• 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!

All Things Being Equal

People who produce life contribute more to society than those who don't

  • True

    Votes: 13 24.1%
  • False

    Votes: 29 53.7%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 3 5.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 16.7%

  • Total voters
    54

BDBoop

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
9,800
Reaction score
2,719
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
"all other things being equal, those who have produced and raised children have given more value to society than those who have not."
 
Children are a boon to our society. I only voted other because the value does not come from "producing life" but from raising good members of society.

I am unable to become anyone's biological father, but I think that in raising my kids, I am doing far more than anybody does simply by ****ing.
 
I voted true because mostly it is true. Saying that most people don't become productive members of society and many more actually are very successful is dishonest. You of course do have a small percentage that is going to be a dud but if you quit shooting off fireworks because one of them doesn't shoot off, or you see someone elses fireworks didn't fire off how are you going to really take chances at anything else in life?
 
"all other things being equal, those who have produced and raised children have given more value to society than those who have not."

Children have to be raised in specific ways to be of value to society, and people without children can compensate for their lack with other achievements.
 
"all other things being equal, those who have produced and raised children have given more value to society than those who have not."

It depends on what kind of children are being raised.

However, I think the premise of "all other things being equal" is fallacious to begin with. A person who doesn't spend time raising kids will have more time to contribute to society in other ways.
 
In this crowded world, isn't the opposite true? :lol:

OK, how about mother Teresa? Did she benefit society less than a construction worker with 3 kids?
 
"all other things being equal, those who have produced and raised children have given more value to society than those who have not."

Maybe, maybe not. Depends how those children were raised, in what context, and how many of them there are.
 
what if the children you produce become mass-murderers?

Why is it that liberal types focus on the worst parts directly first? What you should be asking yourself is, how can I make a difference in my child's life and how can they make a difference in someone's life in the future?
 
Why is it that liberal types focus on the worst parts directly first? What you should be asking yourself is, how can I make a difference in my child's life and how can they make a difference in someone's life in the future?

you totally avoided the question.
 
you totally avoided the question.

Anyone has the capacity to be a murderer I guess? That is why you raise your child with love, care, and instill good values in them. From there your child could be the next Bill Gates or they could be the next Charles Manson. However, in most peoples cases and statistically speaking, it is far more likely you will create a person that becomes a productive part of society rather than not.
 
The saying... Any man can be a father, it takes a special man to be a Dad.... comes to mind. Anyone can produce children (as long as they are physically able to do so) ... raising them is a totally different thing. I dont think you have to have children to better society. In fact there are some out there who I would say are doing society a severe dis-service by the children they are raising. I also think that there are those who have no children but produce for society in other ways that are just as important.
 
Anyone has the capacity to be a murderer I guess? That is why you raise your child with love, care, and instill good values in them. From there your child could be the next Bill Gates or they could be the next Charles Manson. However, in most peoples cases and statistically speaking, it is far more likely you will create a person that becomes a productive part of society rather than not.

I regret to inform you (again, probably) it's not so simple. There are too many parents out there who treated all their children equally and well, and one turned out to be a psychopath or some other form of unique and unusual.
 
I voted false because if all things are equal in a negative way (i.e. take two people that are both criminals who would raise their children to be criminals) the one who does not procreate (for whatever reason) actually helps society more by not having children than the one who would have children to raise them as criminals.
 
"all other things being equal, those who have produced and raised children have given more value to society than those who have not."

I don't see a society as more valuable if it has 3 hundred million and one people rather than 3 hundred million.
 
All other things are never equal.

In addition, since we by no means are in need of population expansion, we would truly be better served by many people (especially those with weaker genetics) choosing* not to have children. Remember Idiocracy? That was the result of people having lots of kids and not doing so much else. Reproduction is not inherently valuable in a society with a stable population.

*Choosing, meaning I am not advocating eugenics.
 
"all other things being equal, those who have produced and raised children have given more value to society than those who have not."

It entirely depends on what kind of people those children become. Many will be an asset to society, but the number of people who turn out to be a liability is too great for the OP statement to be anything but false.
 
This is kind of "chicken or the egg" argument. You can't benefit society unless somebody births you. Mother Theresa's parents could have decided against children and the good never would have been done by her.
 
Since this is a tongue-in-cheek fantasy type question, I'll go with supporting some 50%-60% of the population being sterilized before breeding age, and 90% of the rest being taxed extra instead of given tax deductions for having children, say, about 10 times the current personal deduction on the tax forms.

The 10%ers already do much more for society than the 90%ers, so they should be tax exempt.
 
Last edited:
Ask CPWill and John Wollin. I'm in disagreement. Of course.

Boop Im gonna get real with you. Wtf are you going on about. What is your end game? I KNOW you have kids. Are you trying to tell me that if you had to make a powerpoint presentation about your life that having children would not be a bulletpoint? I call bull****. You need to quit getting so defensive about stuff that you just make threads about the one thing you are so defensive about. I like you, and I think you are fan-****ing-tastic however enough is enough. My point still remains yeah there are quite a few ****ty parents but in my experience at least for every ****ty parent there are three fantastic ones, and statistically children and people grow up to be a contributing member of society.
 
Boop Im gonna get real with you. Wtf are you going on about. What is your end game? I KNOW you have kids. Are you trying to tell me that if you had to make a powerpoint presentation about your life that having children would not be a bulletpoint? I call bull****. You need to quit getting so defensive about stuff that you just make threads about the one thing you are so defensive about. I like you, and I think you are fan-****ing-tastic however enough is enough. My point still remains yeah there are quite a few ****ty parents but in my experience at least for every ****ty parent there are three fantastic ones, and statistically children and people grow up to be a contributing member of society.

I have many, and when I say many I mean MANY friends who are childfree. My best friend being my prime example. She is an AMAZING woman, rendered no less amazing by the fact that she never gave birth.
 
I voted "other". I don't think providing more people is necessarily adding more value that someone who doesn't provide people. I know some people who never want to have children who add a lot of value to my life and have very positive impact on many people and their impact could have much more value for the human race than a couple children could have.

I suppose it depends on how you define "value". That's a very ambiguous word that could really be defined in any way.
 
I have many, and when I say many I mean MANY friends who are childfree. My best friend being my prime example. She is an AMAZING woman, rendered no less amazing by the fact that she never gave birth.

That is great and fantastic Boop, but are you saying having children is not a bullet point in your life? What are her "bullet points"?
 
Back
Top Bottom