• 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

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:
 
:shrug: all things being equal they contribute less to society. "inferior" would be a word that would require qualifications, however.
 
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?
 
No. Why, precisely?

I'm quite intentionally childfree. And from what I've seen of the world, I don't really notice any superiority of people who just happen to have reproduced on any metric.

:shrug: all things being equal they contribute less to society. "inferior" would be a word that would require qualifications, however.

How so? How is simply breeding a contribution?

And how do you reckon people who don't reproduce -- a lot of whom don't because they occupy very challenging careers that possibly benefit your children -- aren't contributing?
 
Last edited:
And what the hell is a moral obligation to society? I owe society kids? Seriously?

In traditional societies, the answer is "hell yes". Spinsters and childless women were ridiculed, for example. ;)
 
In traditional societies, the answer is "hell yes". Spinsters and childless women were ridiculed, for example. ;)

Yeah, if you live in Afghanistan. It's 2013, **** traditional society. Nobody owes them anything.
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

...

What is wrong with you?
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:

Yes. They have an obligation to the line of their ancestors to keep their lineage going and they are failing to do so. They have an obligation to society to do their part in raising the next generation of citizens and they are failing to do so. They are failing to live up to the responsibilities of adults.
 
Yes. They have an obligation to the line of their ancestors to keep their lineage going and they are failing to do so. They have an obligation to society to do their part in raising the next generation of citizens and they are failing to do so. They are failing to live up to the responsibilities of adults.

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.
 
You've selected the completely wrong adjective.

No, it's right. I've double checked the dictionary. Let's see what people will say in the discussion. :)
 
No, it's right. I've double checked the dictionary. Let's see what people will say in the discussion. :)

*shrugs* You believe what you believe, no matter how bat **** crazy. We'll just let the poll decide. Not looking good for you, homie.

And I'm confused, wasn't everybody just complaining about overpopulation? We have over 7 billion people on earth, are we in danger of going extinct? That's the only time I could possibly see someone having a "duty" to the human race to breed. It's like those stupid pandas that are on the verge of extinction and yet refuse to ****.
 
Why do adults have a "responsibility" to keep their "line" going?

It is how we repay our parents and our grandparents and our great-grandparents and our more distant forebears for having kept our lines going until we were born-- for having borne and raised us. It is how we pass on the teachings that were passed on to us.

And how is choosing other endeavors not responsible or adult?

I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that choosing other endeavors at the expense of your family line is irresponsible. It's short-sighted and selfish.

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.

Again, not saying that. You can live a life of tremendous purpose and meaning without bearing children. You're just missing an important aspect of family and social life. I don't think childless couples are particularly less happy or less fulfilled than couples with children-- just less responsible to the line of their ancestors.
 
It is how we repay our parents and our grandparents and our great-grandparents and our more distant forebears for having kept our lines going until we were born-- for having borne and raised us. It is how we pass on the teachings that were passed on to us.



I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that choosing other endeavors at the expense of your family line is irresponsible. It's short-sighted and selfish.



Again, not saying that. You can live a life of tremendous purpose and meaning without bearing children. You're just missing an important aspect of family and social life. I don't think childless couples are particularly less happy or less fulfilled than couples with children-- just less responsible to the line of their ancestors.

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.
 
It is how we repay our parents and our grandparents and our great-grandparents and our more distant forebears for having kept our lines going until we were born-- for having borne and raised us. It is how we pass on the teachings that were passed on to us.

Why do I care whether they did that or not? If they hadn't, I simply wouldn't exist, and I'm sure I'd have a very hard time caring about my non-existence.

Also, how do you thank dead people in any meaningful way?

And even if you could, how is reproducing the best way to say thank you?

I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that choosing other endeavors at the expense of your family line is irresponsible. It's short-sighted and selfish.

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

How is it short-sighted? I'll be dead in the end either way.

Again, not saying that. You can live a life of tremendous purpose and meaning without bearing children. You're just missing an important aspect of family and social life. I don't think childless couples are particularly less happy or less fulfilled than couples with children-- just less responsible to the line of their ancestors.

I don't happen to think it is all that important, and one need not have children to have a family.
 
And this would be why I would call your outlook "selfish".

Before you make such an assertion about his view, you must explain what the purpose of potentially being less happy for dead people or non-existent people is.
 
And this would be why I would call your outlook "selfish".

Being selfish would require caring only for one's self and ignoring the needs/feelings of others. Our ancestors are dead. They don't have needs, they don't have feelings, and you certainly can't care for them. That leaves only you and your spouse to make the decision.
 
We'll just let the poll decide. Not looking good for you, homie.

Stfu, RabidAlpaca, and go to bed. :lol: If I had a sweet German wife, I'd be making a bunch of blond babies. :lol:

But your right, this demographic crisis resembles climate change - everything is being distributed wrong and uneven. Rainfalls in the swamps and dry weather in the desert areas, if you know what I mean. ;)
 
Why do I care whether they did that or not? If they hadn't, I simply wouldn't exist, and I'm sure I'd have a very hard time caring about my non-existence.

Sure, but you do exist now and I suspect you care very much for your existence now.

Also, how do you thank dead people in any meaningful way? And even if you could, how is reproducing the best way to say thank you?

You carry on their legacy. If you can preserve their legacy in other ways, so much the better-- but then who will do so in your place when you are dead?

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

You are choosing not to perpetuate your family, not to perpetuate civilization itself, because you value your materialistic lifestyle over such concerns. How is that not selfish?

And while you cannot obtain consent from the unborn, you must admit that the vast majority of people, once living, prefer to remain so.

I don't happen to think it is all that important, and one need not have children to have a family.

No, just to continue having a family when you are old and grey and dying.
 
Stfu, RabidAlpaca, and go to bed. :lol: If I had a sweet German wife, I'd be making a bunch of blond babies. :lol:

But your right, this demographic crisis resembles climate change - everything is being distributed wrong and uneven. Rainfalls in the swamps and dry weather in the desert areas, if you know what I mean. ;)

Oh trust me, every time I see her I have an almost uncontrollable desire to have lots of babies with her. But I use self control because this simply isn't the time in our life for that. Someday we might. On the other hand we might fall in love with being free and just decide we don't want to. Either way, our self worth hasn't changed a bit. It's about deciding what's best for us, we don't owe anybody anything.
 
Sure, but you do exist now and I suspect you care very much for your existence now.

I mostly care that I do something meaningful with it (I don't happen to think reproducing automatically qualifies). The idea of me having not existed doesn't bother me.

You carry on their legacy. If you can preserve their legacy in other ways, so much the better-- but then who will do so in your place when you are dead?

What legacy? Every person in my family is an individual, and a lot of them have virtually nothing in common with each other than a bit of DNA. What is so important about that bit of DNA?

What do I care who carries on this supposed "legacy?" I don't even know what the purpose of it is, and so far, you're not really explaining it to me. You're just choosing different words for the same concept.

You are choosing not to perpetuate your family, not to perpetuate civilization itself, because you value your materialistic lifestyle over such concerns. How is that not selfish?

And while you cannot obtain consent from the unborn, you must admit that the vast majority of people, once living, prefer to remain so.

Who says it has anything to do with my supposed "materialist" lifestyle? Way to assume.

My dead family doesn't care if their bits of genetic information are perpetuated, my living family has already gotten over it and realize I have far more to offer than simply my bodily functions. I have a brain too.

And honestly, I don't really care about perpetuating civilization. I don't see any reason why I should -- "civilization" has actually turned out pretty badly for most people living in it, and ultimately, it really doesn't matter whether humans are here or not. All I care about is making whatever civilization there is good for the people in it. But that doesn't translate into the believe that it must exist. I don't think it must.

Does that mean it's not an ethical problem for the ones who aren't glad they're alive?

No, just to continue having a family when you are old and grey and dying.

:lamo

This is my favorite bingo of all.

What, do you think all those old people rotting in bottom-dollar homes, who never get a single visit, are all childfree? Please. They're from a time when being childfree wasn't even an option.

The overwhelming majority of them have kids. Their kids just don't care.

Having children doesn't guarantee you company or a personal nurse in old age. And with the money I'll save not having any, I'm sure I'll be able to take care of myself.

And beyond that, if that's the reason you have children, then you are the selfish one, not me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom