• 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
First, let me say I'm part of a childless couple that may remain as such as my wife has no desire for children.

Second, no he's not saying that at all.

Believing someone is being selfish for not wanting to have kids doesn't mean they're other contributions are meaningless. One doesn't indicate the other. One's other actions could both be meaningful AND be selfish as it relates to the notion of continuing ones ancestery.

I'll admit, this is part of what I struggle with currently with my wife. Part of why I'd like kids is I want to see my families name continue (of my father and his 4 brothers, I'm one of only 3 male kids) and to feel as if I'm helping to impact something tangably and direclty positive into the "next generation". Having experience as an instructor I recognize there are other ways to impact a child's life besides being their parent....but I also recognize that there's nothing AS impactful as that experience.

At the same time, I enjoy my life and the freedom around it. I enjoy the ability to go home and lay around watching TV or playing video games if I feel like it. Or going out and playing basketball with friends for the night or even sitting up watching election coverage or researching politics. I like being able to go out to the bar on Saturday nights till 2:00 AM or staying in bed on a weekend day for hours with my wife without a care in the world or spending all day devouring a slate of football games. And, conflicting with my desire for kids I also have a desire to see my wife happy...and she has no desire for kids.

I get the notion of people suggesting that those who are childless are "selfish". I don't think it applies EVERY time, but I can see how it is with some. I admit that part of why I don't have any yet is because I am a bit selfish...that I don't want to give up what I'm doing right now. At the same time, I think it's a bit of a misnomer. Most people having kids WANT kids...which means it's not somehow "Unselfish" of them to have the kid, because that's what THEY want to be doing. They're still doing what they want, just like I am...it's just in a different manner.

Well, here's my question to that argument.

How is it not selfish to have children?

Did they ask to be here? Life isn't a bed of roses, even for the luckiest of us. The majority of us like or at least are ok with living, but there are millions and millions of people who wish they weren't, and everybody dies in the end, many of us before our time, and most of us in a state of suffering.

I am perfectly willing to admit I am childfree for self-focused reasons (I don't believe it's selfish, because who am I taking anything away from?). Why can't parents admit that?

And in reality, there are some childfree people who choose not to have kids for completely unselfish reasons -- environmental reasons, really bad genetics, etc. I know a childfree woman who did it for one of those reasons, and she says she actually went through a period of grieving her decision.

I can think of no such equivalent for biological parents.
 
This thread is why childless couples hate parents.

Yup. You know, everyone assumes we don't like kids. And some don't -- nothing wrong with that, since we won't be having any. I'm not the biggest fan of the younger ones myself. Others actually do like them.

But pretty much all of us get that kids are kids, and I don't think I've ever met a childfree person who has genuine vitriol towards them. They're just doing what they do.

It's uncivilized parents -- adults who are supposed to know the rules of respect and decorum, because supposedly they see themselves fit to teach it to their children -- that some childfree really don't like, and for good reason. They have no excuse for their sanctimony towards the childfree, and they deserve the backlash they get.
 
Your book has no validity if it doesn't separate out the childfree, which as I already demonstrated, is a recognized group that is different from the childless. As redress said, it's also a disingenuos way to propose evidence if I can only look at it separate from whatever "research" was done.

Agreed. I've noticed that these so-called "studies" or books that claim the childless/childfree are "less productive than parents" (or something equally ridiculous) have yet to make that critical separation.

In any case, no book or study would change my mind. I don't EVER want kids, and I don't want to get married either, and if that offends some self-righteous folks who claim that marriage/motherhood is what women "should" do, it's too bad for them. Contrary to what conservative pro-natalists want everyone to believe, the childfree are just as productive as parents, just in a different way.
 
Oh, by the way, if you want to know one of the biggest reasons why Japan's birth rate is plummeting, it's because women are still treated like chattel in domestic roles, but not in professional roles. Who would give up their career that they enjoy to be treated like a maid for the rest of their lives?

Not me, that's for sure, and this is why I don't ever want to get married either. Even in the 21st century, there are still too many guys that have 19th-century "thinking" about women, that we "should" be nothing more than unpaid house servants, cooks, laundresses, and baby makers. And of course they know if they are totally honest about these regressive beliefs, the number of women willing to marry them would go WAY down.

Yes, I know ALL men aren't like that, but there's no way I'm going to roll the dice by getting married and then find out I'm legally stuck with one who does. I enjoy my life far more BECAUSE I'm single and childfree, and regardless of who may be offended by that decision, I have no desire or intention to change it.
 
:( You have, through your desire to push a point, embarrassed yourself. You are smarter than the things you have said in this thread. I have seen you wiser, more exacting, better capable of sifting evidence than this.

In other words, you're cross that none of what you have posted on this subject has made Smoke change her mind or made her feel guilty for NOT having kids. Tough luck. You haven't changed MY mind either.
 
First, let me say I'm part of a childless couple that may remain as such as my wife has no desire for children.

Second, no he's not saying that at all.

I have to disagree on this point, because I think he's saying exactly that. It seemed very clear to me that he believes that UNLESS one has children, none of the accomplishments that childless or childfree people contribute are in any way truly valuable. It's complete nonsense of course, but even in the 21st century, a lot of people still have that rather backward belief.
 
.... every year we have to pay American farmers billions of dollars to keep them from producing enough food to feed every man woman and child on the planet. Malthus was wrong then, he's wrong now, and he will continue to be wrong in the future.
+1

Grain mountains and wine lakes. It's surprising how the majority are ignorant of such facts. They're total suckers for engineered hysteria.
 
At the same time, I enjoy my life and the freedom around it. I enjoy the ability to go home and lay around watching TV or playing video games if I feel like it. Or going out and playing basketball with friends for the night or even sitting up watching election coverage or researching politics. I like being able to go out to the bar on Saturday nights till 2:00 AM or staying in bed on a weekend day for hours with my wife without a care in the world or spending all day devouring a slate of football games. And, conflicting with my desire for kids I also have a desire to see my wife happy...and she has no desire for kids.

Exactly. I enjoy MY life and the freedom that the single/childfree choice gives me. I have NO desire or intention to give up any of that freedom by getting married or having children. I love having the freedom to go wherever I want, do whatever I want (within the bounds of law, of course), and all too often, when a woman gets married and/or has children, her once-total freedom is now quite restricted.

I know many married folks and parents may disagree with me, and may even tell me that getting married and/or having kids doesn't restrict a woman's freedom in any way. Well, I will strongly disagree with THAT assertion, because it simply isn't true, not in my view anyway. A woman's freedom IS somewhat -- or totally -- restricted, depending on the type of husband she ends up with. A woman who becomes a mother is never totally free after the first baby arrives, and she has almost none if she has two or more kids. That may be a big reason why your wife has no desire for children.

Freedom is too important for me to give up, which is why I don't ever want marriage or motherhood. If some want to consider me "inferior" for my single/childfree choice, fine.
 
I have to disagree on this point, because I think he's saying exactly that. It seemed very clear to me that he believes that UNLESS one has children, none of the accomplishments that childless or childfree people contribute are in any way truly valuable. It's complete nonsense of course, but even in the 21st century, a lot of people still have that rather backward belief.

Then you are not paying attention to what anyone is saying, but are rather reacting to some kind of stereotypical bogeyman that you have constructed in your mind.

Which is sad, that the only way you can come to defend your position is to strawman other points of view. You ought to be able to stand intellectually on your own, not require a prop to lean upon.

In other words, you're cross that none of what you have posted on this subject has made Smoke change her mind or made her feel guilty for NOT having kids. Tough luck. You haven't changed MY mind either.

No, I think it is sad that Smoke, too, is reliant upon a (deliberately? She's smart enough to know better) cartoonish picture of her opposition.
 
Total BS.

On the contrary, raising the citizens who will be running our businesses, communities, and government tomorrow requires massive investment of time, effort, energy, and money. People are generally net productive (that is why our GDP is positive, for example), and individuals contributing to society through their daily interactions represent a social good - one that requires a vast amount of investment to produce. All things being equal, parents have contributed more towards society in the forms of those investment that people who aren't parents.

We can drop everything and head to the Keys at the drop of a hat. Good luck doing that with your brats.

Precisely. You are chillin in the key's. We are busy putting in the work to ensure that our society survives and (hopefully) flourishes. One of those things requires more effort and is more socially positive than the other.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: all things being equal they contribute less to society. "inferior" would be a word that would require qualifications, however.
NONSENSE. No individual or couple is required to reproduce in order to be considered a "contributing member of society." That's just one more guilt-peddling weapon conservatives use to try and shame women into having children they don't really want.

.......okay, what part of "all things being equal" was too rhetorically complex for you to follow. ?
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

No. What a stupid question. No offense, but I'd rather people who choose not to have children... not have them. There are a ton of people who shouldnt, and do. At least people who know if children don't or won't fit into their lives are being responsible about knowing and choosing what's right for them and not allowing themselves to be pressured into what society thinks they "should" be doing.
 
Living is primarily for enjoying the gift of life. Sure there is work to be done, but that work is primarily so that one has the resources to enjoy life. Good news to those who have work they enjoy though, that's even better.

While people are born obligated (we need to seek food for instance) to both themselves and the society around them, its just a necessary evil, really.

Because of that, if a person chooses to have a child or not has no effect on what point of life is.
 
Sure you do. So long as you continue to participate and benefit from it, you owe it lawful participation.

Nope.

You owe nothing to society which is nothing more than a concept in the first place.

Every persons life is his or her own to do with as they see fit.
 
:shrug: all things being equal they contribute less to society. "inferior" would be a word that would require qualifications, however.

Keep in mind that every thug, criminal and lowlife parasite alive also had a mother and a father. Did those "contributions to society" help more than if they had not been born? Simply making babies is not enough, IMHO, to count as a contribution to society. Those that chose not to procreate and simply let those children run wild have also perhaps contributed to society.
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:
People get together in a family solely, for the continuation of the human race.
Not just to have children, women may have children without family, but in order continue the culture of human society.
Couple without children, just do not make sense. Reason that they like to have sex legally, is not accepted. Families without children do not exist.
 
People get together in a family solely, for the continuation of the human race.
Not just to have children, women may have children without family, but in order continue the culture of human society.
Couple without children, just do not make sense. Reason that they like to have sex legally, is not accepted. Families without children do not exist.

NONSENSE. Each individual, woman or man, is capable of deciding for herself or himself what makes up a "family." Couples without children may not make sense to you, which is fine. The bolded statement is a ridiculous assertion, which I certainly don't take seriously.
 
Then you are not paying attention to what anyone is saying, but are rather reacting to some kind of stereotypical bogeyman that you have constructed in your mind.

Which is sad, that the only way you can come to defend your position is to strawman other points of view. You ought to be able to stand intellectually on your own, not require a prop to lean upon.

No, I think it is sad that Smoke, too, is reliant upon a (deliberately? She's smart enough to know better) cartoonish picture of her opposition.

I think it's time for you to find a new schtick, CP. You've tried the "maybe if I patronize them hard enough no one will notice I lost" thing on an awful lot of people, and it's almost invariably gone badly for you. The walloping you got when you tried it in Jetboogie was hysterical. :lol:
 
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 personally do not consider any huan being inferior to any other. I do consider some behavior to be immoral (these mostly are considered crimes by everyone, since I'm very liberal in terms of ethics otherwise). In my opinion, making the choic enot to have children is not su ch an immoral behavior. I do not like the superiority complex many c hildfree people have, but then again I understand wher eit comes from given the general societal attitude that, even if childless couples aren't strictly speaking infrerior, their chice is often condemned.

As for th eperson who said criminals have parents too: at this point there is no way of selecting for future criminal conduct, so while you might think they'd betternot be born, you can't fault their parents for this.
 
People get together in a family solely, for the continuation of the human race.
Not just to have children, women may have children without family, but in order continue the culture of human society.
Couple without children, just do not make sense. Reason that they like to have sex legally, is not accepted. Families without children do not exist.

No, people do NOT get together solely for the continuation of the human race. A statement like that would lead one to believe that you think that a couple who remains childless should not even be married.

Oh, wait.......
 
NONSENSE. Each individual, woman or man, is capable of deciding for herself or himself what makes up a "family." Couples without children may not make sense to you, which is fine. The bolded statement is a ridiculous assertion, which I certainly don't take seriously.
You swore at me. What's next? You had not given any reasons why we need a family without children. Gays, who adapt children, has more rites call it's self "family" , then couples without children.
 
No, people do NOT get together solely for the continuation of the human race. A statement like that would lead one to believe that you think that a couple who remains childless should not even be married.

Oh, wait.......

Why not? They can. But why? To share half insurance? Ok. If you think, God created us for to sharing insurance, you have opened a new page in philosophy. In your opinion, in this sense of human existence. :shock:
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

No. Why should they?

Heck without kids, they are going to have enough disposable income to have a great time of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom