• 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
loader said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please. Childfree couples can be just as and even more so in some cases selfless as those raising children under whatever circumstances. Because many childfree couples simply realize that they would not make good parents and there are those out there who don't make good parents. And there are some people raising children who are awful parents but have those children for selfish reasons.
 
I certainly didn't have kids so they could take care of me when I'm old and dying. In fact, I have made it clear that under no circumstances do I wish to be cared for by my children. I have legal documentation of this directive. I'd rather be left to die in a ditch than have my son wipe my ass.
 
In general, no, they should be treated just the same as everyone else. However, there are people out there who are childless and utter asshats about it. A lot of the ones I've run into go by "antinatalists" and they want the human species to go extinct by voluntarily refusing to breed and anyone who does breed is somehow inferior to their high-minded nonsense.

Those people deserve a solid kick in the head.
 
Do you really think this is a valid question??? really????
 
roguenuke said:
Please. Childfree couples can be just as and even more so in some cases selfless as those raising children under whatever circumstances. Because many childfree couples simply realize that they would not make good parents and there are those out there who don't make good parents. And there are some people raising children who are awful parents but have those children for selfish reasons.
Click to expand...
There is no direct correlation. Bad parents, alcoholics and bums can have great kids. And opposite. Great parents, clever and university professors, but children are garbage. Subsistent addicts socialists idiots ...
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
I certainly didn't have kids so they could take care of me when I'm old and dying. In fact, I have made it clear that under no circumstances do I wish to be cared for by my children. I have legal documentation of this directive. I'd rather be left to die in a ditch than have my son wipe my ass.
Click to expand...
Everyone dies itself. Nothing to do with children.
 
Tucker Case said:
So you are agreeing with my position? I'm not trying to be dense, things just aren't making much sense to me as written.
Click to expand...

English is his 2nd language.
 
loader said:
There is no direct correlation. Bad parents, alcoholics and bums can have great kids. And opposite. Great parents, clever and university professors, but children are garbage. Subsistent addicts socialists idiots ...
Click to expand...

Bad parents will normally turn out bad children. Good parents will normally turn out good children. There are very few exceptions. The things that account for bad parenting may be different among parents, the same as good parenting, but it is still wrong to believe that parenting has nothing to do with how children turn out.
 
CRUE CAB said:
We can drop everything and head to the Keys at the drop of a hat. Good luck doing that with your brats.
Click to expand...

Social Security taxes should be doubled on those without children, since no one will be there to pay their share. :mrgreen:
 
roguenuke said:
Bad parents will normally turn out bad children. Good parents will normally turn out good children. There are very few exceptions. The things that account for bad parenting may be different among parents, the same as good parenting, but it is still wrong to believe that parenting has nothing to do with how children turn out.
Click to expand...

Parental involvement or the lack thereof is the primary motivator for children to turn out good or bad. There are some exceptions, such as a child from a bad parent being taken under the wing of a mentor, but without that strong adult influence, kids are not going to turn out to be productive citizens and good people. It's not magic.
 
roguenuke said:
Bad parents will normally turn out bad children. Good parents will normally turn out good children. There are very few exceptions. The things that account for bad parenting may be different among parents, the same as good parenting, but it is still wrong to believe that parenting has nothing to do with how children turn out.
Click to expand...
I did not write this. I did write
There is no direct correlation
Click to expand...
.

And exceptions is not "very few" , but opposite, pretty much.
 
American said:
Social Security taxes should be doubled on those without children, since no one will be there to pay their share. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I have paid my fair share probably five time over, and will never see a dime of it.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Not really, just another extension of "I am better than you because (insert reason here)"
Click to expand...

I know...too bad it's petering out....I just love pointing out that there's no 'high road' for people who choose to reproduce :)
 
Cephus said:
Parental involvement or the lack thereof is the primary motivator for children to turn out good or bad. There are some exceptions, such as a child from a bad parent being taken under the wing of a mentor, but without that strong adult influence, kids are not going to turn out to be productive citizens and good people. It's not magic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess writing as "bad parenting" would have been better.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I have paid my fair share probably five time over, and will never see a dime of it.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to your case because I don't know anything about you, but most people who say what you say and do reveal their income have vastly overestimated what they've paid into the system.

BeneficiaryLifetimeBenefits_zpsa56a54e6.png
 
RiverDad said:
I can't speak to your case because I don't know anything about you, but most people who say what you say and do reveal their income have vastly overestimated what they've paid into the system.

BeneficiaryLifetimeBenefits_zpsa56a54e6.png
Click to expand...

Over state or not, I will never see a dime of it. Pretty bad investment I would say.
 
Canell said:
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:
Click to expand...

Inferior by what criteria? The answer could go either way based upon that.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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?
Click to expand...
Good question! I do see a difference between casual friends and real friends. A real friend is someone you've known for years...maybe even since childhood, and is a friend regardless of changing circumstances. I suspect that as society started becoming more transient, with people leaving home, and moving throughout their lives, that these sorts of friendships are hard to establish. So, what a lot of people may call friends today may be more on that casual side...friends at work or friends who just happen to have interests in common.

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.
Click to expand...

The 50's were a little before my time, but I suspect there is some truth in that society was more conformist, and it was a period of high optimism in spite of the Cold War and when I was in the early grades - duck and cover drills....as if hiding under a wooden desk would protect us from the A-Bomb! But, a lot of the talk is stereotype, just as the social upheavals portrayed in movies and TV shows of the 60's did not invade everyone's lives like they were portrayed in media. In the late 60's, a lot of issues like nuclear war, overpopulation, pollution and environmental collapse, were often mentioned in mainstream media, but there was still a great deal of optimism during those times that's missing today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom