• 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
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.

The least important part of a child is his bloodline.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I already got 6. Another one would probably push right on over the edge. ;)
 
When I saw the thing about the carbon footprint and made me laugh so much, I was able to fly my roflcopter all the way to roflworld for some rofl waffles.

Roflcopter.gif
 
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.
 
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.

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.

You missed the point. Almost entirely.
 
I quoted you saying it. And what you SAID requires no psychoanalyzing.

Bull patties. Now you're being dishonest as well as being lousy at psychoanalyzing.


It is clear that your opinion is that the childfree are just in denial of their "needs."

No. It's not. I clearly qualified my statement. I specifically mentioned that I wasn't applying my interpretation of someone else's post to you. Either you're being purposely obtuse in place of a reasonable argument; or you're clearly mistaken, and you need to reread this thread.




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.

Mac answered you're question already. Compare the amount of hydrocarbons the average person in a first world nation produces with a mother of six in a third world country. The average childless American could easily surpass that amount. You don't need to drive a car. Even your computer uses a surprising amount of energy. I suggest that YOU back up YOUR statement with facts. You made the assertion, YOU back it up-that's how a debate works.

...Is this addressed to me as well?

Obviously not. I was responding to samsmart's post:

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.

Which is why I quoted it.

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.

Now that is a no brainer.

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 bet you're sitting in an airconditioned room on your chair made from plastic and other petroleum by products.

I already got 6. Another one would probably push right on over the edge. ;)

Selfish bastard! Think of your carbon footprint! :lamo
 
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

Yeah, but I want to make those classes mandatory attendance for expecting parents, mothers and fathers both.
 
I quoted you saying it. Your passive-aggressiveness is obvious.

I wasn't talking about people in third world countries. You're simply dodging the argument. I was talking about people here. Are you seriously going to tell me a childfree person surpasses the carbon footprint of someone with kids in the developed world? Having two kids effectively doubles the carbon footprint of each parent, and lengthens it by around 40 years.

I'm actually not running AC at the moment and my chair is made of wood and fabric. But I bet you are, and I bet you have at least one car, and go through a lot more trash bags than I do.
 
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...
 
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...

That would be valid if I were talking about a family in India, but I'm not. You're simply dodging the argument. It is mind-numbingly obvious that someone with children uses more resources than someone without, in the same country.

Several of your assumptions are wrong. I do use public transit, but that's because I don't drive, which are far more wasteful than public transit. And in my city, we have hybrid buses.
 
Tell him you're covered by the Duggars. So are five other families.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?

I think you are assuming a lot... Let's just say I don't have kids, that doesn't mean I'll die old and alone. I have nieces that I am very close to, and if I didn't have children I'd leave everything to them. I am close to them, and I know they'd care for me.

Instead of arguing what the government can and can't do, you should look at from the POV of the individual, the person, because people are capable of doing the right thing in the absence of government... The government doesn't and cannot force anybody to show compassion to you when you are dying. The government just makes it more affordable.

The issue with the declining birth rate can be solved with immigration and making it easier for people to become citizens in this country. Stop ignoring that immigration is important and acting like American women need to be broodmares. You're freaking out over nothing, and, no offense, but a lot of racists use arguments like this because they are afraid of being a minority race and hate immigration. Not saying your racist, I just take the concern in your arguments as seriously as I think theirs.... which is not seriously at all.
 
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.

Oh. My. That's horrible. :(
 
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 agree with this... There is nothing worse than seeing somebody unfit to parent have a child. Some people are not meant to be parents at all.
 
I wonder; does anybody care that George Clooney didn't choose fatherhood? Or is it just the women that are judged?
 
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.
 
...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.

How so, "treated more fairly in their health care?"
 
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?

I think it's possible but at the same time, some people are not fit to parent and shouldn't. If a person realizes that, then that's great.. if not, then the results can be tragic.

I have seen people beg Children Services to get their kids back, meanwhile their kids are begging Children Services not to go back. For some reason, it seems like they have that instinct to see their children and parent, even though they are terrible at it, neglectful, put the child in danger and can't adequately provide for the child. It's really selfish.

I also have a friend, and her daughter is by a dead beat dad... but every now and then he tries to reach her to see his daughter. She doesn't even call him dad, but he'll try to contact her around the holidays or his birthdays. I don't know... I don't understand it. I guess it's just selfishness.

Point is, some people aren't fit to parent and don't know it. When they do know it, bravo. I have seeing kids mistreated.
 
Back
Top Bottom