• 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
earthworm said:
IMO, those who adopt are "superior", BUT, we cannot overdo this inferior/superior thing...Best to be slightly judgmental..
Click to expand...

Damn straight we're superior...all of my savings and then some, but I wouldn't give them up for anything.
 
Canell said:
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:
Click to expand...
Oh gosh. I just consider a couple for what I observe about how well they are making things work for them. For me it's not how they meet my standards. I wonder what kind of people have standards for other couples?
 
Gaius46 said:
I thought all tubals were potentially reversible but that success rate varied with type of tubal. At that's what the doc told my wife after she had hers - which was after we had two children. At any rate there's in vitro should you change your mind - which is quite possible, a lot of what I believed and cared about at 23 was discarded in the ensuing 30 years.

On the original question of course they aren't inferior.
Click to expand...

They are *potentially,* in the same way that a tattoo is *potentially* fully removable, if you have JUST the right skin tone, EXACTLY the right colors in the ink, and the artist laid it in JUST right. However, you shouldn't bank on it. Most likely, you'll have a hard time getting it all out. And most likely, you'll have a hard time reversing a tubal -- especially the type I had. And that's exactly why I got it.

I don't know why I would torture my ovary just so I could conceive a child who has a high risk of a million different birth defects. If I ever suffer from a total personality change after some kind of head injury and decide I'd like to parent, I would adopt one of the millions of unwanted children who already exist. Or just, ya know, get a cat.

But I find that to be a profoundly unlikely scenario.

Not wanting to parent isn't a "belief." It is something about my personality, like the fact that I am introverted, or the fact that I am artistic. It is something I knew about myself very early in my life -- even before I understood that reproducing is actually optional. And you know absolutely nothing about me.
 
wolfie said:
We pump billions of pounds into Africa etc..nothing changes..we are still faced with dying and sick children..as a taxpayer here..I would like a breakdown of where these billions of pounds have gone..War lords??..Greasing the palms of big businessmen??

To be sure..Female contraception is the last thing on the list..

African men have a code..If it is willing (or not) screw it..

Africa is rife with AIDS..and it's children..
Click to expand...

You're assuming I think throwing money at it is the best way to solve problems. I don't. I think it actually makes their economies weaker in the long run.

Contraception is not the last thing on the list. It is tied for first place with breaking down the rape culture.

People who cannot protect their bodies cannot improve their circumstances.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: all things being equal they contribute less to society. "inferior" would be a word that would require qualifications, however.
Click to expand...

How do they contribute less to society? Have some stats for us on that? What is important to society?
 
earthworm said:
IMO, those who adopt are "superior", BUT, we cannot overdo this inferior/superior thing...Best to be slightly judgmental..
Click to expand...

Viktyr Gehrig said:
Absolutely not. In some ways, they are performing more of a public service than people who reproduce.
Click to expand...

I hesitate to use the term "superior," but I certainly think people who adopt are probably performing the most impactful service, in terms of the issue.
 
While I personally think they are missing out on something beautiful and meaningful, it is their choice and not really my business.
 
This gives me a great idea for a Sci-Fi novel where a gigantic meteor laden with tons of radium dust struck earth and the winds from the radium dust covered the earth sterilizing all humans.

With no new babies the current children would be the remaining inhabitants. Slowly as generations died off the remaining inhabitants would watch their numbers slowly dwindle.

Sure this is all a BS story but an interesting picture though.
 
Seems absurd.

Not everyone is cut out to be a parent, at least not a proper one. Furthermore, it's a personal thing to bring a new life into this world and shouldn't be the result of peer pressure.
 
Canell said:
In traditional societies, the answer is "hell yes". Spinsters and childless women were ridiculed, for example. ;)
Click to expand...

But monks and nuns are respected and subsidized. Go figure.
 
Muddy Creek said:
How do they contribute less to society?
Click to expand...

They are not taking on the burden and cost of seeing that it continues, as child-rearing couples are.

Have some stats for us on that?
Click to expand...

An indirect one that is in the news quite alot lately - Medicare and Social Security are facing collapse. This is because we fund these programs by having future generations pay for current ones... yet the Baby Boomers failed to produce children in significant enough numbers to sustain their benefits. If the Boomers had had the same fertility rate as their parents, these programs would be fine.

What is important to society?
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, survival.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No, we're just more free. Why would someone be inferior for making a life choice that makes them happy?

And what the hell is a moral obligation to society? I owe society kids? Seriously?
Click to expand...

This is a rather new switch.


For most of mankinds' history, children were net-beneficial to the parents. Children performed free labor on the farm, and served as old-age security. Now, we have socialized old-age security, and the vast majority of our professions are not those that lend themselves (and would indeed be criminal to impose) to child labor. So, Child-Rearing has become a strong-net-burden for parents, imposing high cost for largely emotional return.

However, yes, society does require children, and requires them to meet minimum numbers, or else society shall face financial collapse (thanks to that socialization of old-age security) and slow death. A society with fewer children today will be a poorer less vibrant society tomorrow.

Child-Rearing now has the incentive structure of a Tragedy of the Commons. A Public Good (citizens) that is paid for through Private Expenditure (parents) creates, like pollution, defense, security, incentives for everyone to seek to cheat their neighbor.
 
Cyrylek said:
But monks and nuns are respected and subsidized. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Monks and nuns choose a life of selfless service. Parents choose a life of self-imposed austerity in order to support the life of another.

The choice to live a life of service to others, in the form of parenthood, religious vocations, etc. is certainly superior to a life of selfish endeavor.
 
ChuckBerry said:
Monks and nuns choose a life of selfless service. Parents choose a life of self-imposed austerity in order to support the life of another.

The choice to live a life of service to others, in the form of parenthood, religious vocations, etc. is certainly superior to a life of selfish endeavor.
Click to expand...

It is debatable whether a cloistered monk translating some hagiography from Greek to Latin is doing "selfless service". Personally, I have very mixed feelings about the swarms of young, strong Buddhist monks in some modern Asian countries who spend their days praying and meditating - and living off the food donations from dirt-poor peasants.

On the other hand, a childless couple can be working and contributing way above their call of duty or monetary compensation. True, many people choose to stay childless to pursue their carriers - but it is not necessarily "a selfish endeavor".
 
Cyrylek said:
It is debatable whether a cloistered monk translating some hagiography from Greek to Latin is doing "selfless service".
Click to expand...

They are serving the community of monks rather than attempting to enrich themselves in secular life.

True, many people choose to stay childless to pursue their carriers - but it is not necessarily "a selfish endeavor".
Click to expand...

Here is where intent comes in to play. If your intent is to enrich yourself, from a moral standpoint you have done no good, regardless of the positive side effects. That's why family men are not automatically morally superior, which is why to the question of whether childless couples are inferior, I chose "other".

This may be a good test question: where does your first dollar earned go? To yourself, or to your family? By that I mean, are you working primarily to support your family or social cause, or to support your own personal lifestyle?
 
ChuckBerry said:
If your intent is to enrich yourself, from a moral standpoint you have done no good, regardless of the positive side effects.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. First, "the positive side effects" is what actually makes a given society livable, for me and all others. The "moral standpoint" should take actual consequences of our actions into consideration, should it not?

And then, "enriching myself" is not some kind of end-goal. I am not going to eat my money - or take it with me, when I go. We want to enrich ourselves in order to be able to do stuff: for some, it will be mindless pursuit of pleasures, for some "making real difference", for most - a mix of both.

ChuckBerry said:
This may be a good test question: where does your first dollar earned go? To yourself, or to your family? By that I mean, are you working primarily to support your family or social cause, or to support your own personal lifestyle?
Click to expand...

But I think it is a false dichotomy. Buying books and tools is as much a "personal lifestyle" as buying boose and trinkets. Donating to the Salvation Army is no more "selfless" than overtipping a stripper.

Taking care of your family first is important not because it is a part of some collective ritual, but because that's how you keep your individual promises and express your very individual affections. What could be more "selfish" than loving your own children?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Why do adults have a "responsibility" to keep their "line" going?

And how is choosing other endeavors not responsible or adult?

I don't understand this concept that we owe something to someone who doesn't even exist, or that our lives lack purpose without offspring.
Click to expand...
It's all about genetics, evolution and natural selection. Most people have a natural desire to procreate and if they didn't....well... the human race simply wouldn't exist.
 
Muhammed said:
It's all about genetics, evolution and natural selection. Most people have a natural desire to procreate and if they didn't....well... the human race simply wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

There's existing and then there's enjoying life. There are 7 Billion people on planet Earth, most of whom have a poor standard of living. If most people did not have a natural desire to procreate, that would alleviate the sheer mass of the human race. Alleviating the sheer mass while keeping the same resources available, would raise the standard of living for those which are born.
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
There's existing and then there's enjoying life. There are 7 Billion people on planet Earth, most of whom have a poor standard of living. If most people did not have a natural desire to procreate, that would alleviate the sheer mass of the human race. Alleviating the sheer mass while keeping the same resources available, would raise the standard of living for those which are born.
Click to expand...
Your attitude seems very hypocritical. If you believe there is a human population problem on this planet then why haven't you committed suicide yet?
 
Muhammed said:
Your attitude seems very hypocritical. If you believe there is a human population problem on this planet then why haven't you committed suicide yet?
Click to expand...

Aside from how very rude this response is, having done research interviews with welfare queens, many of these people are flatly a drain on society. Some reproduction is needed, but it's way too uncontrolled to reach generalizations like "all couples with 5 kids are superior to all childless couples." Well, if the latter is infertile and adopts, while the former are crack addicts and use their kids to peddle guns, do you still make that statement? If you read some of these interviews, I think you would be calling for massive forced sterilization if anything.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
You're assuming I think throwing money at it is the best way to solve problems. I don't. I think it actually makes their economies weaker in the long run.

Contraception is not the last thing on the list. It is tied for first place with breaking down the rape culture.

People who cannot protect their bodies cannot improve their circumstances.
Click to expand...

I did see a documentary about rape in Africa starring a 12 year old on her way to school...she was raped repeatedly by 2 16yr olds from her own village...

She did not become pregnant..nothing happened to the boys..but she was living in shame and disgrace because of having been raped..she could not go out as her neighbours and friends verbally abused her..rocks were thrown at her and she was forced to give up school and stay home...
 
Canell said:
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:
Click to expand...

The term "childless" is in itself a derogatory word that implies those that choose not to have children are inferior. The term "child free" would be the opposite of that and would infer that those that choose not to have children are better off if not superior. Our society glorifies reproduction and people who have 10 kids, 40 grand kids and 20 great grand kids are put on a pedestal as very successful people. And you wonder why we are running low on land and resources. You wonder why we are drilling, mining, building wind mill and solar farms on every inch of land we have. You can't understand why the ocean is running low on fish and we have mountains of pig crap leeching into our drinking water.
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
There's existing and then there's enjoying life. There are 7 Billion people on planet Earth, most of whom have a poor standard of living. If most people did not have a natural desire to procreate, that would alleviate the sheer mass of the human race. Alleviating the sheer mass while keeping the same resources available, would raise the standard of living for those which are born.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect both in its' premise and in its' conclusion.

1. More people live better lives today than at any point in human history. The vast majority of human experience has been standards of living below what we would consider "poor" today.

2. If the worlds' population were to decline through decreased birthrate, the result would be more poverty, not less, both as a real and then as a relative amount. Firstly, the shift within the populace towards a greater portion of elderly citizens would mean fewer producers for the populace as a whole reducing global GDP per capita. Then as production fell, resources would go with it. Growth would cease, and a greater portion of fewer people would have lower standards of living.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
You're assuming I think throwing money at it is the best way to solve problems. I don't. I think it actually makes their economies weaker in the long run.
Click to expand...


that.... is (not intending to be snide here, though I know it might come off that way) a rather fascinating thing to see a self-described progressive say...

Contraception is not the last thing on the list. It is tied for first place with breaking down the rape culture.
Click to expand...

Even then contraception has not proven all that effective. If this is something that interests you, I would recommend an excellent book on the topic. He devotes an entire chapter to the "Cash For Condoms" model.

People who cannot protect their bodies cannot improve their circumstances.
Click to expand...

True enough. That's why property rights (self-ownership) are the center of all our rights and freedoms.
 
Muhammed said:
It's all about genetics, evolution and natural selection. Most people have a natural desire to procreate and if they didn't....well... the human race simply wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

Actually they don't. They have a desire to have sex, and they have an extensive capacity for inducing social pressure, but humans don't have an urge to self-replicate, per se.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom