it was such a big deal and I would sort of mention it off-highhandedly at relevant points, I would still get some pretty weird reactions. Why is everyone so worried about my uterus?

And that's kinda what happened to my partner. I didn't think it was a big deal to simply say it, so neither did he. But boy, he learned fast.

Cheers. You too. :cheers:
 
This whole OP is crappola.

When a religious nut tells me I need to accept Jesus in order to be saved, I tell them I'm Jewish. Not true but it ends the conversation. When people ask me why I don't have kids, I tell them I shoot blanks. Not true but none of their business. People telling each other what to believe or how to use their woohoo is getting too personal.
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

Considering the planet has 7 Billion people on it already, I would say the people who are procreating are selfish.
 
Here's the hole in your theory. You don't give a **** about people doing whta makes them happy, you give a **** about people doing what makes them happy as long as it fits in your world view that anyone believing anything beyond the evident is an idiot worthy of ridicule.

You suggest people should do what "makes them happy", yet watch your socrn for the religious. you suggest people wshould do what make sthem happy, yet you suggest Viktyr has a problem when it is rather apparent from his writing that what would bring happiness to him is a belief within himself of fulfilling a purpose and unspoken promise to those who came before him to allow in his mind their words, teachings, and beliefs to live on through yet another generation. But you have utter disdain for that view point or those that hold it, so decry him as "having a problem" and belittle his view while acting like you're so much more enlightened by telling him to do whta "makes him happy" as you sit there trashing that very thing.

1) So let me get this straight. By engaging in a debate, defending those who choose not to have kids against people basically calling them selfish pieces of ****, I am violating my views that people should do what makes them happy? Did I ever suggest Victor not have kids? Did I insult him for having kids? Did I ever suggest forcing anyone to do anything? Or did I provide counter arguments to attacks on the childless?

2) I have zero problem with the religious. I have a problem with people who try to involve their religion in politics or force it on others. THAT is an issue. If trying to get the government to force your jesus values on other people is what makes you happy, then sorry. The caveat is do what makes you happy if you're not harming anyone else's freedoms in the process.

So yes, I do think people should do what makes them happy, as long as it does not effect someone else's right to do the same. I don't have to like what they're doing, I'm not a republican or democrat. Both parties try to force their non-violent morality on others. I'm more of a live and let live type. If you can provide any quotes where I've contradicted myself on that matter, by all means.

Next time I'll apologize for being a selfish piece of **** who disgraces my ancestors instead of debating, if that's what you want.
 
Last edited:
People already assumed your thoughts on this topic were/are religious based.

They are. I am, for all intents and purposes, a religious fundamentalist. But that doesn't mean that my religious arguments matter a damn to people who don't share my religion.

What is the point of the poll? Might as well ask whether people look down on single parents, or just the Octamom.

I'm willing to bet that a lot of people do. I don't look down on single parents, but I definitely believe it's wrong to choose to raise a child alone.
 
Again, it is up to you to provide evidence to support your point. You have not done so. An add for a book is not evidence.

No, the evidence compiled in the book is the evidence. Again, if you know of anyone who has compiled the data and drawn the opposite conclusions, I would be interested in seeing them.
 
No, the evidence compiled in the book is the evidence. Again, if you know of anyone who has compiled the data and drawn the opposite conclusions, I would be interested in seeing them.

Then link to that compiled evidence. Pardon me if I do not take your word for it. Linking to an add is not supplying evidence. So far you have made a claim with no supporting evidence, carefully done in such a way that one cannot actually look at the evidence and make a critical evaluation.
 
Back
Top Bottom