|
Radbot posted:Nobody here said that, I believe. This isn't /r/childfree. I strongly disagree with words like "crotchspawn" (stupid because we were all crotchspawn, and it's a temporary condition, hopefully). Fair enough, I'm sorry for projecting that sentiment on this thread. Anosmoman posted:Yes, and sometimes for the worse. People do regret having children and are miserable and bitter because of it. Estranged parents, adoption and infanticide exist and lots of parents neglect their children or actively hurt them. It's the extreme end of the scale of course but it is a scale. There is no universal emotional response to becoming a parent´and some people (and their children) would have been better off without it. That is true, there are people who regret having their children (or didn't mean to have them in the first place), and they and their children might have been better off if another decision was made. More should be done to minimise the chances of that happening, less social pressure, more access to birth control and family planning, more support for parents after a child is born. But in the main I believe the majority of people do cherish their children. quote:
Not always. I had a fairly idyllic childhood up until my dad died and I do base a lot of my parenting on trying to recreate the parts that made my childhood good while learning from the parts that I didn't find helpful. But my husband had a really horrible childhood with alcoholism, suicide attempts by a parent in front of him and witnessing prolonged domestic abuse. He is a wonderful dad and says that all the things that happened to him when he was young shaped him as a person in that he knew exactly what not do to when he had children. Grand Theft Autobot posted:A 19 year old who tells his parents to gently caress off while feeling entitled to a work-free college education is a shittily raised manbaby whose parents have hosed up hard. Don't underestimate the obnoxiousness of teenagers. My 12 year old just compared living here to North Korea because I told him not to have a biscuit just before dinner.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
The example used was an adult of 19 years. Your 12 year old is entirely different and sounds awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:A 19 year old who tells his parents to gently caress off while feeling entitled to a work-free college education is a shittily raised manbaby whose parents have hosed up hard. This is utter bullshit. I'm not even a parent and never want to be, but if you believe that a teenager being lovely means they had bad parents, you're a fool. I was a lovely teenager, and my parents are pretty good overall. Then I grew out of it, as teenagers tend to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Feather posted:Who is this "we?" That's a fairly broad generalization. Empathy is a thing. For example, I've never been in a church where 9 people were murdered by a white racial terrorist but I'm pretty sure I have no difficulty at all understanding the variety of emotional responses to it. That was in response to "you will get bored travelling". Yes, the vast majority of people understand grief, fear and pain and can relate to not wanting to die or fearing someone you love die. It's pretty much hardcoded into (most of) us. Feeling joy and exhileration when you, for instance, watch a sporting event is clearly not universal but you are IMO far more likely to associate it with positive feelings as an adult if you had meaningful bonding experiences with your family and friends around sports as a child. The point is you can't say X, Y and Z won't be fulfilling or interesting over the long term and life would be boring if that's all you got. You don't know why people do what they do or what it gives them. It might be as inconceivable to you to not have children as it would to another to not travel all the time or to not have a high powered career. People then have a tendency to project their own values on to others - "Without children your life will be empty because my life would be empty without children!" or "If you don't travel your life is boring because if I didn't travel I would be bored!" And around we go. hookerbot 5000 posted:That is true, there are people who regret having their children (or didn't mean to have them in the first place), and they and their children might have been better off if another decision was made. More should be done to minimise the chances of that happening, less social pressure, more access to birth control and family planning, more support for parents after a child is born. But in the main I believe the majority of people do cherish their children. Absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:First off, I never asked you or anyone else to explain having children, so this perceived slight on your behalf is completely unjustified. Why do you see folks like me as such a threat? I don't, I just object to the idea that having children requires justification, which is what this thread is about. Solkanar512 posted:What I object to is your insistence without any evidence what so ever that people who don't want kids are somehow ignorant of their own basic biology, and if they were more comfortable they would be popping out kids left and right. No, what i was saying was that the default position is the urge to reproduce. After a process of intelligent, human thought this position can change. Solkanar512 posted:First off, that's batshit crazy. We aren't simple animals driven only by our most basic needs without that ability to plan for the long term. We are exactly that. We do some odd things that no other animal does, but I believe these can all be reduced to fulfilment of basic animal needs. This is why couples without kids get pets - something that is uniquely human, yet fulfils an animal desire. Solkanar512 posted:It's nothing more than a romanticized version of the naturalistic fallacy. We've had various forms of birth control for thousands of years yet you completely ignore that as well. Do I need to sit here and list everything else human do that animals do not? As I was thinking on this subject today, it did occur to me that the desire to reproduce would not necessarily become a naturally selected trait, if the desire to have sex and the desire to protect any offspring is great enough. With that in mind, desire to have children may well be an entirely social construct. Solkanar512 posted:Furthermore, your naturalistic argument has some incredibly insulting and sexist implications. People choose to have or not have children based on their current lives and their access to appropriate medical care. Those who chose not to have children (right now/later/ever) are not denying some intrinsic or "natural" part of themselves, and they aren't defective or less of a human being for doing so. Not to mention your naturalistic argument harkens back to that old saw about "a woman's highest calling is to be a mother". I implied no such thing. Reproduction is the pinnacle of biological achievement (for either sex), in the sense that you are a biological machine designed to preserve your own genes. This is entirely separate from human achievement, which encompasses everything else that we do. EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:you are a biological machine designed to preserve your own genes. We're also designed to distrust people with a different phenotype from ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
For me, the answer to why I'm not having kids, is that I can't find it moral or ethical to bring a child into this world while there are so many needing adoption. But that's just my reasons, have a kid if you want. Have 10 or 20. as long as you care for and raise each of them, oh well 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:I don't, I just object to the idea that having children requires justification, which is what this thread is about. Of course it requires justification, you're creating a new human life, there is very little in the world that requires more justification than that except possibly for ending a human life. I mean good god if you don't think life and death are subject to moral constraints then I don't know what you think is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Of course it requires justification, you're creating a new human life, there is very little in the world that requires more justification than that except possibly for ending a human life. Again, why should a fundamental part of life require justification? Apply your logic to other people and perhaps you'll see what I mean - how would you feel about enforcing your moral and environmental considerations on others, as China does with it's one child policy. Ask yourself why you'd be uncomfortable with that. EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:Again, why should a fundamental part of life require justification? Apply your logic to other people and perhaps you'll see what I mean - how would you feel about enforcing your moral and environmental considerations on others, as China does with it's one child policy. Ask yourself why you'd be uncomfortable with that. I feel absolutely no discomfort with the idea of forcing people to comprehend the implications of their decision to have or not have children. I would be much, much happier in fact if everyone in the world were to do that, rather than having children "because I want them" or "because it's part of life". You are not required to have a child, you may want a child but you drat well ought to be able to justify it. If you can't justify it, you shouldn't have one. The child's wellbeing and that of others trumps your personal preferences. Human lives are not vanity items. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
If you believe in the consensus around climate change, is having children even ethical, knowing that either them or their children will have vastly lower standards of living (at the minimum) than you do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:I implied no such thing. Reproduction is the pinnacle of biological achievement (for either sex), in the sense that you are a biological machine designed to preserve your own genes. This is entirely separate from human achievement, which encompasses everything else that we do. When you say that reproduction is the "pinnacle of biological achievement" (lets set aside for a moment that all life does this, and how arbitrary your measurement is*), you are implicitly harkening back to that dangerous standard that "the highest calling of a woman is to be a mother" and "a woman isn't complete until she has children". Your appeal to naturalism implies that there is something biologically wrong with a woman who does not wish to become a mother or otherwise care for children. After all, it's her highest calling, her duty, the reason she was placed on this earth, so why else would she pass on that? What's wrong with her? To claim that it's the same for both genders ignores thousands of years of laws and social pressure aimed specifically at women to ensure they don't have sex with the wrong person, that they don't enjoy sex, that they don't have full autonomy of their sexual relationships, that their only calling in life is to be a mother and that they lack control of their own sexual health. While men may face some pressures, it's a minor footnote compared to the mountain of poo poo women have and continue to face. *And seriously, this idea that there are "biological achievements" and "human achievements" is nothing more than a "No True Scotsman" argument. Why is reproduction so important but homeostasis is not? Why aren't you discussing the wonders of asexual reproduction and exponential growth? What about the ability to withstand harsh conditions or transform the atmosphere (blue-green algae)? Come on, think this poo poo through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
thehomemaster posted:See, the problem here is that none of this is enacted. I say this as someone who can't have kids but go gently caress yourself with a million rusty nails. It hurts every loving day that we can't kids the way some stupid idiot can despite the fact we are both highly educated, and have very well paying jobs. I'm pretty sure Genetically we are better off then you given the only major illness in my family is Parkinson's, which doesn't onset till late in.life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
HARK! Life has no meaning! Embrace nihilism!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:It hurts every loving day that we can't kids the way some stupid idiot can despite the fact we are both highly educated, and have very well paying jobs. I also hope that gay marriage helps to destroy that notion  (Personally I find IVF creepy and eugenicy, and would go for one of the many different options, but whatever works for you.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Not especially sure that earning money and being educated makes you more or less entitled to children than anyone else. Maybe creepy and eugenicy is part of the appeal?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
I grew up next to a family that had 5 kids and despite them all being decent people, I always had that mindset of how can 2 people have 5 kids, because wouldn't the population grow and grow until there weren't enough resources for everyone? This is long before I actually understood anything about global warming or pollution. So I never thought it was a good idea to make extra humans. Now I find myself in a relationship with someone who even if we weren't together would end up having or adopting a child on her own, because she just wants that experience, so I figure I'm not doing any extra harm if the father is me. But now that I've made peace with the idea of raising a kid, I'm faced with the utter fear of how disappointed I would be if my child grew up to be a furry or some reddit MRA. I don't want to be a bad parent who isn't supportive of their child but how do you cope with something like that, and what is the thing parents do wrong that results in people like that?sbaldrick posted:I say this as someone who can't have kids but go gently caress yourself with a million rusty nails. It hurts every loving day that we can't kids the way some stupid idiot can despite the fact we are both highly educated, and have very well paying jobs. Are you against adoption because you lack the ability to form an emotional bond with a child that doesn't share your DNA? I imagine that's a problem for a lot of people. davebo fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:HARK! Life has no meaning! Embrace nihilism! We're likely on the road to extinction no matter what so enjoy the ride 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
davebo posted:I grew up next to a family that had 5 kids and despite them all being decent people, I always had that mindset of how can 2 people have 5 kids, because wouldn't the population grow and grow until there weren't enough resources for everyone? This is long before I actually understood anything about global warming or pollution. So I never thought it was a good idea to make extra humans. Now I find myself in a relationship with someone who even if we weren't together would end up having or adopting a child on her own, because she just wants that experience, so I figure I'm not doing any extra harm if the father is me. But now that I've made peace with the idea of raising a kid, I'm faced with the utter fear of how disappointed I would be if my child grew up to be a furry or some reddit MRA. I don't want to be a bad parent who isn't supportive of their child but how do you cope with something like that, and what is the thing parents do wrong that results in people like that? kill your kid if you think he's a MRA, it's the only way to be sure
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
davebo posted:I'm faced with the utter fear of how disappointed I would be if my child grew up to be a furry or some reddit MRA. I don't want to be a bad parent who isn't supportive of their child but how do you cope with something like that, and what is the thing parents do wrong that results in people like that? davebo posted:Are you against adoption because you lack the ability to form an emotional bond with a child that doesn't share your DNA? I imagine that's a problem for a lot of people. I posted this link earlier but it gives some idea: http://www.adoptionuk.org/sites/default/files/documents/LetsLearnTogetherNIMarch2013.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Adolescence. Your kid will get into some dumb poo poo that doesn't make sense to you. It might even be some dumb neoreactionary poo poo. Just don't be like Dylann Storm Roof's dad and buy him a gun for his birthday when he has a felony record and psychiatric issues and he'll probably grow out of it soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Now that I"m a little less of a blinding rage and not phone posting I can be more articulate on the subject. We are working on adoption right now, it's a long, slow and insanely difficult process especially due to currently geopolitical tensions (Russia closed off international adoptions, China has made it harder). But one day in the future we will have a kid that we will love and support till the day we die. First off, Genetics doesn't always play a huge role in fertility. If it did both of our siblings wouldn't have children. Basically too many antibiotics after surgery weakened my wife's fertility, and we did do a round of IVF but it didn't work and more then likely never would. It does hurt and it does suck and you have to work past the idea mentally. There are lots of reasons not to have kids, you don't want them, you don't think you would be a good parent, genetic reasons (I know a girl like this) but if you do have kids try not to gently caress them up by pushing your hopes and dreams on them and let them lives there own. Guavanaut posted:If we stopped defining 'having kids' as 'mixing bodily fluids until a child who is a 50:50 genetic mix of both partners comes out of one of them' then there would be a lot less social/psychological pressure for you there and you'd be able to have kids if that's what you wanted to do. How can you find IVF creepy and eugenicy if you want gay marriage to destroy the idea of of a child is a 50:50 genetic mix.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
I like sleep and sports cars and I hate things that are dumb and loud. Put all babies in dumpsters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:I like sports cars ColdPie posted:and I hate things that are dumb and loud. Hmm? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Loud cars are awful
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
What's the thought process behind not even mentioning domestic adoption?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What's the thought process behind not even mentioning domestic adoption? Super difficult, they won't allow you to look at international adoption at the same time mostly, little to no chance of mixed race adoption (which are the majority of non-private adoption) and a huge weight time of at least 7 years which would put us in our 40s. Private adoptions in North America are shitshow in a complete different way and we aren't rich enough to compete in what kind of becomes a bidding war for the best life for the moms kid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Super difficult, they won't allow you to look at international adoption at the same time mostly, little to no chance of mixed race adoption (which are the majority of non-private adoption) and a huge weight time of at least 7 years which would put us in our 40s. I suspected this, which is why I'm always skeptical when people exclaim they'll "just adopt."
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
What about public adoptions? Don't know much about them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What about public adoptions? Don't know much about them. Public adoption is pretty much the first paragraph of my last post. Child Services also prefers family adoptions as well which is understandable but it can suck when your trying to adopt. Other people will know more about that however as we aren't in that program.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This is utter bullshit. I'm not even a parent and never want to be, but if you believe that a teenager being lovely means they had bad parents, you're a fool. I confess that my opinion is also colored by my personal experience. My step-brother was coddled his entire life and was never held accountable for any of his actions, and now he's a 26 year old complete failure of a human being. There was essentially no difference in the material quality of our lives, nor is there any difference between us intellectually or physically, and we had essentially the same kind of friends, attended the same schools, did the same activities. My parents were good, his were poo poo, and that's really the only difference I can identify. When you used the example of a petulant 19 year old manchild, my brother sprang immediately to mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Chiming in on adoption chat. My wife and I spent 5 years and probably 6 figures having a child through IVF, and that was the simpler option to adoption. Domestic adoption in Australia is at best a game of roullette. All adoptions here are public, and it is up to the biological parents to choose the adopting couple, and so you could end up waiting until you're too old to adopt and never end up having a child. Even if you do end up successful, you're still considered almost a second class parent. You're expected to keep contact with the birth parents and basically revolve your life around ensuring that communications and visits still happen between the biological parents and their child. I understand why this is done and can agree to the principal of it, but from the factor of wanting to really be the child's parents, it's really quite a hard way of life to accept International adoption allows for more of a 'break' with the biological parents, but has such a back log of waiting applications and is such a poo poo show that you can never be sure what's happening. I believe the average wait time is now up to 7 years for international adoption. Further, you can only apply to 3 programs internationally (at least in Australia), and there is no guarantee that any program will be around for the next 7 years. Programs are constantly closing or being suspended, while those that stay open see the number of adoptions reducing drastically every year. Further, Australia is a member of the hague convention on international adoption (as it should be) which limits the number of countries to adopt from to about 15-20 if my memory serves me correctly. Add the cost on top of that which generally sit at $15-$30k depending on the program. Let's not even get into all the mental and physical issues that the children in these programs generally have. So basically, adoption is a long hard and expensive road with no guarantee at the end. A lot of people love to chime in and say stuff like "Why have kids when there are all these kids in the 3rd world that need help". It would be amazing if there was a system in place that actually let people adopt these chidlren, but the sad fact is that there isn't, and this type of sentiment is rooted in people's lack of understanding. PotatoManJack fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:When you say that reproduction is the "pinnacle of biological achievement" (lets set aside for a moment that all life does this, and how arbitrary your measurement is*), you are implicitly harkening back to that dangerous standard that "the highest calling of a woman is to be a mother" and "a woman isn't complete until she has children". Your appeal to naturalism implies that there is something biologically wrong with a woman who does not wish to become a mother or otherwise care for children. After all, it's her highest calling, her duty, the reason she was placed on this earth, so why else would she pass on that? What's wrong with her? Stop putting words in my mouth. Reproduction is part of the definition of life. There were two things that needed to happen for life to exist - the spontaneous emergence of life, and its ability to reproduce. Let me rephrase my original point without using a loaded words - the body of every living thing is designed to facilitate the survival of your genes through self-perpetuation and reproduction. Humans are unique in that they can chose not to do either. They can chose to do anything that's counter to what their biological function has evolved to do (the 'human' choices). I attach no positive or negative connotations to that choice. 'Achievement' was a piss-poor choice of words and I'm sorry for that. I do realise what you're saying - that biological reductionism can be used to argue a lot of bull poo poo around a 'woman's true calling', but that's not what I'm doing. EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Now that I"m a little less of a blinding rage and not phone posting I can be more articulate on the subject. --- PotatoManJack posted:Chiming in on adoption chat. I physically can't have children and am not looking forward to this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I feel absolutely no discomfort with the idea of forcing people to comprehend the implications of their decision to have or not have children. I would be much, much happier in fact if everyone in the world were to do that, rather than having children "because I want them" or "because it's part of life". I would argue, given that civilisation requires reproduction to exist, that having to make any consideration regarding having children beyond 'I want children' is indicative of faults with that society. I'm not denying that those considerations exist. What's the end goal of your position? No one has kids, the human race disappears, and we leave it nature? Fair enough. But surely the best position would be to allow people to have kids' freely, without fear of them wrecking the environment, or suffering horrifically. We are capable of achieving that, and have made huge progress when you consider the suffering that our species has been through. EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:I would argue, given that civilisation requires reproduction to exist, that having to make any consideration regarding having children beyond 'I want children' is indicative of faults with that society. I'm not denying that those considerations exist. What you want is absolutely, completely, and utterly irrelevant. A child's life is not there for you, it is not something to be created for your amusement. If you are going to have a child you should be doing it for the child's sake, not your own. The end goal of my position is to ask whether or not you think it's just or fair, to keep throwing human lives onto the pile of misery and death upon which our species "progresses". I expect you to be cognizant of the pain, work, and suffering that supports any position of comfort, and to recognize that hope for the future of your child is mired in the likelihood that they will not live in a position of comfort. Consider that it is entirely possible for your child to develop illness, to struggle to find well paying work, to suffer the effects of war or environmental damage, to develop an addiction, to live a life of loneliness. And even if none of these do happen, in a sense they are only not happening to your child because they're happening to someone else instead. For every wealthy person there are many living in poverty to support their wealth, for every person with a doctor there are those going without, for everyone who doesn't have to deal with the effects of environmental damage there are those who cannot afford to escape it. Your child will either suffer, or inflict suffering on others. And yet you say that the only thing you need to think about is "well, I want children, so I will have them".
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:How can you find IVF creepy and eugenicy if you want gay marriage to destroy the idea of of a child is a 50:50 genetic mix. Pretty sure gay couples aren't using IVF to have a baby that is a 50:50 genetic mix of the two of them (I'm not even sure how that would work).
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What you want is absolutely, completely, and utterly irrelevant. That a child born into western civilisation inflicts suffering by consuming resources is the fault of the founders of that civilisation and those in charge of keeping it that way. It's not the fault of people that decide to have children, and it's not fair that they should even have to consider that when they decided to fulfil the most basic biological function. Again, by your own logic YOU are causing the same suffering, have the choice to end your own life, yet you don't. People who decide to have children don't need to justify their decision, any more than your decision to keep yourself alive. It is of course entirely possible that a child will develop a condition that would cause it to suffer. But that is less likely now than it has ever been in history. Are you proposing we wait until we cure all disease, and bring about world peace before we can ethically reproduce?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
Every time there's an antinatalism debate, someone will come out with the "if life is so much suffering, why don't you kill yourself  " argument. I've never heard anyone argue "if life is so much suffering, why don't you kill as many people as possible and then kill yourself." They're both about as logically consistent (they're not, because the harms inflicted on those around you from ending lives are incomparable to any that might exist from not creating them) but I always hear the first and never the second.(p.s. don't do a spree killing)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 12:16
|
|