• 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!

Do you want children?

Do you have children?

  • Female: I have kid(s)/ I want kid(s)

    Votes: 6 10.0%

  • Female: I don't want children

    Votes: 2 3.3%

  • Male: I have kid(s)/ I want kid(s)

    Votes: 28 46.7%

  • Male: I don't want children

    Votes: 17 28.3%

  • other

    Votes: 7 11.7%
  • Total voters
    60
cpwill said:
:shrug: i don't have contempt for people on public assistance - i consider it wrong to drain public assistance if one does not need it, and I hold that decision in contempt.

nor did i go into parenthood for selfish reasons - quite the opposite. I expect my boys to take care of me in my older years the same way I expect the person I greet at the door to say "hey" back - because it's what good people do. I would suspect people who give up children "to reduce their carbon footprint"; though no doubt you get some who do.

however, whatever you reason; it doesn't change the math.
Click to expand...

It's unavoidable. I'm assuming you discovered your partner was pregnant fairly early on. You can't possibly ask the child what they want. You MUST make a decision based on what YOU want. It is inherently selfish.

Expecting someone to take care of you is somewhat greater in scope than expecting decent manners. Especially since no one asked them if they'd like to deal with that expectation in the first place.

The math is not that catastrophic in the long run. And a lot of people would argue it's a good thing.
 
MistressNomad said:
That is very clear double-speak.
Click to expand...

Six post later...

MistressNomad said:
Having kids is a completely selfish decision. So is not having them.
Click to expand...




ANYWAYS:

5919295313_822f8c1801.jpg
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
My mum says I was a cute baby. :(
Click to expand...

I know you were.

The funny thing about all these "Awwwww!" pictures? Babies don't stay babies. It's like the girls in high school, right? "I want a baby!!" "It'll love me!" "They're so cute!" Yeah, get a dog. They don't stay babies. They don't stay cute. They are a HUGE money sink, time sink, and every other sink you can think of. MOST of us choose to go through it anyway. More than a few of those who chose to, should not have. And those who choose not to should just be left the **** alone. It is NONE of your business.
 
BDBoop said:
I know you were.

The funny thing about all these "Awwwww!" pictures? Babies don't stay babies. It's like the girls in high school, right? "I want a baby!!" "It'll love me!" "They're so cute!" Yeah, get a dog. They don't stay babies. They don't stay cute. They are a HUGE money sink, time sink, and every other sink you can think of. MOST of us choose to go through it anyway. More than a few of those who chose to, should not have. And those who choose not to should just be left the **** alone. It is NONE of your business.
Click to expand...

I almost get the blatant hostility here...but not quite. You're sitting here basically lecturing people about why they shouldn't have kids...then jumping and defending those who choose not to by saying it's none of the opposition's business. It's nobody's business either way what somebody chooses, whether it's a choice to have kids, or not. This thread got seriously friggin' hostile because two sides refused to agree to disagree. So some of us posted cute baby pictures to distill some of the hostilities. I don't think anybody said babies stay cute forever, or were trying to refute anybody's argument by posting babies. It was good natured, silly way of getting away from the hostility. Apparently it failed though, because you made sure to bring it right on back.
 
BDBoop said:
I know you were.

The funny thing about all these "Awwwww!" pictures? Babies don't stay babies. It's like the girls in high school, right? "I want a baby!!" "It'll love me!" "They're so cute!" Yeah, get a dog. They don't stay babies. They don't stay cute. They are a HUGE money sink, time sink, and every other sink you can think of. MOST of us choose to go through it anyway. More than a few of those who chose to, should not have. And those who choose not to should just be left the **** alone. It is NONE of your business.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows the kids that grew up and either grew up and totally took advantage of their parents, ended up hating their parents (and probably took advantage of them), or some other tragedy story as well. As many kids that grow up to be wonderful people, nice, normal and loving people on their own, there are those life story's which are ugly, nasty and tragic all on their own. It's a crap shoot, even if you do the best you can. Everyone has their own reasons which should be respected.
 
MistressNomad said:
Yes, they do. Like saying the childfree are in "denial." It really does stink.
Click to expand...

And just to be clear once more: I never said that. So your earlier hostility was misplaced.

MistressNomad said:
Yeah, but you went into it with the expectation of getting something in return. That is selfish. It's good that at least you're attempting to earn it, but the expectation is still very selfish.

There are a lot of people who decide to be childfree for environmental reasons. Not having kids is the single biggest way you can reign in your carbon footprint. Or genetic reasons. Perhaps they have something they don't want to pass on. Or simply the knowledge that they wouldn't make good parents.

You're making the automatic assumption that all reproduction is automatically good for society. It isn't. This is shown in your own ethos by the contempt you have for people on public assistance.
Click to expand...

I agree such an assumption is incorrect. People with certain genetic diseases, for example, shouldn't breed for the good of society. The problem with that is where to draw the line. But the carbon footprint argument is largely unsupported.
 
evanescence said:
And just to be clear once more: I never said that. So your earlier hostility was misplaced.
Click to expand...

Right.

evanescence said:
It could be a denial that you truly do not lack those needs, but rather don't realize you have them yet. I'm not saying this is true in your case, but it was in mine. I've made all of the same arguments you've made in this forum on this particular subject. And yet after an unexpected pregnancy, I felt different. Most people in your position likely do change on that subject. But really, how do I know what he meant?
Click to expand...

Saying "it may not be true in your case, but since it happened to me, blah blah blah" is basically like saying, "I'm not saying YOU'RE a selfish evil baby-hater, I'm just saying you people usually are." It's very passive-aggressive and it's obvious what you're really saying.

You DID actually say it. Could you please simply admit that? Maybe rescinding it would be a good idea?

I agree such an assumption is incorrect. People with certain genetic diseases, for example, shouldn't breed for the good of society. The problem with that is where to draw the line. But the carbon footprint argument is largely unsupported.
Click to expand...

The line's easy. Whatever that individual decides. :shrug:

The carbon footprint is extremely supported, for once very obvious reason. Creating another person creates a whole new human with a carbon footprint. That should be a no-brainer. Whether you think that can be mitigated is another argument. But it is beyond contest that making more people makes more carbon footprints.
 
This thread is great. Especially if you picture all of the arguing posters throwing tantrums like babies. Or better yet, throwing babies at each other.

:popcorn2:
 
evanescence said:
I agree such an assumption is incorrect. People with certain genetic diseases, for example, shouldn't breed for the good of society. The problem with that is where to draw the line. But the carbon footprint argument is largely unsupported.
Click to expand...

I don't think the government should have any say on who shouldn't breed because of genetic diseases. That should be decided by on a personal basis.

While I say that, I do have to point out, however, that I think that people should be required to get a license before they are allowed to raise a child.
 
MistressNomad said:
Right.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is right. I gave no reason to believe otherwise. Supposition is all you have.


MistressNomad said:
Saying "it may not be true in your case, but since it happened to me, blah blah blah" is basically like saying, "I'm not saying YOU'RE a selfish evil baby-hater, I'm just saying you people usually are." It's very passive-aggressive and it's obvious what you're really saying.
Click to expand...

Your poor attempts of psychologically analyzing me is becoming annoying. I meant exactly what I said.

MistressNomad said:
You DID actually say it. Could you please simply admit that? Maybe rescinding it would be a good idea?
Click to expand...

I said no such thing. Red herrings are in season in this thread.


MistressNomad said:
The line's easy. Whatever that individual decides. :shrug:

The carbon footprint is extremely supported, for once very obvious reason. Creating another person creates a whole new human with a carbon footprint. That should be a no-brainer. Whether you think that can be mitigated is another argument. But it is beyond contest that making more people makes more carbon footprints.
Click to expand...

I've got news for you: Most people who have kids don't produce even half of the carbon footprint that you will produce in your childless life time. You do realize that most people don't live in first world nations, I assume?
 
I want the two daughters that I have now but I do not want any more... thanks.
 
samsmart said:
I don't think the government should have any say on who shouldn't breed because of genetic diseases. That should be decided by on a personal basis.

While I say that, I do have to point out, however, that I think that people should be required to get a license before they are allowed to raise a child.
Click to expand...

And yet they should have to get a license from the government?
 
evanescence said:
I've got news for you: Most people who have kids don't produce even half of the carbon footprint that you will produce in your childless life time. You do realize that most people don't live in first world nations, I assume?
Click to expand...

Quoted for emphasis... :)
 
evanescence said:
Yes, it is right. I gave no reason to believe otherwise. Supposition is all you have.


Your poor attempts of psychologically analyzing me is becoming annoying. I meant exactly what I said.

I said no such thing. Red herrings are in season in this thread.
Click to expand...

I quoted you saying it. And what you SAID requires no psychoanalyzing. It is clear that your opinion is that the childfree are just in denial of their "needs."

I've got news for you: Most people who have kids don't produce even half of the carbon footprint that you will produce in your childless life time. You do realize that most people don't live in first world nations, I assume?
Click to expand...

Really? Prefer to back that up? Do you seriously mean to tell me that producing more people has hardly any affect on the environment? And how, exactly, is it that I would produce a greater footprint? I'd love to see you make that case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom