-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do people make children?
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
I can be, yes. At least so I've been told.
Lazy post is lazy.
It would appear your position is no different than anyone claiming their religion is the most correct while being in complete ignorance of the views and practices of any other.
Then moving forward, please present them as such.The 50 50 is an idiom to mean that a child can genetically be predisposed to either good or evil.
It's not statistics.
It's an idiom.
I resemble that remark!
Drug addiction isn't particularly rare among the less well-off, you know.
My point was: do you think that young people should make children today, as in 2023, a time where there is social injustice, overpopulation, greedy élites, unfair competition, unfair practices?
Yes or no.
One should contextualize, making children in 1940s is not the same as making children today.
Or to have as many children as possible to make lots of little baby catholics.
Anecdotal but I remember as a child in school all the children belonging to larger families with several siblings were Catholic.
PureX
Veteran Member
Capitalism did nothing of the sort. Industrialization did. Capitalism is what keeps the poor, poor, even with industrialized production.
"Should" implies obligation or duty. There is no obligation or duty to make children.
So the direct answer to your question would be "no." However, it should not be said that people shouldn't make children either. To say so infringes on a person's freedom to procreate.
Bravo. Mechanized agriculture and medicine.
That's how we became 8 billion.
I think that one needs to understand that the collapse of mortality rates should have been accompanied by a collapse of the birth rates.
Yet there has been a rise in the birth rates, especially in Africa.
It's not a fundamental freedom.
Because the State can guarantee you rights, but the right to procreation is not one of them.
Otherwise the State should pay for the infertility treatments a woman decides to undergo, because she can't live unless she becomes pregnant.
I am sterile.
Of course...it was not nature. It was a medical sterilization.
But my mind cannot understand, how people cannot accept they are infertile or partially sterile.
I cannot understand it. I never will.
Life is made up of full of things. Let's fix the world first, then we can populate it.
Greedy elites aren't obviously any more or any less of a problem or of a factor now than in any time in the past - at least to me.
Same for unfair competition and practices, come to think of it.
Social injustice is actually at an all-time low, depressing as that may be.
Overpopulation _is_ a major concern of mine, but apparently I am in the minority. Plenty of people apparently doubt that it is a problem at all.
All the same, there are indeed some reasons for people to have children even today.
First of all, of course, having biological children of their own is a major and important life project for many people. I believe that many people think of that as a basic and unquestionable human right, even (I do not). It is not necessarily a rational expectation, but it is doubtlessly a common and emotionally significant one for perhaps billions of people.
There is also the matter of dealing with aging. While the idea of having children isn't generally speaking a path for economic advancement these days, the concern remains that childless people may come to need assistance in their old age and it may be difficult to find people willing to give that assistance without children of their own.
On a more structural level, there is the matter of social welfare, retirements and pensions. Many communities have systems that expect young people to come into existence and to become economically productive in certain numbers, so that their retirement systems don't become too unsustainable. That seems to have become a difficult challenge in many places.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
I mean....if we exclude the millionaires or the billionaires, well, they can assure a future to their children.
What about the rest?
Proletariat, Middle class. Why do they make them?
They procreate, making children who will have to undergo the parents' impositions, who will basically have no freedom, and once adults they will have to succumb in shark-infested waters. Because there are voracious sharks, that is wicked people who victimize the weakest. Only the fittest survive in capitalistic economies.
Well...I have discovered Anti-Natalism, lately...but I identify as a overpopulation believer and I am 100% convinced that all the problems we have on Earth are caused by too many people on Earth.
So I would like to understand why people do anything to have children.
It's something absolutely avoidable. There is contraception.
Please...only serious replies, merci beaucoup.
I lean towards anti-natalism myself albeit for different reasons (in short, I prioritise reducing suffering over increasing happiness).
I don't think there's any one reason why people have children. Some do it due to societal and/or religious expectations. Some do it because they need somebody to support them in later life. Some do it because they really, really want children.
That last point can be a stumbling block for many anti-natalists in my opinion and can unfortunately result in some incredibly callous attitudes. That strong desire for children isn't something I've experienced myself so I can only go off what other people describe. I firmly believe that for some people, not having children would cause them a great deal of emotional suffering. I don't consider that need to have children to be unworthy of respect even if it's not something I experience myself.
I do consider staying childless to be the more moral approach overall. However, I also recognise that this stems from my own moral priorities and that it's easy for me to stick to given my complete lack of desire for children. If somebody wants to have children, I don't see it as at all helpful to berate or insult them for that choice.*
*Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of berating and insulting people here. If you spend much time reading up on anti-natalism though, you're pretty much guaranteed to come across people with one hell of a vicious streak.
In terms of land area, Italy is just a little bit larger than my state of Arizona, although Arizona has only about 7.3 million people (more than twice what it was 40 years ago). The Sun Belt region of the U.S. has been fast growing, as a lot of people are moving away from the cold, frigid Rust Belt region. The total population of the US is around 330 million. In 1970, our population was just a little over 200 million.
Of course they are. The 90% of lands are owned by very few people in the US.
Yes, they are a problem.
It was an all-time low in the seventies, maybe.
Now it's higher than ever
Which I cannot understand.
I mean, I do understand billionaires or millionaires who make children, because they can make their dreams come true.
But others?
No...I cannot understand that. Sorry.
It's basically a selfish need to have a legacy.
Then throwing them into the arena, where they will be victimized by this hellish economic system.
Where there is the law of the fittest. Jungle law.
Absolutely non-problem in first world countries, where the State provides the elderly with free medical assistance.
Meaning, the State pays for the assistance an old person needs.
At least in the EU, I dare not imagine what the US entails.
It's a vicious circle.
More babies----more people who will become retired----more and more babies needed.
It's a neverending, diabolical, vicious circle.
And by the way, the State can also print the money they need.
What a silly argument. You might as well throw that owning a house or a car isn't a fundamental freedom because the State doesn't pay for it.It's not a fundamental freedom.
Because the State can guarantee you rights, but the right to procreation is not one of them.
Otherwise the State should pay for the infertility treatments a woman decides to undergo, because she can't live unless she becomes pregnant.
Did the State pay for your medical sterilization?
I find that rather insulting, just because you cannot birth children dors not mean every woman you indicate is selfish for having children.
And so you can understand the disproportion.
Some of you can come here. We won't mind.
Pardon me, I didn't express myself clearly.
As I was saying... the State has the obligation to make an economic system work.
And if there are too many people, and limited resources, they will have to take decisions.
China dissuades people from making children. The State asks people not to procreate.
Because of the common welfare that prevails over individualistic aspirations.
Yes, but the State here pays for abortions too because we have universal healthcare.