SmokeAndMirrors
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 18,282
- Reaction score
- 16,154
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
And yet they should have to get a license from the government?
...Is this addressed to me as well?
And yet they should have to get a license from the government?
Kind of. I really can't imagine caring for a kid that wasn't my own as much as I do for the ones that are my own. I could probably care some, but I'd have to try. With my own, it is as natural as breathing air.
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.
It makes a good bit of sense, actually. People in developed countries tend to have smaller families compared to underdeveloped countries where the majority of people rely on subsistence farming. Large families in underdeveloped countires often life in areas and homes with no electricity whatsoever, and heat/cook by burning wood or animal dung rather than coal or fossil fuels.
The average Childless American lives in a well lit, and well heated/cooled house/apartement while driving his/her very own gas guzzler on a daily basis. :shrug: One Average American has a larger carbon footprint than an entire Nepalese village.
And yet they should have to get a license from the government?
Yup.
In order to get a license to keep your child, a person will have to undergo classes in which they get educated in how to care for a child. They also get educated on the local, state, and federal programs available to them so they can take advantage of them.
But, if it makes you feel any better, I also think that mothers and fathers should get paid maternity and paternity leaves.
Yes, and families with children typically have multiple cars, and bigger living spaces. Those kids grow up to have their own living spaces and cars.
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."
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.
...Is this addressed to me as well?
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.
It makes a good bit of sense, actually. People in developed countries tend to have smaller families compared to underdeveloped countries where the majority of people rely on subsistence farming. Large families in underdeveloped countires often life in areas and homes with no electricity whatsoever, and heat/cook by burning wood or animal dung rather than coal or fossil fuels.
The average Childless American lives in a well lit, and well heated/cooled house/apartement while driving his/her very own gas guzzler on a daily basis. :shrug: One Average American has a larger carbon footprint than an entire Nepalese village.
Yes, and families with children typically have multiple cars, and bigger living spaces. Those kids grow up to have their own living spaces and cars.
I actually don't drive - I prefer to live in places where I don't need to - and I don't want a house. I have a very small footprint, really.
This isn't even a stance I personally advocate. It's just straight-up irrational to deny that creating people = creating a new carbon footprint.
I already got 6. Another one would probably push right on over the edge.
The government already offers classes and advice through many federal and state programs, these programs also give incentives for parents to use these services such as coupons, vouchers, DVDs, etc
Yes, and families with children typically have multiple cars, and bigger living spaces. Those kids grow up to have their own living spaces and cars.
I actually don't drive - I prefer to live in places where I don't need to - and I don't want a house. I have a very small footprint, really.
This isn't even a stance I personally advocate. It's just straight-up irrational to deny that creating people = creating a new carbon footprint.
The point is that your carbon footprint is bigger than a family of six living in rural India simply by living in the most carbon consuming country in the world. And in winter there in Minn. I am surethat you use a heater, take the bus or metro and eat in restaurants and get Starbucks coffee. I bet you use far more than you think...
Tell him you're covered by the Duggars. So are five other families.
The point continues to sail right over your head. No matter. To most of us, the point is obvious. You cannot simply make an all encompassing statement and simply ignore examples that do not fit your argument.
I can when it comes down to simply mathematics, and your response has nothing to do with the argument.
not at all. society needs more children. I am willing to take on the (considerable) trouble and cost of having and raising them. but the facts remain that children take care of aged parents - and in a demographic situation where we don't have several workers per retiree, the state cannot afford to step in and ensure the same level of care. So State benefits will be reduced for all retirees, and those who have children will be able to depend on them while those who do not (hopefully) have saved enough to make up the difference on their own. The problem being that now (because of the reduced work force compared to retiree numbers) we face a situation where there is a shortage of resources available to take care of retirees, which leads to a bidding war, so hopefully you saved more than your neighbor as well....
you take care of your parents when they age. my folks are taking care of my grandparents, who took care of my great grandparents first. I will take care of them when they get older, and my sons will take care of me and my wife one day - gently telling me I shouldn't drive any more, and should let them come over every other weekend to do the yard work; or that maybe the house is too much for us to take care of now, but they found this really great place that's close to them... and so on and so forth. that's the beauty of family - we take care of each other.
if you want to commit suicide at a given age that's your deal - but let's not try to push that as the only option for others, eh?
That lady's uterus is going to collapse sooner or later... I knew a crazy religious family like that, and the wive got to 19 or 20 kids and then her uterus collapsed. The mom had children born years after her grandchildren... and none of those kids stayed in with their church.
Some people do genuinely lack the instinct to reproduce as evidenced above. There's nothing wrong with that so long as those people don't live under the mistaken assumption that they are somehow more intelligent or productive than those who choose to have children.
I wonder; does anybody care that George Clooney didn't choose fatherhood? Or is it just the women that are judged?
...This is kinda why most people who self-identify as childfree are women. Men don't seem to get sharp end of this particular stick as often and they are treated more fairly in their health care, so they have less need for the label, generally speaking.
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?