• 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
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. It is how we pass on the teachings that were passed on to us.



I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that choosing other endeavors at the expense of your family line is irresponsible. It's short-sighted and selfish.



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.

All things have a beginning and an end. Life is a terminal disease. We are all going to die. The only real question is when and how. The luckier of us may be fortunate enough to know the answer to one or both of those questions with enough time to act on the foreknowledge. As we are all going to die so are our lineages. All life begins and all life ends. Does it really matter in the end, whether or not, someone chooses to have children? Their lines are destined to end its simply a matter of when.
 
I'm not in their head. :shrug:

Love is feeling, dude. People can feel things towards anything or anyone. Of far more consequence is what they do with it.

Would it be different if it was his actual live girlfriend versus my cat or another person I love? I'd still not be happy about the fact that my loved one wasn't saved. Who took their spot on the lifeboat, so to speak, or even if no one did, wouldn't make any difference.

Let's think about something else. Let's say you have some rare antique artifact. People have such things, and often they say they love them. They spend hours, perhaps daily, maintaining or restoring them. Their sense of loss if they are stolen or destroyed is quite real -- perhaps even mournful.

We regard that as, well, a little reclusive, but not as absurd as loving a sex doll. Why not? Does it make any difference? No. We're just really weird about sex, that's all. That's why you chose that example, for the pearl-clutching effect it has on people like you, which you wrongly assumed I am.

Like I said, I don't think replacing live beings with inanimate objects is healthy -- be they sex dolls or antique artifacts -- and psychology agrees with me. We're social creatures and we need social contact. However, that says nothing about the realness of their feelings.

Feelings are just feelings.

You're the one who keeps attempting to use your subjective feelings to put people and other creatures into some kind of hierarchy of worth and declaring everyone else's feelings but yours invalid.

I don't happen to think subjective feelings are a good enough barometer to judge worth to begin with.

I asked you if a person's "love" for an inanimate object was equal to the love of a human being and you couldn't give a straight answer. It was a yes or no question.
 
I asked you if a person's "love" for an inanimate object was equal to the love of a human being and you couldn't give a straight answer. It was a yes or no question.

No, what you asked me was where I think they belong on a tier system of worth that is assessed based on subjective feelings. And I told you I think you're asking the wrong question. You don't seem to be able to connect the dots, so I'll expound.

Ultimately, love alone means absolutely nothing. People can love someone and still hurt them. People can love someone who is hurting them. Obviously love doesn't dictate value, because love doesn't stop some people from doing things that are clearly of negative value.

Love by itself is just a series of chemicals firing off in your brain. So asking me which loves are "better" and therefore of more value is a nonsense question. It's like asking me whether caffeine or sugar is a more fit object of worship based on which one I think gives me a better rush. It's nonsense.

So can a guy love a doll? Yeah, probably, as long as those same series of chemicals fire off. What does that mean? Nothing. Because love alone means nothing.

What matters is whether you have good reason to respect them, based on what they do and how they show their love, and how that compels you, and whether or not you're good enough to give it back. This is what gives love depth, motion, and purpose. It's what takes it from some nonsensical, meaningless feeling, into an actual relationship that can be positive, and in which people (and yes, animals as well sometimes) can do amazing things.

Good relationships, of any type, are much more than just love.

And incidentally, while most people feel love, very few people are any good at relationships of any kind, including parental. They're full of selfishness and expectation and just sheer laziness, and people think simply because they love someone, that's good enough. That because they have fuzzy feelings in their brain, they deserve a goddamn medal. That's nonsense.
 
Last edited:
No. Why, precisely?

I'm quite intentionally childfree. And from what I've seen of the world, I don't really notice any superiority of people who just happen to have reproduced on any metric.



How so? How is simply breeding a contribution?

And how do you reckon people who don't reproduce -- a lot of whom don't because they occupy very challenging careers that possibly benefit your children -- aren't contributing?

I never noticed this thread before; and off hand, I would say from the perspective of someone with two children that, in an overpopulated, polluted and hotter world, the contribution of childless couples is by NOT adding to an already oversized human population. We are already living in a world that no longer has grain surpluses (in case anyone has noticed), and there is no means to significantly increase food supply to accommodate the expected increase to 10 billion in a few decades.

It's more likely that the negative effects of climate change, pollution, topsoil erosion and water scarcity, are going to reduce the food supply and lead to a population bottleneck, with a significant dieoff of human population. Everyone who has kids and is paying attention to these issues, has to wonder what kind of world they've brought their children in to!
 
No, what you asked me was where I think they belong on a tier system of worth that is assessed based on subjective feelings. And I told you I think you're asking the wrong question. You don't seem to be able to connect the dots, so I'll expound.

Ultimately, love alone means absolutely nothing. People can love someone and still hurt them. People can love someone who is hurting them. Obviously love doesn't dictate value, because love doesn't stop some people from doing things that are clearly of negative value.

Love by itself is just a series of chemicals firing off in your brain. So asking me which loves are "better" and therefore of more value is a nonsense question. It's like asking me whether caffeine or sugar is a more fit object of worship based on which one I think gives me a better rush. It's nonsense.

So can a guy love a doll? Yeah, probably, as long as those same series of chemicals fire off. What does that mean? Nothing. Because love alone means nothing.

What matters is whether you have good reason to respect them, based on what they do and how they show their love, and how that compels you, and whether or not you're good enough to give it back. This is what gives love depth, motion, and purpose. It's what takes it from some nonsensical, meaningless feeling, into an actual relationship that can be positive, and in which people (and yes, animals as well sometimes) can do amazing things.

Good relationships, of any type, are much more than just love.

And incidentally, while most people feel love, very few people are any good at relationships of any kind. They're full of selfishness and expectation and just sheer laziness, and people think simply because they love someone, that's good enough. That because they have fuzzy feelings in their brain for their child or their partner or whomever, they deserve a goddamn medal. That's nonsense.

I LOVE this explanation!
 
You swore at me. What's next? You had not given any reasons why we need a family without children. Gays, who adapt children, has more rites call it's self "family" , then couples without children.

Nothing is "next," since I didn't "swear" at you in the first place. Here is what I actually DID say:

"Originally Posted by Ocean007:
NONSENSE. Each individual, woman or man, is capable of deciding for herself or himself what makes up a 'family.' Couples without children may not make sense to you, which is fine. The bolded statement is a ridiculous assertion, which I certainly don't take seriously."

Where is the so-called "swear" word in this post? Please point it out for me.
 
Why not? They can. But why? To share half insurance? Ok. If you think, God created us for to sharing insurance, you have opened a new page in philosophy.

A couple can get married without the desire or intention to have children. Whether they have children or not is really nobody else's business but their own. A childfree (no kids by choice) couple certainly is not "inferior" because they choose NOT to reproduce. Contrary to what you seem to want everyone to believe (keep in mind that beliefs aren't facts), the childfree decision is just as valid and responsible as the choice to become a parent.
 
Childless people do not have to participate in the electoral process. Refusing to have children, they refuse future. So they do not care what will happen to the country and to civilization. They stopped the series of rebirths, because we are, our ancestors and our descendants, it's us.

Again, this kind of assertion is sheer NONSENSE. You should also be aware that there are two groups of couples who don't have children; childless (no kids by circumstance) and childfree (no kids by choice).

In any case, it isn't for you to decide who "should" or "should not" participate in the process of voting. Whether childless or childfree, couples without kids have the same right to vote as you do.
 
Why not? They can. But why? To share half insurance? Ok. If you think, God created us for to sharing insurance, you have opened a new page in philosophy. In your opinion, in this sense of human existence. :shock:

That small thing called love. Sharing a life with another regardless of procreation.

God has nothing to do with this, nor sharing insurance.

I cannot voice my true thoughts for people who think this way, all you'd see is *. NO ONE is inferior to another person, no matter if they have kids or not, by choice or not.
 
On the contrary, raising the citizens who will be running our businesses, communities, and government tomorrow requires massive investment of time, effort, energy, and money. People are generally net productive (that is why our GDP is positive, for example), and individuals contributing to society through their daily interactions represent a social good - one that requires a vast amount of investment to produce. All things being equal, parents have contributed more towards society in the forms of those investment that people who aren't parents.



Precisely. You are chillin in the key's. We are busy putting in the work to ensure that our society survives and (hopefully) flourishes. One of those things requires more effort and is more socially positive than the other.
Pfffffft. Cant wait for you kids to grow up, I will put them to work.
 
Again, this kind of assertion is sheer NONSENSE. You should also be aware that there are two groups of couples who don't have children; childless (no kids by circumstance) and childfree (no kids by choice).

In any case, it isn't for you to decide who "should" or "should not" participate in the process of voting. Whether childless or childfree, couples without kids have the same right to vote as you do.

At least three families, childless couples I know, raising adopted children. Even my homosexuals neighbors are raising a girl for many years. Another familie of my age, raised three own children, and adopted two other children from Russia.
Сhildfree, is the pinnacle of selfishness. Or vice versa, cowardice. Know of, too. They live in the absence of love and the meaning of life.
 
At least three families, childless couples I know, raising adopted children. Even my homosexuals neighbors are raising a girl for many years. Another familie of my age, raised three own children, and adopted two other children from Russia.
Сhildfree, is the pinnacle of selfishness. Or vice versa, cowardice. Know of, too. They live in the absence of love and the meaning of life.

You wouldn't know love or meaning if it slapped you in the face.

One of the childfree people I know is an EMT. He's the one who rescues children who are abused by their parents. He's the guy who basically deals with war scenes resulting of the "love" of the reproducing majority. EMT's die all the time, trying to reach people in tricky places with unwieldy crafts and vehicles, or being killed by the people they're trying to save. And when someone from the reproducing majority tries to tell him he's selfish simply for not breeding, he damn near loses his mind -- and for every good reason. Most of those people are far too selfish and cowardly to do what he does.
 
If someone doesn't want to have children, then not having children isn't selfish so much as it is in the best interests of the hypothetical child.

I've seen what happens with unwanted kids in our society. Better to not have any at all than it is to have one that you didn't want.

The concept of inferior and superior in this regard is silly because each instance is different.

From my own perspective, having a kid was what finally brought meaning into my life. I actually understand Kori's position very well because I've kind of adopted a "Do it for my ancestors" perspective a little bit. By having a child and continuing the teachings of my parents and ancestors, I do honor to them by continuing the meaning of their lives. If my son has children of his own some day, he will be continuing the meaning of my life and the lives of the rest of his ancestors.

So I totally get what Vyktor is saying, but I would change it slightly in my situation to say that I would have been an inferior person had I decided not to have children based on my personal belief system. For me, it's not religious as I have no religion, but it is somewhat spiritual. As for everyone else in the world, it is not me who judges their superiority/inferiority, it is they themselves who do this.
 
If someone doesn't want to have children, then not having children isn't selfish so much as it is in the best interests of the hypothetical child.

I've seen what happens with unwanted kids in our society. Better to not have any at all than it is to have one that you didn't want.

The concept of inferior and superior in this regard is silly because each instance is different.

From my own perspective, having a kid was what finally brought meaning into my life. I actually understand Kori's position very well because I've kind of adopted a "Do it for my ancestors" perspective a little bit. By having a child and continuing the teachings of my parents and ancestors, I do honor to them by continuing the meaning of their lives. If my son has children of his own some day, he will be continuing the meaning of my life and the lives of the rest of his ancestors.

So I totally get what Vyktor is saying, but I would change it slightly in my situation to say that I would have been an inferior person had I decided not to have children based on my personal belief system. For me, it's not religious as I have no religion, but it is somewhat spiritual. As for everyone else in the world, it is not me who judges their superiority/inferiority, it is they themselves who do this.

You know, I don't think this is impossible -- or any less meaningful -- with kids who aren't yours necessarily.

I know everyone here thinks I'd like to mount baby heads on spikes, but I actually have a fair bit of time for a smart kid who's to the point of being conversational. I love encouraging people to pursue their talents -- something a lot of kids don't really get enough of (as opposed to being encouraged to pursue what their parents think will look best).

My family is sort of coming together lately, and it's by no means a typical arrangement, and most of it isn't genetic.

My best friend, whom we consider to be each other's "life partners" in all the ways that count, is planning to have a kid within the next few years. There's a naming convention (not surnames) in my family my dad hoped I would do, if I wanted to. Obviously I won't be, since I won't be having kids, and he's ok with that.

But guess who wants to. My friend.

I never asked her. She just said one day she'd like to.

It'll be her kid, and I don't want to be her kid's parent. But I like the idea of being the crazy aunt who tells stories and encourages a developing mind. Sits around at my coffee table and gives her tea and asks her questions.

My dad was like that, as were many of his unchilded friends who I saw a fair bit of. Rather than focusing on all the cutesy but ultimately non-intellectual things kids do, they focused on my intellect. And I'm better for it. I quickly grew impatient with people who were happy to just come down to my level, rather than challenging me to come up to theirs.

I've been that kind of figure to a couple of kids in the past. And while I certainly don't think any childfree person is obligated to work with kids or even like kids, and there are a bajillion different ways to impact humanity profoundly that have nothing to do with kids, and there are lots of non-kid related ways to have a legacy and I hope to have one myself, I like the idea of passing on that challenging and perhaps slightly subversive ethos that I grew up with.

So does my friend, evidently.

There's so much more to how to be human than the standard lines. I'm going to wind up with a really weird family, no doubt about that, but none of us are here because we have to be or anyone said we should be. We're just here because we want to be, and we have that love of depth and motion and purpose. DNA alone can't give you that any more than love alone can give you that.
 
You know, I don't think this is impossible -- or any less meaningful -- with kids who aren't yours necessarily.

I know everyone here thinks I'd like to mount baby heads on spikes, but I actually have a fair bit of time for a smart kid who's to the point of being conversational. I love encouraging people to pursue their talents -- something a lot of kids don't really get enough of (as opposed to being encouraged to pursue what their parents think will look best).

My family is sort of coming together lately, and it's by no means a typical arrangement, and most of it isn't genetic.

My best friend, whom we consider to be each other's "life partners" in all the ways that count, is planning to have a kid within the next few years. There's a naming convention (not surnames) in my family my dad hoped I would do, if I wanted to. Obviously I won't be, since I won't be having kids, and he's ok with that.

But guess who wants to. My friend.

I never asked her. She just said one day she'd like to.

It'll be her kid, and I don't want to be her kid's parent. But I like the idea of being the crazy aunt who tells stories and encourages a developing mind. Sits around at my coffee table and gives her tea and asks her questions.

My dad was like that, as were many of his unchilded friends who I saw a fair bit of. Rather than focusing on all the cutesy but ultimately non-intellectual things kids do, they focused on my intellect. And I'm better for it. I quickly grew impatient with people who were happy to just come down to my level, rather than challenging me to come up to theirs.

I've been that kind of figure to a couple of kids in the past. And while I certainly don't think any childfree person is obligated to work with kids or even like kids, and there are a bajillion different ways to impact humanity profoundly that have nothing to do with kids, and there are lots of non-kid related ways to have a legacy and I hope to have one myself, I like the idea of passing on that challenging and perhaps slightly subversive ethos that I grew up with.

So does my friend, evidently.

There's so much more to how to be human than the standard lines. I'm going to wind up with a really weird family, no doubt about that, but none of us are here because we have to be or anyone said we should be. We're just here because we want to be, and we have that love of depth and motion and purpose. DNA alone can't give you that any more than love alone can give you that.

That's awesome what your fiend is doing. And everything you said is 100% on the money in my opinion.
 
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.

Who is that obligation to exactly? Ancestors dont care, be real. Society has plenty of citizens and and plenty of people who want to have kids. What obligaton?

And failing to live up to responsibilities as adults? Ha, do I detect jealousy there? I see it quite a bit....sorry....you make your choices, you live with them :)
 
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. It is how we pass on the teachings that were passed on to us.

I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that choosing other endeavors at the expense of your family line is irresponsible. It's short-sighted and selfish.

.

The whole ancestor thing is just silly....they are long gone. THey know nothing.

As for selfish....there are no unselfish reasons to have kids in the US. It's always selfish unless you get accidentally pregnant. Because no one 'has kids to benefit society' or 'to populate the Earth'. You have kids because you want them.
 
And this would be why I would call your outlook "selfish".

So people decide to have kids to make themselves miserable? No, they do it to make themselves happy. If they want home life to be bearable and to raise kids that treat them decently, then they try to make the kids happy, lol.
 
Sure, but you do exist now and I suspect you care very much for your existence now.

You carry on their legacy. If you can preserve their legacy in other ways, so much the better-- but then who will do so in your place when you are dead?

And while you cannot obtain consent from the unborn, you must admit that the vast majority of people, once living, prefer to remain so.

No, just to continue having a family when you are old and grey and dying.

Good Lord! Why do my ancestors sound like fetuses in your description? LOLOL

Stop insulting my ancestors and presuming you know what they would have wanted. How arrogant is that?
 
This is my favorite bingo of all.

What, do you think all those old people rotting in bottom-dollar homes, who never get a single visit, are all childfree? Please. They're from a time when being childfree wasn't even an option.

The overwhelming majority of them have kids. Their kids just don't care.

Having children doesn't guarantee you company or a personal nurse in old age. And with the money I'll save not having any, I'm sure I'll be able to take care of myself.

And beyond that, if that's the reason you have children, then you are the selfish one, not me.


Exactly. That is what my own mother told me when I told her we didnt think we wanted kids. She is a registered nurse and for awhile when we kids were in grammar school, she took a job in a nursing home on the night shift so one parent could always be home with us kids.

She said that 'having someone to care for you in your old age'...there is absolutely no guarantee they will, they have no 'obligation' to do so and many do not. She also said that is a very selfish reason to have kids....to 'grow your own caretakers.'
 
So you've never completely loved a man enough to want his children?

All about the career??

I don't know how old you are..but I hope your ''fix'' is reversible..

ROFLMAO

We BOTH decided we didnt want kids. It had nothing to do with our love for each other...what kind of romance novel BS are you shoveling? lol

One reason we chose not to is so we could spend more of our time focused *on us.* Completely selfish of course, but certainly it wasnt depth of love.

And I'm 53 and still do not regret the decision at all....do you know what date that's supposed to happen on?
 
No, however they should not be giving advice on how to raise childrend like so many high educated without children do.

Oh please. Raising kids isnt rocket science yet it's plain many many parents are failing at it. I'm happy to make a list for you right now...oh, and I can also provide all the excuses the parents have too.
 
Good relationships, of any type, are much more than just love.

And incidentally, while most people feel love, very few people are any good at relationships of any kind, including parental. They're full of selfishness and expectation and just sheer laziness, and people think simply because they love someone, that's good enough. That because they have fuzzy feelings in their brain, they deserve a goddamn medal. That's nonsense.

On that last point, when I read a comment about guys falling in love with love dolls and internet avatars, virtual relationships online, or how close our relationships with our pets are becoming (Guilty!), I'm wondering how much of this might be connected with stories I read about how the internet decreases regular interactions and friendships, and increases a person's sense of individualism and ego....all I know is I have never seen so many people calling themselves libertarians before the computer age began. And, I wonder if an oversized sense of ego plays a part in some people's inability to form normal relationships.

I read something a little while back, that most people today report having half as many friends as those who lived in the 1950's, a little more than half a century ago. Back when I was young, some psychologists and educators who were suspicious of television and pop culture, believed that TV would make my generation and those coming afterwards more insular and self-absorbed....it likely has played a role in that trend, but all of the online personal media people run around with today, seems to give them a virtual life that they find more interesting than real life.
 
On that last point, when I read a comment about guys falling in love with love dolls and internet avatars, virtual relationships online, or how close our relationships with our pets are becoming (Guilty!), I'm wondering how much of this might be connected with stories I read about how the internet decreases regular interactions and friendships, and increases a person's sense of individualism and ego....all I know is I have never seen so many people calling themselves libertarians before the computer age began. And, I wonder if an oversized sense of ego plays a part in some people's inability to form normal relationships.

I read something a little while back, that most people today report having half as many friends as those who lived in the 1950's, a little more than half a century ago. Back when I was young, some psychologists and educators who were suspicious of television and pop culture, believed that TV would make my generation and those coming afterwards more insular and self-absorbed....it likely has played a role in that trend, but all of the online personal media people run around with today, seems to give them a virtual life that they find more interesting than real life.

I don't know. It certainly could be part of it, and I think that's even likely, but I think there's another factor you have to add in here: what are you considering a friend?

1950's culture was pretty socially repressive. Behind closed doors, Stepford wives were swallow pills by the fist full, while their husbands preferred hitting the bottle. The social mob that descended on you was far more extreme if you stepped outside the lines.

I think people today expect to be taken as they are, and that wasn't the case in the 50's. So if you're judging who is a friend by more stringent criteria, it stands to reason you might have fewer of them.

Incidentally, this might be part of why the West is finally coming around to properly loving animals, which, by the way, happens in lots of cultures with virtually no technological isolation at all: they always take you as you are.
 
Back
Top Bottom