• 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
You know, a childfree person I know brought this point up once.

Society's response to someone not having children (as well as many other things) is to disenfranchise that person, because they're not doing what society feels it is "owed."

But it begs the question... why would someone you disenfranchised feel compelled to do anything for you in the first place?

The way he put it was rather epic.

"It's like the jocks complaining to the nerds they bully that the football team is out of money. Why on earth should they care?" :lol:

That's a good one.
 
On top of everything else, there is a staggering number of lousy parents in this world - something that I feel maybe the number one source of misery (directly/indirectly) on this planet.


If you look at ANY task, the law of averages will show about 1/3 are great at it, 1/3 are decent at it and 1/3 suck at it.
This goes for everything - cooking, driving, cleaning AND parenting.

That means that at least 2/3rds of all parents are - at best - adequate.

Personally, I believe raising sentient human beings should be done by people a heck of a lot better then just adequately.

Yet society ignores the law of averages for child rearing (for some bizarre reason) and just assumes almost everyone is pretty good at it...which reality shows is obviously total nonsense.
But unfortunately, many people seem to feel that providing the basic necessities, remembering their birthday, buying an occasional toy and not beating the crap out of their children makes them 'good parents'.

Wrong - (imo) it makes you adequate...and barely at that.


Parenting is something that most people are simply nothing more then 'adequate' at. With a ton of them outright lousy at it.

Instead of society pressuring people to be parents - why aren't people discouraging people to be parents unless they feel VERY strongly that they will be truly excellent at it?

Why?

Because politicians love power. And the more babies are born, the greater the population base, the more power these 'leaders' have.
So they encourage people (through words/taxes/benefits/guilt) to pop out as many babies as possible...regardless of the quality of that parenting.

Quantity over quality.
 
Last edited:
:shrug: all things being equal they contribute less to society. "inferior" would be a word that would require qualifications, however.

NONSENSE. No individual or couple is required to reproduce in order to be considered a "contributing member of society." That's just one more guilt-peddling weapon conservatives use to try and shame women into having children they don't really want.

Problem for conservatives who "think" like this: those shaming tricks don't work as well on intentionally childfree women and men as they might as women who may still be undecided.
 
Yes. They have an obligation to the line of their ancestors to keep their lineage going and they are failing to do so. They have an obligation to society to do their part in raising the next generation of citizens and they are failing to do so. They are failing to live up to the responsibilities of adults.

Assuming you are being serious instead of sarcastic, all of this is complete NONSENSE. The childfree (no kids by choice) decision is just as valid and responsible as the decision to become a parent.

Individuals (myself included) and couples who know they don't like or want children are making the wise and RESPONSIBLE decision not to have them. Too many people who have children for the wrong reasons -- like being shamed or guilted into having them instead of really WANTING to have them -- end up neglecting their kids or even worse, abusing them. It's cruel to put kids at risk of such treatment. One can't neglect or abuse what one doesn't have.
 
:shrug: all things being equal they contribute less to society. "inferior" would be a word that would require qualifications, however.

No one owes any thing to society
 
Again, not saying that. You can live a life of tremendous purpose and meaning without bearing children. You're just missing an important aspect of family and social life. I don't think childless couples are particularly less happy or less fulfilled than couples with children-- just less responsible to the line of their ancestors.

Sorry (not really), but you ARE saying just that. By judging childless or childfree individuals or couples as "selfish" or "irresponsible," you are saying that their real contributions are meaningless UNLESS they have children. The last part of your statement directly contradicts the first part.

This is the kind of guilt-pedding nonsense that too often leads to couples having children for the wrong reasons, like "my parents say I 'owe' them grandchildren." Then these same couples -- or just one parent -- end up deeply REGRETTING that decision.
 
You know that I respect your brain. That's one reason I would prefer that you perpetuated your line-- not only genetically, but also culturally. The world needs more of you.

Luckily, your preferences aren't legislated into laws, so no one, myself included, has to care what YOU personally want women or men to do. Personally speaking, I know I don't EVER want children (or marriage either for that matter), for a variety of reasons.

Since I know I don't want kids and would NOT be good parent material, I know I am making the smart and responsible decision NOT to have any. If you want to call me "selfish" for making that choice, be my guest. :)
 
It's all about genetics, evolution and natural selection. Most people have a natural desire to procreate and if they didn't....well... the human race simply wouldn't exist.

Oh PLEASE. :roll: The world population figure is now at 7 BILLION. The human race is hardly in danger of becoming extinct because some individuals choose NOT to reproduce.
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

Some people hold that view, I guess.

I puzzle over what they find to do with their life. LOL I guess they do everything i don't have time for :D
 
The worst thing for the couples who choose not to have children must be the pitying looks and the assumption that one of them must have something ''wrong'' with them reproductively..

Personally, I would call it amusing rather than "the worst thing," speaking as a childfree woman who has no desire to get married either. Someone who pities me for my lack of reproduction obviously doesn't know I enjoy life more BECAUSE I don't have kids or a husband. Thankfully, it's that person's problem, not mine.

Not every woman desires what conservatives think all women "should" want; meaning husband and children. Many conservatives have a hard time accepting this.
 
Childless couples have way more money and time.

They might even be considered superior to the rug-rat clans.
 
Childless couples have way more money and time.

They might even be considered superior to the rug-rat clans.

Yeah they might, but not by me. Rug-rat clans produce future taxpayers.
 
Childless couples have way more money and time.

They might even be considered superior to the rug-rat clans.

We can drop everything and head to the Keys at the drop of a hat. Good luck doing that with your brats.
 
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.

Exactly! IMO that's exactly why many people who become parents DO resent those of us who have made the childfree choice; the HARDSHIPS of parenthood that they now have and we don't. Even though the guilt-peddling parents of the childfree routinely deny they have such resentment, their attitude comes through loud and clear.

I knew in my teen years how danged HARD the job of being a mother was, and how much a girl or woman has to give up once she becomes a mother. That's exactly why I knew I would never want the job, no matter how much older I got. I'm a couple of decades beyond my teen years now, and I haven't regretted my decision for a second.

Watching documentaries like MTV's "16 and Pregnant" and "Teen Mom" would be a great idea for any woman who is undecided about having children. "16 and Pregnant" especially details the very real difference on what life was like before motherhood and what it is after the girl becomes a mother. Before the girl has the baby, she has a large belly but still can go to school, go out with her girlfriends, etc. After the baby is born, the girl has almost NO sleep, NO freedom to be a teenager as she did before, and worst of all (for a teen girl), a lot less time to do required homework assignments and study for important tests. That leads she often falls behind in her school work, and is in serious jeopardy of NOT graduating high school as she had planned.

To me, the motherhood picture doesn't get any better as a woman with a job or career either. For some reason, it is always the woman who is expected to give up everything if she decides to become a mom, the man doesn't have to give up anything. So no thanks. Motherhood is definitely NOT for me, so I'll stay cheerfully single and childfree, thank you. If some judgmental parents want to call me "selfish" or something for that, fine.
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:
:wow:

Considered "inferior" by whom? Who in society ought to consider themselves "superior" to others in society - particularly on the basis [only] of their having had children?

By this logic, all (and I generalize) Catholic families ought to be deemed somehow "superior" in society, or many 3rd world couples (and again, I generalize) who in many cases breed beyond their ability to support their children ought to be considered "superior." And politically, anyone who supports contraception ought to be considered "inferior" - if not outright criminal (the next logical step to inferiority).

I rather appreciate the Duggars for their faith and example, but does the size of their family make them "superior" to couples who have no children?

It is how we repay our parents and our grandparents and our great-grandparents and our more distant forebears for having kept our lines going until we were born-- for having borne and raised us.
Um, all of whom are dead, or soon to pass on. How does such "payment" benefit the dead, really?

It is how we pass on the teachings that were passed on to us.
It is also how we pass on the sins that were passed on to us. Just sayin...

Moreover, it ignores the other possibilities - in particular the fact that some couples simply *can't* have children. On what basis should they be considered "inferior?" And who, properly, should be looking down their noses at such couples - exalting themselves to some sort of a "superior" state because they could (or did) have children?

Frankly, if anyone is going to argue along the lines that couples "owe it to society" to breed, then it could be just as reasonably argued that society "owes it to their couples" to enable them TO breed, economically, financially, educationally,
 
Sorry (not really), but you ARE saying just that. By judging childless or childfree individuals or couples as "selfish" or "irresponsible," you are saying that their real contributions are meaningless UNLESS they have children. The last part of your statement directly contradicts the first part.

First, let me say I'm part of a childless couple that may remain as such as my wife has no desire for children.

Second, no he's not saying that at all.

Believing someone is being selfish for not wanting to have kids doesn't mean they're other contributions are meaningless. One doesn't indicate the other. One's other actions could both be meaningful AND be selfish as it relates to the notion of continuing ones ancestery.

I'll admit, this is part of what I struggle with currently with my wife. Part of why I'd like kids is I want to see my families name continue (of my father and his 4 brothers, I'm one of only 3 male kids) and to feel as if I'm helping to impact something tangably and direclty positive into the "next generation". Having experience as an instructor I recognize there are other ways to impact a child's life besides being their parent....but I also recognize that there's nothing AS impactful as that experience.

At the same time, I enjoy my life and the freedom around it. I enjoy the ability to go home and lay around watching TV or playing video games if I feel like it. Or going out and playing basketball with friends for the night or even sitting up watching election coverage or researching politics. I like being able to go out to the bar on Saturday nights till 2:00 AM or staying in bed on a weekend day for hours with my wife without a care in the world or spending all day devouring a slate of football games. And, conflicting with my desire for kids I also have a desire to see my wife happy...and she has no desire for kids.

I get the notion of people suggesting that those who are childless are "selfish". I don't think it applies EVERY time, but I can see how it is with some. I admit that part of why I don't have any yet is because I am a bit selfish...that I don't want to give up what I'm doing right now. At the same time, I think it's a bit of a misnomer. Most people having kids WANT kids...which means it's not somehow "Unselfish" of them to have the kid, because that's what THEY want to be doing. They're still doing what they want, just like I am...it's just in a different manner.
 
This is a public service announcement:

We hope you enjoy the Duggar family so you can soak up some of that superiority.

Michelle-Duggar-hospital.jpg


thankyou
 
Wow, dudes and dudesses, where did you dig that old thread from? :lol: Well, never mind, go on, if you will. :)
 
Oh PLEASE. :roll: The world population figure is now at 7 BILLION. The human race is hardly in danger of becoming extinct because some individuals choose NOT to reproduce.
And of course I never implied that at all in the first place. Check your reading comprehension skills.

Maybe it's a good thing for society that you chose to become a genetic dead end.
 
I think it tends to be the other way around. People more tend to look down at women who have children and women who do not as of superior intelligence.

Personally, I think good parents more beneficially serve society on average than childless couples - and think bad parents on average do more harm to society than childless couples.
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

Why is it any of your business whether or not couples have children?
 
This thread is why childless couples hate parents.
 
Wow, dudes and dudesses, where did you dig that old thread from? :lol: Well, never mind, go on, if you will. :)
It should be "dudettes" - who are societally superior to dudesses. ;)
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

Nope, they are superior in fact. Thy do not drain other people's money to raise their children the way people with kids do. Bunch of communists.
 
Back
Top Bottom