• 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 get what you're saying, but this can just as easily be reversed. A lot of people want kids when they're younger, then realize what that implies when they get older and decide they'd rather not.

But for some reason, people only question how much you know yourself if you say you DON'T want kids.

The childfree come at all levels of intensity, just like parents. It means nothing about their commitment to their choice.

I agree with you. If Ocean was just a vehement about having 5 kids, I would probably ask the same question and give her the same warning, especially about looking at so specific a number. I never really thought as a young man that I would have more than a couple of kids, but I ended up with 4 of my own and a step-son. Now I never really plan on a family size one way or another. There were many things in my life that I strongly denied I would do when younger that now I do. Logan's Law #3: Don't ever say "never". That's really my only message to Ocean.

This phenomenon which you say is easily reversed and forms the basis of your rebuttal - prove it. Show us where this "A lot of people" information comes from other than your imagination. I'm really curious to see how your world view is shaped - is it by analyzing the world or is your view of the world shaped by your imagination and anything you concoct in that imagination is now, to you, a real world phenomenon.

Where does our information come from of a lot of people who say they don't want any children when young and then having them when older come from? Same place as S&M's. It's all been anecdotal from the start. If you want S&M to put up her evidence then you need to include your own on the opposite end.

Know what I think 'parents' hate the most about the child-free? We can take a nap anytime we feel like it! :)

So what does/did you boss say about that while you were on the clock? ;)
 
Mind if I ask how old you are?

Reason being, I have a younger daughter who has said the same about having children for all of her adult life. Now that she's married and has become an Aunt of two, she's slowly changing her mind.

I'm 40+, and still loving the childfree choice just as much now as I did in my teens and twenties. I enjoy my life more BECAUSE I don't have kids, or husband either, so there is, thankfully, NO chance that I will change my mind. Hope that clears things up for you. :)
 
Another bingo I love. The "You don't know yourself, woman folk. Someday when you grow up and learn your place, you'll see things my way." It has a passive aggressive subtle twist, which is a nice touch. Clearly a veteran of the sport, here. I give it a 9.5 for style, 10 for patronizing tone, and 8.5 for subliminal fear of people (women?) breaking rank. Good showing.

And your daughter has what to do with Ocean exactly? You do know women are not all identical and many of us never do change our minds, right? That is, assuming this isn't simply your wishful thinking.

Yep, gotta love these conservative guys who "think" that women who don't want children -- or husband either for that matter -- have something "wrong" with them or are "too young to know their own mind," and other such nonsense.

Just because HIS daughter is "slowly changing her mind" (maybe he WISHES that were true) doesn't mean I'M going to, not for a New York minute. :lol:
 
Since when am I doing any such thing?

He said something about his daughter, some stranger as far as Ocean is concerned, and then leaped to the conclusion that whatever his daughter thinks must somehow mean something about what Ocean will think.

Yep, the silly, archaic "all women are alike" ideology that conservative men love to believe. :roll:
 
Yep, gotta love these conservative guys who "think" that women who don't want children -- or husband either for that matter -- have something "wrong" with them or are "too young to know their own mind," and other such nonsense.

Just because HIS daughter is "slowly changing her mind" (maybe he WISHES that were true) doesn't mean I'M going to, not for a New York minute. :lol:

Likely, those "Guys" have no other means of effecting your choices....as they are not physically capable of compelling you in any way. A "small" and "Shriveled".....uh....BRAIN would do that.
 
I agree with you. If Ocean was just a vehement about having 5 kids, I would probably ask the same question and give her the same warning, especially about looking at so specific a number. I never really thought as a young man that I would have more than a couple of kids, but I ended up with 4 of my own and a step-son. Now I never really plan on a family size one way or another. There were many things in my life that I strongly denied I would do when younger that now I do. Logan's Law #3: Don't ever say "never". That's really my only message to Ocean.

Well thanks; I got your "message," and guess what, I DIDN'T change my mind. As I told WCH, I'm 40+ now, and I still have NO desire for children and NO intention to have them. And yes, I still have the same feelings about pregnancy and children that you pointed out, no changes there either.

So in my case at least, the word "NEVER" still applies. :)
 
Well thanks; I got your "message," and guess what, I DIDN'T change my mind. As I told WCH, I'm 40+ now, and I still have NO desire for children and NO intention to have them. And yes, I still have the same feelings about pregnancy and children that you pointed out, no changes there either.

So in my case at least, the word "NEVER" still applies. :)

So then back to a question I asked you in another thread a while back that you never answered: If (and I'm making that a very big "if" right now) something were to change and you did end up either married or with at least one kids (even via adoption), will you come back here to DP and admit that you had been wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong yet or that you will be. But only a fool never entertains the possibility.
 
I'm 40+, and still loving the childfree choice just as much now as I did in my teens and twenties. I enjoy my life more BECAUSE I don't have kids, or husband either, so there is, thankfully, NO chance that I will change my mind. Hope that clears things up for you. :)
Well, unlike some here who think I'm Mr Fundie Man, it doesn't bother me that you don't want children. Raising children is probably one of the more difficult and time-robbing practices known to humankind. One needs to be totally dedicated and involved in the process to be successful.

But, it is also the most rewarding and satisfying of all human endeavours.
 
I agree with you. If Ocean was just a vehement about having 5 kids, I would probably ask the same question and give her the same warning, especially about looking at so specific a number. I never really thought as a young man that I would have more than a couple of kids, but I ended up with 4 of my own and a step-son. Now I never really plan on a family size one way or another. There were many things in my life that I strongly denied I would do when younger that now I do. Logan's Law #3: Don't ever say "never". That's really my only message to Ocean.

Again, I get what you're saying, but I think a lot of people who want kids don't quite get how some childfree people are built.

It's relatively easy to go from a smaller number of kids to a larger one, or the opposite, because fundamentally, the idea of "kids" makes sense to you. It fits in your brain somewhere. I understand this mindset, because hey, I'm that way about animals.

Here's what you have to get: for some childfree people, the idea of "kids" just doesn't make sense in our brains. It is fundamentally at odds with the most basic aspects of our personalities. This is especially common in those of us who were "early articulators," like myself.

There are those for whom it does compute; there are childfree people who don't have kids for purely practical or accidental reasons, and just decide to be cool with that.

But there's some of us who are just wired differently. I've heard some people compare it to fundamental personality traits, like introversion or artistic mindset, or even to their sexuality. And hey, if you look at nature, you could make a serious case for that: there's a few in every species who just don't do the parenting thing, no matter how many times nature gives them a shot at it. The amount of change that would be required for me to suddenly want kids is something that could probably only be brought about by serious head trauma, and quite frankly, I am glad I am fixed so that if I ever lose my mind like that, I wouldn't be capable of ruining my life as well.

For those of us who are just wired up this way, saying "you never know -- you might want kids someday" is like saying, "you never know -- you might suddenly become an extrovert or change sexualities." Sure, that could happen... if I got hit in the head with a piano.

The whole concept just does not make sense in our heads, for some of us. Just like, for some people, the idea of never having children makes the future look like an empty box.

And I get that this isn't what you're trying to do, but when people tell us we'll change our minds, it feels like they're denying our agency over ourselves, because no one ever says that to someone who wants kids, and they plainly don't understand how we're wired. No one ever says "Don't have kids -- you might regret it," even though some people do regret it. And frankly, even if none of this were the case, I think regretting not having them is a far smaller tragety than regretting having them. People just seem to hate the idea that some of us aren't going to kowtow to their mindset, and really don't feel like we're missing anything.
 
Last edited:
Again, I get what you're saying, but I think a lot of people who want kids don't quite get how some childfree people are built.

Let's understand that there are two basic criticisms - the "don't pay your fair share" and the "I don't get you guys."

Here's what you have to get: for some childfree people, the idea of "kids" just doesn't make sense in our brains. It is fundamentally at odds with the most basic aspects of our personalities. This is especially common in those of us who were "early articulators," like myself.

Mother Nature is always experimenting and it produces rejects and dead ends all the time. I suppose we can celebrate that Mother Nature isn't resting on her laurels, but a dead end is still a dead end.

For those of us who are just wired up this way, saying "you never know -- you might want kids someday" is like saying, "you never know -- you might suddenly change sexualities." Sure, that could happen... if I got hit in the head with a piano.

You're missing the point of that line of criticism. To put it into Rumsfeldian terms, what we're dealing with here is an "unknown known." You have one group of people, those who say they don't want to have children, and there are two outcomes possible, they don't want to have children or they do want to have children. A very large segment of those who claim that they don't want to have children eventually change their mind and do want to have children. The problem here is that there is no way of distinguishing which of the known outcomes a person will eventually fall into because they both expressed the same opinion at an earlier stage in life.

Maybe think of it this way -

-"I don't like chocolate."
-"How do you know until you try."
-"I just know."
-"Try it"
-"OK, I'll try it."

Branch out here:

#1 - "Hey, chocolate tastes good."
#2 - "Yuck, that's awful. I told you I didn't like chocolate. See, I was right."
 
Again, I get what you're saying, but I think a lot of people who want kids don't quite get how some childfree people are built.

I snipped most of that because there was no point in quoting it all. I get what you are saying and RiverDad's point aside, when we asked these questions and noted that there was always the possibility of changing minds, we get hit with the "you're a misogynist and are trying to put women in what you feel is their place" attitude, or something very much like it. Which wasn't the case. What we were making a point on had nothing to do with gender or a woman's place.
 
Let's understand that there are two basic criticisms - the "don't pay your fair share" and the "I don't get you guys."

Mother Nature is always experimenting and it produces rejects and dead ends all the time. I suppose we can celebrate that Mother Nature isn't resting on her laurels, but a dead end is still a dead end.

You're missing the point of that line of criticism. To put it into Rumsfeldian terms, what we're dealing with here is an "unknown known." You have one group of people, those who say they don't want to have children, and there are two outcomes possible, they don't want to have children or they do want to have children. A very large segment of those who claim that they don't want to have children eventually change their mind and do want to have children. The problem here is that there is no way of distinguishing which of the known outcomes a person will eventually fall into because they both expressed the same opinion at an earlier stage in life.

Maybe think of it this way -

-"I don't like chocolate."
-"How do you know until you try."
-"I just know."
-"Try it"
-"OK, I'll try it."

Branch out here:

#1 - "Hey, chocolate tastes good."
#2 - "Yuck, that's awful. I told you I didn't like chocolate. See, I was right."

I suppose, if you are hallucinating Mother Nature as a sentient being who values any of us for any reason... which she doesn't. She doesn't care if every single one of us die. We are simply organisms that replicate for no distinct reason. We just do. And no one cares about it except us.

And besides that, some of the worst people imaginable are some of the same who reproduce the most. Dictators with harems, "breed for the holy war" people, deadbeat dads... yeah, they're sure doing a service, aren't they? The Founding Fathers who had no children, or the multitudinous scientists, artists, etc, who have none... well, they're just taking up air, right? So I take it you think the Constitution is a dead end, then, since it was partly produced by a couple of people who never had kids.

I can try kids without having any, just like I can try extroverted behavior without being an extrovert. I know I don't want one for the same reason I know I am not the other. And I see no reason to ruin my life and that of a child's simply because some people are not ok with the idea that I have stuff I'd rather do than breed.
 
I snipped most of that because there was no point in quoting it all. I get what you are saying and RiverDad's point aside, when we asked these questions and noted that there was always the possibility of changing minds, we get hit with the "you're a misogynist and are trying to put women in what you feel is their place" attitude, or something very much like it. Which wasn't the case. What we were making a point on had nothing to do with gender or a woman's place.

Well, the thing is, that's often the case. There's some childfree guys floating around here, and I rarely ever see them get the same crap thrown at them. Childfree men I know mostly only get trouble from two places: women they're in relationships with, and their family if they are an only son. But larger society leaves them alone, and they readily admit that. The same can't be said for childfree women.
 
You have one group of people, those who say they don't want to have children, and there are two outcomes possible, they don't want to have children or they do want to have children. A very large segment of those who claim that they don't want to have children eventually change their mind and do want to have children. The problem here is that there is no way of distinguishing which of the known outcomes a person will eventually fall into because they both expressed the same opinion at an earlier stage in life.

Maybe think of it this way -

-"I don't like chocolate."
-"How do you know until you try."
-"I just know."
-"Try it"
-"OK, I'll try it."

Branch out here:

#1 - "Hey, chocolate tastes good."
#2 - "Yuck, that's awful. I told you I didn't like chocolate. See, I was right."

I dont understand why that's a problem? If someone thinks they dont want kids, and doenst have them...where's the problem? They might regret it later? Oh well, that's an individual problem. Who cares? We all make decisions and live by them in life.

The only problem I see is someone following your line of reasoning, and even if only with a 50-50 chance of being proved wrong...we still have the other 50% having kids in a sadly mistaken decision. And it's the kids that will suffer.

So *my opinion* is mind your own business and let people make and live with their own decisions instead of trying to influence them to 'try it, you might like it!' when kid's lives are the ones that get 'spit out, yuck!'

I'm not sure if that was your intent, if not I apologize but it sounded like what you were promoting.
 
I dont understand why that's a problem?

There are two problems which unfold. The first is a person having kids and discovering that they're extremely unhappy with that choice. The second is the person not having kids and being unhappy with that choice. The latter is problematic because of the degree of cultural conditioning present. We can see this dynamic play out in the present generation and it also played out in past generations. In the present we see extremist feminist pushing the "sex positive" message that women should rack up large sexual partner counts:

Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices. It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling. I’m telling you this because sluthood saved me, in a small but life-altering way, and I want it to be available to you if you ever think it could save you, too. Or if you want it for any other reason at all.​

And mission accomplished as one of the readers responds:

AMAZING writing. I really appreciate having stumbled upon this, as it has really made me wonder about my own life — I am 22 and have been in a serious relationship for two years. He’s amazing, and I think he might be “the One,” but he is the only man I have ever slept with. This bothers me because I am quite confident that if we were to ever break up, I would undoubtedly embrace “sluthood” — and I really feel like I may be missing out on something that is important for defining who I am. I discovered who I am sexually through my relationship with him. But I love him to bits so this is just something I will need to wonder about for the rest of my life? *Sigh* if only I had slutted it up earlier.​

Her inclination leads her in one direction but the propaganda she reads leads her in another.

So the cultural poison pushed by deranged feminists can lead women down the wrong path and against what their inclinations and feelings suggest is the right path. When we look at past generations of women we see that too many of them are now furious because they've been lied to and their fertility window has shut.

I don't know whether to feel sad for these women or to feel that they should be contenders for the next Darwin Award. The New York Times reports:


FORTY may be the new 30, but try telling that to your ovaries.

With long brown hair and come-hither curves, Melissa Foss looks — and feels — fabulous at 41. “I’ve spent hours of my life and a lot of money making sure I was healthy, and that my hair was shiny, my teeth were white and my complexion clear,” said Ms. Foss, a magazine editor in New York City.

So when it came to conceiving a child with her husband, a marketing executive, Ms. Foss wasn’t at all worried. After all, she noted, those same traits of youth and beauty “are all the hallmarks of fertility.”

Fifteen unsuccessful rounds of in vitro fertilization later, Ms. Foss now realizes that appearances can be deceiving. “I’d based a lot of my self-worth on looking young and fertile, and to have that not be the case was really depressing and shocking,” she said. The couple are now trying to have a baby with the help of a surrogate and a donor egg. .

“I watch what I eat, I don’t drink, I take extremely good care of myself, and I come from a very fertile family,” said Fruzsina Keehn, 45, a designer of high-end jewelry in San Francisco and New York, who has tried to conceive with the help of in vitro fertilization eight times in the last two years. Later this month, she will try once again with a donor egg. “Everyone in my life told me how young I looked for my age,” she said. “I assumed it was the same on the inside as it was on the outside.”

When I look at the misinformation and societal damage that arises from living a life based on a false view of reality and I see more damage arising from the spread of the feminist career woman ideal, as exemplified by these women, and the Sex in the City ethos, than I do from all of the misinformation arising from Religious Creationism.

Then to add icing onto the cake, when physicians try to undermine the feminist zeitgeist this is what they get for their trouble - TIME Magazine reports:

But even as doctors began to try to get the word out, they ran into resistance of all kinds.

In hopes of raising women's awareness, asrm [American Society for Reproductive Medicine] launched a modest $60,000 ad campaign last fall, with posters and brochures warning that factors like smoking, weight problems and sexually transmitted infections can all harm fertility. But the furor came with the fourth warning, a picture of a baby bottle shaped like an hourglass: "Advancing age decreases your ability to have children." The physicians viewed this as a public service, given the evidence of widespread confusion about the facts, but the group has come under fire for scaring women with an oversimplified message on a complex subject. "The implication is, 'I have to hurry up and have kids now or give up on ever having them,'" says Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "And that is not true for the vast majority of women." Gandy, 48, had her first child at 39. . .

To emphasize a woman's age above all other factors can be just one more piece of misleading information, Gandy suggests. "There are two people involved [in babymaking], and yet we're putting all the responsibility on women and implying that women are being selfish if they don't choose to have children early." She shares the concern that women will hear the research and see the ads and end up feeling it is so hard to strike a balance that it's futile to even try. "There is an antifeminist agenda that says we should go back to the 1950s," says Caryl Rivers, a journalism professor at Boston University. "The subliminal message is, 'Don't get too educated; don't get too successful or too ambitious.'" Allison Rosen, a clinical psychologist in New York City who has made it her mission to make sure her female patients know the fertility odds, disagrees. "This is not a case of male doctors' wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant," she says. "You lay out the facts, and any particular individual woman can then make her choices." Madsen of A.I.A. argues that the biological imperative is there whether women know it or not. "I cringe when feminists say giving women reproductive knowledge is pressuring them to have a child," she says. "That's simply not true. Reproductive freedom is not just the ability not to have a child through birth control. It's the ability to have one if and when you want one."​


That's what's so endearing about so many of the ideologies which inhabit the Left - they make up their own realities. Look at the statement made by the President of N.O.W. - she knows better than fertility specialists what the deal is. She's creating her own truth. Then TIME Magazine quotes a frickin' Journalism Professor who tells women that the message that women should pay attention to their fertility window if they ever want to have children is part of an antifeminist agenda.
 
Well, the thing is, that's often the case. There's some childfree guys floating around here, and I rarely ever see them get the same crap thrown at them. Childfree men I know mostly only get trouble from two places: women they're in relationships with, and their family if they are an only son. But larger society leaves them alone, and they readily admit that. The same can't be said for childfree women.
It's reasonable that society would see things this way even though it's not rational. (and since when has society ever been rational?) For reproduction, one male can replace ten males but one female cannot replace ten females. That's literally the nature of the beast, like it or not.
 
It's reasonable that society would see things this way even though it's not rational. (and since when has society ever been rational?) For reproduction, one male can replace ten males but one female cannot replace ten females. That's literally the nature of the beast, like it or not.

No it isn't, because the beast doesn't consciously think about this trophy-less race you're implying. :lol:

People who don't fully understand or haven't fully accepted the non-sentient and non-magical nature of evolution and how nature works attach a sense of value and meaning to it, and then try to reverse-engineer justifications for all the stupid **** humans do to each other.

The beast (including the state of nature human beast), in truth, doesn't give a crap about the childfree, because it doesn't have this kind of knowledge, and therefore can't misunderstand it. They are worrying about their own lives, and the safety of their own tribe, and that's it. The fact is evolution has no "winners" or "losers" in the way we think of it. It simply is. There's no value attached to it.

We live in a society that still thinks what women do with their lives is any of its business. We are still debating whether women have a right to their medical care and their bodies in the public square. Some places have moved past this, or never had this in the first place, but we haven't moved past it, and therefore it's pretty clear where this crap comes from.
 
Last edited:
So then back to a question I asked you in another thread a while back that you never answered: If (and I'm making that a very big "if" right now) something were to change and you did end up either married or with at least one kids (even via adoption), will you come back here to DP and admit that you had been wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong yet or that you will be. But only a fool never entertains the possibility.

You can call me a fool all you want if that's what makes you happy. But I still have NO desire or intention to either get married OR have children. IF I happened to "meet someone" who started pressuring me into either marriage and/or motherhood, he will be DUMPED in a New York minute. Does that answer your question a little better?
 
Well, unlike some here who think I'm Mr Fundie Man, it doesn't bother me that you don't want children. Raising children is probably one of the more difficult and time-robbing practices known to humankind. One needs to be totally dedicated and involved in the process to be successful.

But, it is also the most rewarding and satisfying of all human endeavours.

This is strictly a matter of OPINION, which I obviously don't share.
 
You can call me a fool all you want if that's what makes you happy. But I still have NO desire or intention to either get married OR have children. IF I happened to "meet someone" who started pressuring me into either marriage and/or motherhood, he will be DUMPED in a New York minute. Does that answer your question a little better?

No, because you are avoiding the question by changing the premise. What I want to know is, are you honest enough that is something happened (long term or short) that caused you to change your mind (no pressures from anyone else, no traumatic head injuries), would you come out here (assuming this site is still here) and admit it to everyone? I don't expect it to happen. I just acknowledge that this is a possibility (maybe probability is a better word), however slim it is.
 
You're missing the point of that line of criticism. To put it into Rumsfeldian terms, what we're dealing with here is an "unknown known." You have one group of people, those who say they don't want to have children, and there are two outcomes possible, they don't want to have children or they do want to have children. A very large segment of those who claim that they don't want to have children eventually change their mind and do want to have children.

In those cases, the people who "eventually changed their mind and did want to have children" were never really childFREE, they were childLESS, as far as I'M concerned anyway.

I've never known a truly childFREE (no kids by choice, remember) woman or man who regretted the CF decision. I didn't regret it in my twenties, and I don't regret it now, a couple of decades later. I have, however, read quite a few posts from women (and men) who DO regret having kids and wish they had their "old life" back. You know, the life of complete freedom they had BEFORE they had kids.
 
I can try kids without having any, just like I can try extroverted behavior without being an extrovert. I know I don't want one for the same reason I know I am not the other. And I see no reason to ruin my life and that of a child's simply because some people are not ok with the idea that I have stuff I'd rather do than breed.

Brilliantly put, S&M, thanks. I don't see any reason to have kids just to make others happy either. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom