• 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

CP, if you are simply going to ignore or lie about the evidence I provided -- as you so often do with what little you provide of your own -- I am not going to spend any more valuable minutes of my life pulling apart any more of your absurdity.

And incidentally, now I feel a little like I imagine a parent does at times.
 
Why? Those people who don't put their time into children may have a lot more time to... ya know... do something important to humanity, perhaps. Actually, most of the other CF people I know do some rather important things. The most common one, in my personal experience, is actually medical careers. All types. Research, EMT, surgeons, vet care, elderly care, and even care of disabled children. Personally, although I don't work in a medical field per se, I do work for the deaf.

How are you going to tell me that we are "doing less?" People without children work more hours, and in my experience, have a tendency to work for humanity. Maybe you put in more at home, but we put in more in the world.

Not to mention that not every person who simply manages to reproduce really deserves the title of parent. Reproducing doesn't mean someone will be loving or attentive or care about their child's future. Many don't, and it shows in their resultant children. And what exactly are they contributing?

It's a hardship you choose, and you have no right to make other people's lives more difficult because of what you chose. If it's such a hardship that you resent people for choosing otherwise, then DON'T DO IT.

I didn't say reproduce, I said raising children. I said that on purpose to killed all the gay bull**** (and other) arguments that I knew would pop up in here. Everyone can choose to raise a child, even if they adopt. So now that ALL the excuses are gone, maybe those who don't choose to raise children can have their social security reduced to compensate those people who raised tax payers and made the financial sacrifices for 20 years. Don't forget, future tax payers pay your benefits, you don't produce tax payers you get less.
 
I didn't say reproduce, I said raising children. I said that on purpose to killed all the gay bull**** (and other) arguments that I knew would pop up in here. Everyone can choose to raise a child, even if they adopt. So now that ALL the excuses are gone, maybe those who don't choose to raise children can have their social security reduced to compensate those people who raised tax payers and made the financial sacrifices for 20 years. Don't forget, future tax payers pay your benefits, you don't produce tax payers you get less.

Parents get tax credits and take much more time off. People without children put more time in. They also support the world your children live in as much or more as their childed counterparts do, as I shown above. And actually, in terms of things like SS, I pay for my own benefits over the course of my working life.

If anyone should have their benefits reduced, it isn't the childfree.
 
I don't estimate worth on income either.

I didn't say anything about income. Value is a subjective standard, and in capitalism value can mean many things. Basically, it's what you get from someone or something. People don't have value to me based on what I can get from them.

But you're the one implying the childless/childfree have less value.

People who do not live a life dedicated to service live a life dedicated to themselves. And before you give an example of a person working at, say, Greenpeace, what is the difference between taking a paycheck from Greenpeace and taking a paycheck from a factory? "...when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full."
 
CP, if you are simply going to ignore or lie about the evidence I provided -- as you so often do with what little you provide of your own -- I am not going to spend any more valuable minutes of my life pulling apart any more of your absurdity.

And incidentally, now I feel a little like I imagine a parent does at times.

I cited and linked each of your sources in my reply. If the best you can do is accuse me of lying without support... :shrug:
 
Parents get tax credits and take much more time off. People without children put more time in.

The first is correct, and the second is not. Parents do get tax credits to partially offset the cost of raising children and providing that public good. However, when Parents get home from 'work', their second job begins.

They also support the world your children live in as much or more as their childed counterparts do, as I shown above. And actually, in terms of things like SS, I pay for my own benefits over the course of my working life.

That's simply not how our system works. I wish it was, I would love for us to move to some kind of private accounts where what you paid had impact on what you got. However, as the system works currently, you pay for your parents benefits, and the next generation pays for yours.
 
People who do not live a life dedicated to service live a life dedicated to themselves. And before you give an example of a person working at, say, Greenpeace, what is the difference between taking a paycheck from Greenpeace and taking a paycheck from a factory? "...when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full."

So simply because someone doesn't reproduce, they live a life "dedicated to themselves?"

Save your Bible verses. It's clearly done nothing for you in the ethics category.
 
I cited and linked each of your sources in my reply. If the best you can do is accuse me of lying without support... :shrug:

...And made up your own demonstrably false definition of what they say. You are clearly incorrigible on this issue no matter how soundly you are established as wrong, and I knew that going in, because you're that way about everything. I went to the trouble for the benefit of anyone who may take your arguments on face. So job done, for me.
 
So simply because someone doesn't reproduce, they live a life "dedicated to themselves?"
Not necessarily, no. People can have children for selfish reasons.

And your "childfree" lifestyle earns you no automatic ethics points either. You're not a secular saint.
 
That's simply not how our system works. I wish it was, I would love for us to move to some kind of private accounts where what you paid had impact on what you got. However, as the system works currently, you pay for your parents benefits, and the next generation pays for yours.

Yes, they pay me money I am owed.

And I will not be creating any more IOU's for anyone else after myself, so I don't see the issue. My not reproducing does remove a debt payer, but it also removes a debt receiver further down the line.
 
Not necessarily, no. People can have children for selfish reasons.

And your "childfree" lifestyle earns you no automatic ethics points either. You're not a secular saint.

I didn't say I was. You seem to be the one trying to claim a saintly position.

Out of curiosity, what are some supposedly un-selfish reasons for having children?
 
...And made up your own demonstrably false definition of what they say.

dude, I repeated what they said.

You are clearly incorrigible on this issue no matter how soundly you are established as wrong, and I knew that going in, because you're that way about everything. I went to the trouble for the benefit of anyone who may take your arguments on face. So job done, for me.

:lol: Okay. :)
 
Yes, they pay me money I am owed.

You are not "owed" a red cent. Social Security is a tax :).

And I will not be creating any more IOU's for anyone else after myself, so I don't see the issue. My not reproducing does remove a debt payer, but it also removes a debt receiver further down the line.

and if people were net drains rather than net benefit to society, that would be a powerful argument.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say I was. You seem to be the one trying to claim a saintly position.

If assigning people value regardless of their "worth" to society is saintly, I think we could all do with more saintliness.

Out of curiosity, what are some supposedly un-selfish reasons for having children?

Only a person who has never cared for a child could ask that question.
 
You are not "owed" a red cent.

So receiving based on having put in through work is not the premise?

and if people were net drains rather than net benefit to society, that would be a powerful argument.

What, do you think the childfree don't pay SS?
 
If assigning people value regardless of their "worth" to society is saintly, I think we could all do with more saintliness.

Yes, and that doesn't seem to me to be what you are doing.

Only a person who has never cared for a child could ask that question.

So when did your children ask you to be born?
 
So receiving based on having put in through work is not the premise?

That is correct.

What, do you think the childfree don't pay SS?

No. I think that their FICA tax goes to pay for their parents' generation of benefits. That, after all, is how the system was designed explicitly to function.
 
Yes, and that doesn't seem to me to be what you are doing.

OK.

So when did your children ask you to be born?

You're possessed of your consciousness and it cannot be revoked, but you would question the validity of bringing other consciousnesses into being. I'd say that's the definition of selfishness.
 
That is correct.

No. I think that their FICA tax goes to pay for their parents' generation of benefits. That, after all, is how the system was designed explicitly to function.

And so what is the problem with that?
 
You're possessed of your consciousness and it cannot be revoked, but you would question the validity of bringing other consciousnesses into being. I'd say that's the definition of selfishness.

You didn't answer my question. When did your children ask to be born?
 
:) well, for one thing, unless you maintain a high enough birthrate, it's unsustainable. ;)

It's uncomfortable in the short game, but probably a net positive in the long run.
 
by which you mean....??? :confused:

With the level of consumption we have, a smaller population would be a much better thing for everyone.

But regardless, I am still really confused about why this creates some kind of obligation for anyone to breed.
 
Back
Top Bottom