• 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
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...

Oh, CP, but it isn't. ;) There is a difference between a liberal and a progressive, and they can sometimes be wildly different creatures.

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.

Cheers.
 
Oh, CP, but it isn't. ;) There is a difference between a liberal and a progressive, and they can sometimes be wildly different creatures.

:) As someone who would like to see the classic term "liberal" restored to its' meaning, I would agree. But most who self describe as "progressive" are not of the opinion that you cannot help the poor by giving them free money.
 
With society in the shape it is I think we should thank them. So many people have kids either by accident or to use as pawns, that they have caused more problems than contributed to society. We only had one and stopped there. I love kids but we did what we could afford. Even though later on we could have afforded more we decided to do the best we could for the one we had. Def not a mistake!
 
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.

The worst thing for the couples who choose not to have children must be the pitying looks and the assumption that one of them must have something ''wrong'' with them reproductively..
 
Wow...what a ridiculous question.

The correct answer is no by the way. Pretty obvious to any tolerant human being
 
:) As someone who would like to see the classic term "liberal" restored to its' meaning, I would agree. But most who self describe as "progressive" are not of the opinion that you cannot help the poor by giving them free money.

Well, I am not of that opinion either in 100% of situations. Certainly, you cannot help the poor by doing nothing but giving money, but in some situations, it may be one part of a larger action plan, and it can sometimes work.

However, in the sense of foreign aid, I have just never seen any evidence that it does anything helpful, given the political and economic mitigating factors that exist in most of these countries.
 
There are instances however that for whatever fertility reason, people run into difficulty having children...

What exactly does your question imply, is what I'm wondering. Choices are a lot different than circumstances. Maybe a bit of clarification is needed as to why you pose such a question?

The question is: are childless couples inferior in comparison with couples with children in terms of social importance? :) I get that having no children can be caused by various reasons, but I believe the poll has those answers included. For example, if you have reproductive problems and don't want raise a kid that is not your flesh, then you should go with No 3.

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.

Nice analysis. :thumbs:

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.

I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle between having no kids and having 10 kids. ;)
May be my next poll should be: Should couples with 10 children be considered inferior? :wink3:
 
I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle between having no kids and having 10 kids. ;)
May be my next poll should be: Should couples with 10 children be considered inferior? :wink3:

There's no "truth" to be found in the answering of this question.

People's significance to society is irrelevant to whether or not they have children. You can have children, raise them badly, and contribute nothing. You can not have children, do something very meaningful, and contribute a lot.

How a person goes about executing whatever decisions they make is the deciding factor in whether they have contributed something to society. No single decision is inherently superior -- its meaning is inevitably attached to its execution. And most likely subjective, as well.
 
:shrug: all things being equal they contribute less to society. "inferior" would be a word that would require qualifications, however.

If a couple choses not raise children, then they have chosen to not support the future tax base which funds government and social programs. Maybe they should receive less benefits than those couples that choose to raise children. When people pay taxes for social programs, they are merely paying the bill for current beneficiaries (namely their parents). If they choose to break the chain maybe their own benefits should be reduced.

Parenting is a definite hardship financially.
 
If a couple choses not raise children, then they have chosen to not support the future tax base which funds government and social programs. Maybe they should receive less benefits than those couples that choose to raise children. When people pay taxes for social programs, they are merely paying the bill for current beneficiaries (namely their parents). If they choose to break the chain maybe their own benefits should be reduced.

Parenting is a definite hardship financially.

Why? Those people who don't put their time into children may have a lot more time to... ya know... do something important to humanity, perhaps. Actually, most of the other CF people I know do some rather important things. The most common one, in my personal experience, is actually medical careers. All types. Research, EMT, surgeons, vet care, elderly care, and even care of disabled children. Personally, although I don't work in a medical field per se, I do work for the deaf.

How are you going to tell me that we are "doing less?" People without children work more hours, and in my experience, have a tendency to work for humanity. Maybe you put in more at home, but we put in more in the world.

Not to mention that not every person who simply manages to reproduce really deserves the title of parent. Reproducing doesn't mean someone will be loving or attentive or care about their child's future. Many don't, and it shows in their resultant children. And what exactly are they contributing?

It's a hardship you choose, and you have no right to make other people's lives more difficult because of what you chose. If it's such a hardship that you resent people for choosing otherwise, then DON'T DO IT.
 
Why? Those people who don't put their time into children may have a lot more time to... ya know... do something important to humanity, perhaps.

Perhaps. But not statistically. Interestingly, especially among men, quite the opposite occurs - those who do not marry and raise no children tend to make less than those who do. Charles Murray has done some rather fascinating research on this. It seems having a family to support is a powerful motivator for self-improvement.
 
Perhaps. But not statistically. Interestingly, especially among men, quite the opposite occurs - those who do not marry and raise no children tend to make less than those who do. Charles Murray has done some rather fascinating research on this. It seems having a family to support is a powerful motivator for self-improvement.

I'm sorry, but the title is instantly blood-curdling. Not to mention what summaries I can find about point to it being yet another black and white thinking practice in poking the red line of eugenics and egoism.

Also, I must make a very important point: there is a HUGE difference between the childfree and the childless.

Childfree people decide not to have children, for whatever reason. Sometimes it's purely practical, sometimes it's a true lack of desire to parent.

Childless couples are different. They may just not have children YET. They may be infertile, which can be hugely expensive and stressful on a relationship. They may have simply missed their opportunity.

It is important to distinguish them, because they are very different in terms of socio-economics.

Childfree people actually tend to have more education and better careers. Like I said, I see a lot of them in socially contributory careers.

Childless people have a lot more stress, and sometimes a lot less money due to attempts to remedy their childlessness, or resultant divorce over the strain.

The two cannot and should not be lumped together.
 
Last edited:
There's the problem. You feel responsible to your ancestors. I'm sorry, but they're dead. They won't notice whether you do or don't have kids. Life is only about doing what makes you happy.

Here's the hole in your theory. You don't give a **** about people doing whta makes them happy, you give a **** about people doing what makes them happy as long as it fits in your world view that anyone believing anything beyond the evident is an idiot worthy of ridicule.

You suggest people should do what "makes them happy", yet watch your socrn for the religious. you suggest people wshould do what make sthem happy, yet you suggest Viktyr has a problem when it is rather apparent from his writing that what would bring happiness to him is a belief within himself of fulfilling a purpose and unspoken promise to those who came before him to allow in his mind their words, teachings, and beliefs to live on through yet another generation. But you have utter disdain for that view point or those that hold it, so decry him as "having a problem" and belittle his view while acting like you're so much more enlightened by telling him to do whta "makes him happy" as you sit there trashing that very thing.
 
Perhaps. But not statistically. Interestingly, especially among men, quite the opposite occurs - those who do not marry and raise no children tend to make less than those who do. Charles Murray has done some rather fascinating research on this. It seems having a family to support is a powerful motivator for self-improvement.

Writing an opinion book is not exactly what I would call research, as in it is not scholarly, peer reviewed or really subject to any kind of scrutiny or scientific method.
 
No, I don't think childless couples should be considered "inferior" or even scorned or degraded by society. To be frank, there are numerous couples I've known or read about that would likely have been a boon to society had they NOT had children. Kori is correct in terms of passing on a lineage...the issue is that quite frankly, there's some lineages that don't need passing down in terms of parenting skills and styles.

Ultimately, it's an individual/couple choice based on what their views and thoughts are on the subject. For my wife and I, at this point I wouldn't mind a kid (Though know now may not be the best time) and she doesn't. In part due to her past family life, and in part because she's still feeling "young" and enjoying the bit of freedom. However, a few years from now that may change...or it may not. I understand kori's point, because there's a part of me that views it that way for myself. On the other hand, I get the notion of desiring that bit of freedom and a chance to "experience life" a bit first others are arguing for.

We're no longer a society that needs everyone pumping out a family to survive, so the notion of having children being some requirement for a "Worth while" couple is an outdated one in my mind in a societal view. But it's still perfectly understandable on a personal level.
 
Writing an opinion book is not exactly what I would call research, as in it is not scholarly, peer reviewed or really subject to any kind of scrutiny or scientific method.

Ad Sourcinem by Redress, who didn't read the source critiqued and cannot answer it. Everyone pretend to be surprised :).
 
Ad Sourcinem by Redress, who didn't read the source critiqued and cannot answer it. Everyone pretend to be surprised :).

There's a reason Ad Sourcinem isn't a real fallacy. I'll let you figure out why.
 
I'm sorry, but the title is instantly blood-curdling. Not to mention what summaries I can find about point to it being yet another black and white thinking practice in poking the red line of eugenics and egoism.

:doh

No. The reason that Murray wrote explicitly about the statistics among white Americans was because minorities have a heavier portion of their populace in the ranks of the poor - when Murray wrote earlier about social breakup and the economic results he was accused of being racist because - surprise! - it turned out a greater portion of blacks were poor. This book was written to demonstrate the consistency of the relationships demonstrated across all racial lines, first by teasing out the white numbers, and then by demonstrating how they match the causal relationships in the black and hispanic communities.

Or, you could pull an ad hominem. That seems to work, too. :roll:

Also, I must make a very important point: there is a HUGE difference between the childfree and the childless.

Not as far as it impacts society. The two are - in their effects - the same. Both represent people who have not born the cost of raising the next generation of producers upon whom they will depend.
 
There's a reason Ad Sourcinem isn't a real fallacy. I'll let you figure out why.

:doh It's a form of ad hominem, baron. I'll give you a minute to figure out that Charles Murray is a person.
 
Ad Sourcinem by Redress, who didn't read the source critiqued and cannot answer it. Everyone pretend to be surprised :).

So I should ignore the fact you made it a point to hide the fact you where linking to an amazon add for a book and not actual research? It's my fault you cannot prove your claims, yeah, that's it.
 
:doh It's a form of ad hominem, baron. I'll give you a minute to figure out that Charles Murray is a person.

I did not attack the author. Facts, you might want to find some.
 
:doh It's a form of ad hominem, baron.

An Ad Hom is a direct attack on the person rather than the argument. Corporations may be people, but sources are not.

I'll give you a minute to figure out that Charles Murray is a person.

Oh ****, really? I had no idea.
 
:doh

No. The reason that Murray wrote explicitly about the statistics among white Americans was because minorities have a heavier portion of their populace in the ranks of the poor - when Murray wrote earlier about social breakup and the economic results he was accused of being racist because - surprise! - it turned out a greater portion of blacks were poor. This book was written to demonstrate the consistency of the relationships demonstrated across all racial lines, first by teasing out the white numbers, and then by demonstrating how they match the causal relationships in the black and hispanic communities.

Or, you could pull an ad hominem. That seems to work, too. :roll:

Yes, I was actually surprised to read race didn't play more into it, which is why it was not part of me being incredulous to bother spending an evening with it. However, I am still incredulous. This doesn't appear to be real research in the sense that the conclusion follows any facts I have ever heard of.

Not as far as it impacts society. The two are - in their effects - the same. Both represent people who have not born the cost of raising the next generation of producers upon whom they will depend.

No, they are not. They occupy two completely different socio-economic positions in most cases.

But forget the fact that many of the childfree serve and extend the life of the next generation, not to mention actually working more, right? All that matters is that people simply breed?
 
So I should ignore the fact you made it a point to hide the fact you where linking to an amazon add for a book and not actual research? It's my fault you cannot prove your claims, yeah, that's it.

:shrug: you want me to go grab the book off my shelf and read through it to find you relevant statistics? Lack of family formation and child-rearing directly ties to productivity. The natural state of human kind appears to be laziness, and the natural state of the unattached male not responsible for others appears to be a form of extended adolescence. I offered the thing up as a hey-if-you're-interested-this-guy-has-put-together-the-numbers. But hey, if you can demonstrate otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing it.
 
:shrug: you want me to go grab the book off my shelf and read through it to find you relevant statistics? Lack of family formation and child-rearing directly ties to productivity. The natural state of human kind appears to be laziness, and the natural state of the unattached male not responsible for others appears to be a form of extended adolescence. I offered the thing up as a hey-if-you're-interested-this-guy-has-put-together-the-numbers. But hey, if you can demonstrate otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing it.

If it refers to actual research, it should be available on the net. Not my job to back up your claims, that is yours. When your source is an add for the book "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010", pardon me if I am not swayed.
 
Back
Top Bottom