• 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
I am childless because I am disabled and mentlaly ill to the point where it would not be good fo rthe hcild if I raised them (at leas tnot at this point, I'm 27). While my mental illness and disabilities could make me iferior by some people's standards, given the circustances as they are, being childless in my case is in everyone's best interest..

I think you are very sensible and responsible. It has nothing to do with selfishness childless couples, which can have healthy children, but do not want to.
 
I think you are very sensible and responsible. It has nothing to do with selfishness childless couples, which can have healthy children, but do not want to.

Just because someone isn't validating you doesn't make them "selfish." You are not entitled to it.
 
Um, hell no. In a lot of ways they are SUPERIOR. They have more time to be who they want to be without the restrictions of children. Thus, bettering themselves and the world around them.
 
Just because someone isn't validating you doesn't make them "selfish." You are not entitled to it.
Childless people do not have to participate in the electoral process. Refusing to have children, they refuse future. So they do not care what will happen to the country and to civilization. They stopped the series of rebirths, because we are, our ancestors and our descendants, it's us.
 
Childless people do not have to participate in the electoral process. Refusing to have children, they refuse future. So they do not care what will happen to the country and to civilization. They stopped the series of rebirths, because we are, our ancestors and our descendants, it's us.

Do you seriously believe there is nothing that contributes to society except breeding? I take it from all your ranting about god that you're Christian. Your savior supposedly didn't breed.

What a sad point of view; to see no purpose to your own mind or talents whatsoever.
 
Why do I care whether they did that or not? If they hadn't, I simply wouldn't exist, and

Why? How is it "selfish" to choose NOT to bring someone into being without their consent? I don't get this.


That's okay, because I don't think you would ever understand unless you brought a child into the world.

For me being a parent means giving and loving unconditionally. It means being the best I can be for someone else other than me.
 
Childless people do not have to participate in the electoral process.

There are a number of people who remained childless which impacted the country.
 
Last edited:
That's okay, because I don't think you would ever understand unless you brought a child into the world.

For me being a parent means giving and loving unconditionally. It means being the best I can be for someone else other than me.

I'm sorry, but claiming it is possible to "unselfishly" make someone exist without their input is a logical impossibility.

Good for you. Do you think other people don't do this for someone besides children?
 
Do you seriously believe there is nothing that contributes to society except breeding? I take it from all your ranting about god that you're Christian. Your savior supposedly didn't breed.

What a sad point of view; to see no purpose to your own mind or talents whatsoever.

No, I'm certainly not a Christian. I am not a Jew and not a Muslim. I do not even Buddhist and not Shinto. But I believe in intelligent creation of the universe and that we did not just come here. That we have reason to be here. At least in order to pass on our gene pool, until come to light one, who can use it efficiently.
 
No, I'm certainly not a Christian. I am not a Jew and not a Muslim. I do not even Buddhist and not Shinto. But I believe in intelligent creation of the universe and that we did not just come here. That we have reason to be here. At least in order to pass on our gene pool, until come to light one, who can use it efficiently.

Ok. That makes no sense, but good for you. You still haven't explained to me why nothing is a meaningful contribution except reproduction. But I'd bet dollars to donuts your life wouldn't be comfy enough for you to have spent the time cobbling together whatever it is you believe had it not been for the non-reproductive contributions of people, some of whom never reproduced at all.
 
No, **** that. Some people feel like they don't need children to be happy in their lives. Doesn't mean they are contributing anything less to society if they wish to put their energy into pursuits other than raising a child.
 
I'm sorry, but claiming it is possible to "unselfishly" make someone exist without their input is a logical impossibility.

Good for you. Do you think other people don't do this for someone besides children?

If you mean do I think people have children in all situations for higher reasons? No, of course not, that is not what I said.

Procreation is a natural event that serves a natural purpose. Yet even in nature, the idea of "nurture" is clearly how most animals are programmed.

My comment about having children was a personal observation that applied to me, however I don't believe you can understand my point of view unless you have had children.

I have a younger brother who loved his dog like it was kid--- so he believed. He and his wife would even claim that their dog was their "baby" and that the dog brought so much joy to him and his wife. They even let the dog sleep on their bed. Then one day I made him a bet that after he had his fist child he would never look at the dog again the same way. In fact I told him that if his child fell down and was hurt he would probably step on the dog trying to get to the kid. My brother only responded with you have no idea of how I feel. Yep, and he had no idea of what I already knew--- at least not until after he and his wife had their kid.

... After the baby was born I noticed that the dog slept in the garage.
 
If you mean do I think people have children in all situations for higher reasons? No, of course not, that is not what I said.

Procreation is a natural event that serves a natural purpose. Yet even in nature, the idea of "nurture" is clearly how most animals are programmed.

My comment about having children was a personal observation that applied to me, however I don't believe you can understand my point of view unless you have had children.

I have a younger brother who loved his dog like it was kid--- so he believed. He and his wife would even claim that their dog was their "baby" and that the dog brought so much joy to him and his wife. They even let the dog sleep on their bed. Then one day I made him a bet that after he had his fist child he would never look at the dog again the same way. In fact I told him that if his child fell down and was hurt he would probably step on the dog trying to get to the kid. My brother only responded with you have no idea of how I feel. Yep, and he had no idea of what I already knew--- at least not until after he and his wife had their kid.

... After the baby was born I noticed that the dog slept in the garage.

That is heartbreaking, and in my opinion, a sign of stunted empathetic development.

I was born into a household with multiple animals. You know how I learned how to treat them? Whatever I did to them got done to me. My mother would have pitched a fit if I had hurt the dog, or if anyone had suggested he sleep in a garage. Same for my father and his cat.

Anyway, I see no evidence parental love is somehow "superior." Parents drop their children off at adoption agencies by the millions. Parents abandon their children for the stupidest reasons -- political beliefs, their sexuality, etc. It is quite clear some parents love their children very little, and even for those of whom that isn't true, they often have something that can break that tie.

On the other hand, there are people willing to die even for strangers simply for the damn principle of the thing, and for love of humanity. Some of the best romantic work of the Renaissance was written about close friendships. Steely romantic relationships have persisted through things most parent-child relationships probably wouldn't survive. And back to animals, it's not unheard of for people to report a bigger sense of loss from losing their pets than from losing their parents or other relatives.

The strength of ones own personal love means nothing about love in general; all our experiences are personal. What baseless narcissism for you to believe your love is superior, when you can't even find it in you to maintain love of a dependent creature who loves you.

And for my part, I have a good enough sense of empathy that I don't need to demote other loves just because a new shiny one comes along.
 
That is heartbreaking, and in my opinion, a sign of stunted empathetic development.

I was born into a household with multiple animals. You know how I learned how to treat them? Whatever I did to them got done to me. My mother would have pitched a fit if I had hurt the dog, or if anyone had suggested he sleep in a garage. Same for my father and his cat.

My dogs are never allowed in the house and still they are well cared for. The only animals inside my house are called dinner.

...Well, I should day that I do let one dog sleep in a bathroom once a year on the fourth of July because she is really disturbed by all of the fireworks, so I wonder if proves I have at least some "empathetic development"? But then the bathroom has to be sanitized, so not too sure if the dog has any empathy for the extra work that is this for me?

Anyway, I see no evidence parental love is somehow "superior." Parents drop their children off at adoption agencies by the millions. Parents abandon their children for the stupidest reasons -- political beliefs, their sexuality, etc. It is quite clear some parents love their children very little, and even for those of whom that isn't true, they often have something that can break that tie.

On the other hand, there are people willing to die even for strangers simply for the damn principle of the thing, and for love of humanity. Some of the best romantic work of the Renaissance was written about close friendships. Steely romantic relationships have persisted through things most parent-child relationships probably wouldn't survive. And back to animals, it's not unheard of for people to report a bigger sense of loss from losing their pets than from losing their parents or other relatives.

The strength of ones own personal love means nothing about love in general; all our experiences are personal. What baseless narcissism for you to believe your love is superior, when you can't even find it in you to maintain love of a dependent creature who loves you.

And for my part, I have a good enough sense of empathy that I don't need to demote other loves just because a new shiny one comes along.

So basically you believe that your love for your dog is equal to my love for my child?

Okay this:

Your dog, you, myself, and my child are adrift in a lifeboat. After a week at sea I kill your dog for food to feed to my starving child even under your protests. After we are rescued you accuse me of murdering your dog, but no court in the world will hear your case. At the very most I owe you an amount of money equal to the value of your dog.

Now same situation but this time you try to kill my child to feed to your starving dog and in the process I kill you to protect my child. There is no court on the planet that would call me a murderer for protecting my child.


So my question is:

Which love is justified and which one isn't?
 
Last edited:
My dogs are never allowed in the house and still they are well cared for. The only animals inside my house are called dinner.

...Well, I should day that I do let one dog sleep in a bathroom once a year on the fourth of July because she is really disturbed by all of the fireworks, so I wonder if proves I have at least some "empathetic development"? But then the bathroom has to be sanitized, so not that dog has any empathy for the extra work that is for me?

So basically you believe that your love for your dog is equal to my love for my child?

Okay this:

Your dog, you, myself, and my child are adrift in a lifeboat. After a week at sea I kill your dog for food to feed to my starving child even under your protests. After we are rescued you accuse me of murdering your dog, but no court in the world will hear your case. At the very most I owe you an amount of money equal to the value of your dog.

Now same situation but this time you try to kill my child to feed to your starving dog and in the process I kill you to protect my child. There is no court on the planet that would call me murderer for protecting my child.


So my question is:

Which love is justified and which one isn't?

Yes, I do think that's rather sad. Like people, physical condition is not the only measure of care.

I have a cat, actually. And my personal experience of love is that no two are alike, and that I have for animals is very different in nature. What "category" a love falls into (romantic, platonic, familial, etc) doesn't seem to have any impact on how strong it will be, for me. My top three loves all come from different "categories."

My point is that I don't see any evidence that parental love is "superior." There are a great many parents who don't seem to love their children very much, if at all.

What courts would do proves nothing except one society's take on animals. In India, there was a time when killing a cow could be punished by having your hands cut off. In Janism, even the killing of insects is quite serious.

"Justified"? If you believe love needs to be "justified," then you don't understand the concept well enough for us to be having this conversation.
 
So basically you believe that your love for your dog is equal to my love for my child?

In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, while there were people suffering in the Superdome and roaming in the debris of New Orleans and not yet evacuated, fanatic animal lovers rented a bus and sent it into New Orleans, not to take survivors out of the hell zone, but to rescue dogs and get them out. Some people are really screwed up.
 
In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, while there were people suffering in the Superdome and roaming in the debris of New Orleans and not yet evacuated, fanatic animal lovers rented a bus and sent it into New Orleans, not to take survivors out of the hell zone, but to rescue dogs and get them out. Some people are really screwed up.

Yep, even Charles Manson loved animals more than people. Another guy too, but I don't want to break Godwin's law.
 
Yep, even Charles Manson loved animals more than people. Another guy too, but I don't want to break Godwin's law.

From the Los Angeles Times, Sept 1. 2005:

920
 
My point is that I don't see any evidence that parental love is "superior." There are a great many parents who don't seem to love their children very much, if at all.

Are you able to comment on the great many of parents who do love their children? Parents who make great sacrifices for their children from every nation and every walk of life? You like to speak of "evidence" all of the time, are you claiming that you have never observed parents loving their children? Are you sure you are taking a large enough test sample for the conclusion which you have reached?


What courts would do proves nothing except one society's take on animals. In India, there was a time when killing a cow could be punished by having your hands cut off.

There was also a time in India not too long ago where it was acceptable to set your wife on fire if you wanted to be done with her.

In Janism, even the killing of insects is quite serious.

And of course in Janism they are leading the rest of the world in a cure for cancer and feeding starving people.

"Justified"? If you believe love needs to be "justified," then you don't understand the concept well enough for us to be having this conversation.

You missed the point. Pragmatism was the justifier used in my illustration which allowed me to eat the dog. It was also the justifier that permitted me to kill the person attempting to eat my child. Locke called this a natural right.
 
Are you able to comment on the great many of parents who do love their children? Parents who make great sacrifices for their children from every nation and every walk of life? You like to speak of "evidence" all of the time, are you claiming that you have never observed parents loving their children? Are you sure you are taking a large enough test sample for the conclusion which you have reached?

There was also a time in India not too long ago where it was acceptable to set your wife on fire if you wanted to be done with her.

And of course in Janism they are leading the rest of the world in a cure for cancer and feeding starving people.

You missed the point. Pragmatism was the justifier used in my illustration which allowed me to eat the dog. It was also the justifier that permitted me to kill the person attempting to eat my child. Locke called this a natural right.

There are people who do all the same things for people who aren't their children.

I haven't reached any conclusion except that I don't see how parental love is superior. I see all the same range in parental love that I do in every other kind of love.

And America hung black people for looking at whites funny not all that long ago. What's your point?

You know who else isn't leading in a cure for cancer and feeding starving people? People who believe reproduction is the the only important contribution to society.

The right of self defense to applies to anything, whether it is human, another animal, or inanimate. As far as which love is worth "more," that is not subject to pragmatism. That is a subjective judgment. And in your case, a judgment you've made to give yourself a false sense of superiority, despite showing an obvious empathetic deficit, simply for doing the same thing that any animal with gonads can do.
 
I haven't reached any conclusion except that I don't see how parental love is superior. I see all the same range in parental love that I do in every other kind of love.

I saw a documentary on Japanese men who collect lifelike female dolls, some of them even admitted that they loved their dolls the same as other men love real women. Based on your wide ranging spectrum of "every other kind of love" would you say that the "love" these men feel for their dolls is equal to what your love for your cat is?
 
I saw a documentary on Japanese men who collect lifelike female dolls, some of them even admitted that they loved their dolls the same as other men love real women. Based on your wide ranging spectrum of "every other kind of love" would you say that the "love" these men feel for their dolls is equal to what your love for your cat is?

I don't know. After all, what compels people to die simply for principles for love of humanity itself? Principles don't have any physical form at all.

I would argue it isn't healthy, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. Love isn't always healthy.

There is nuance in the world. You seem to not notice that.
 
Last edited:
I don't know. After all, what compels people to die simply for principles for love of humanity itself? Principles don't have any physical form at all.

I would argue it isn't healthy, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. Love isn't always healthy.

There is nuance in the world. You seem to not notice that.

You don't know? Is that your final answer to the question of whether a man's self described love for an inanimate object is equal to love you described for your pet cat? I suppose then you don't know if my love for my children is more important than this man's love for his sex doll? Which I guess means that if crazy sex doll guy's house is on fire and your house is on fire right next door, and he only has time to save his sex doll and not your cat or even someone else's child... I guess that is okay with you?

Really, is that your final answer? Or is there too much nuance in letting a living human die to save a doll?
 
You don't know? Is that your final answer to the question of whether a man's self described love for an inanimate object is equal to love you described for your pet cat? I suppose then you don't know if my love for my children is more important than this man's love for his sex doll? Which I guess means that if crazy sex doll guy's house is on fire and your house is on fire right next door, and he only has time to save his sex doll and not your cat or even someone else's child... I guess that is okay with you?

Really, is that your final answer? Or is there too much nuance in letting a living human die to save a doll?

I'm not in their head. :shrug:

Love is feeling, dude. People can feel things towards anything or anyone. Of far more consequence is what they do with it.

Would it be different if it was his actual live girlfriend versus my cat or another person I love? I'd still not be happy about the fact that my loved one wasn't saved. Who took their spot on the lifeboat, so to speak, or even if no one did, wouldn't make any difference.

Let's think about something else. Let's say you have some rare antique artifact. People have such things, and often they say they love them. They spend hours, perhaps daily, maintaining or restoring them. Their sense of loss if they are stolen or destroyed is quite real -- perhaps even mournful.

We regard that as, well, a little reclusive, but not as absurd as loving a sex doll. Why not? Does it make any difference? No. We're just really weird about sex, that's all. That's why you chose that example, for the pearl-clutching effect it has on people like you, which you wrongly assumed I am.

Like I said, I don't think replacing live beings with inanimate objects is healthy -- be they sex dolls or antique artifacts -- and psychology agrees with me. We're social creatures and we need social contact. However, that says nothing about the realness of their feelings.

Feelings are just feelings.

You're the one who keeps attempting to use your subjective feelings to put people and other creatures into some kind of hierarchy of worth and declaring everyone else's feelings but yours invalid.

I don't happen to think subjective feelings are a good enough barometer to judge worth to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom