Why do people make children?

[Koldo]

Okay... you made an analogy. Does this mean that you aren't trying rebutt an argument (#strawman?) that parents own their children?
I thought you said that

Perhaps you can elaborate less on your analogy to orgasms and elaborate more on the "rationale" that "turns children into objects that are owned by their parents".

I meant that parents turn children into objects to try to achieve success through them. But the success their children achieve doesn't belong to their parents.

 

[Ponder This]

I meant that parents turn children into objects to try to achieve success through them. But the success their children achieve doesn't belong to their parents.

Hmm. It seems to me that many parents do feel pride in their children's accomplishments and brag about it to others. And, yes, there does seem to be some legitimate reason to use the possessive, which denotes ownership, when talking about their children.
But it doesn't seem to me that this means that their children are "objects", that the parent's have sole say in what their children do, nor that being happy about the success of their children is, as you seem to say

lame

 

[Koldo]

Hmm. It seems to me that many parents do feel pride in their children's accomplishments and brag about it to others.

Not just that. But feel like they own that success themselves.

And, yes, there does seem to be some legitimate reason to use the possessive, which denotes ownership, when talking about their children.

What reason?

But it doesn't seem to me that this means that their children are "objects", that the parent's have sole say in what their children do, nor that being happy about the success of their children is, as you seem to say

Being happy about the success of one's own children is completely different from feeling like one is achieving something through one's own children.

I am saying that feeling like you have achieved something through your children entails treating them as objects. Objects don't achieve anything, the people that make use of them do though. This why people feel like they have achieved something through their children.

 

[Ponder This]

Not just that. But feel like they own that success themselves.

Does feeling happy for your children really mean that you think you own their success? Let's suppose that parents pay for a child's college. In such a case, the success of the parents contribute directly to the success of the child. But contributing to someone's success isn't quite the same thing as believing that you own the success entirely, is it? Even if they think they own the success of their children, wouldn't it be a group ownership situation as opposed to a sole ownership situation?

What reason?

The responsibility that parents have to their children and the power they have over their children, who are not yet of an age to make decisions for themselves and the fact of the child being a part of a family of which the parents are the authority over.

Being happy about the success of one's own children is completely different from feeling like one is achieving something through one's own children.

I don't know if the feelings are entirely different. Perhaps both are feelings of satisfaction?

I am saying that feeling like you have achieved something through your children entails treating them as objects. Objects don't achieve anything, the people that make use of them do though. This why people feel like they have achieved something through their children.

By "objects" you mean "objects don't achieve anything", but isn't the point that the children have achieved something? They have achieved "success". It's not clear to me that, having invested time and energy into rearing a child, that that doesn't count as an investment by a parent that may or may not yield desired results later on and that simultaneously, the achievement of a child doesn't lie totally with actions of the parent that reared the child.
What do you think about children who thank their parents as contributors to their success in an endeavor? Do these children regard themselves as objects their parents have made use of? I don't think they do. I don't think that feeling your success contributes to the success of your children means that you see your children as objects.

 

[Koldo]

Does feeling happy for your children really mean that you think you own their success? Let's suppose that parents pay for a child's college. In such a case, the success of the parents contribute directly to the success of the child. But contributing to someone's success isn't quite the same thing as believing that you own the success entirely, is it? Even if they think they own the success of their children, wouldn't it be a group ownership situation as opposed to a sole ownership situation?

You are mixing up entirely different situations.

The responsibility that parents have to their children and the power they have over their children, who are not yet of an age to make decisions for themselves and the fact of the child being a part of a family of which the parents are the authority over.

That still doesn't make them possessions.

I don't know if the feelings are entirely different. Perhaps both are feelings of satisfaction?

I was saying you were mixing up different scenarios.

By "objects" you mean "objects don't achieve anything", but isn't the point that the children have achieved something? They have achieved "success". It's not clear to me that, having invested time and energy into rearing a child, that that doesn't count as an investment by a parent that may or may not yield desired results later on and that simultaneously, the achievement of a child doesn't lie totally with actions of the parent that reared the child.
What do you think about children who thank their parents as contributors to their success in an endeavor? Do these children regard themselves as objects their parents have made use of? I don't think they do. I don't think that feeling your success contributes to the success of your children means that you see your children as objects.

You are once again mixing up different things. It is one thing to contribute towards the success of your children and yet another to use your children to achieve success through them.

 

[Ponder This]

You are once again mixing up different things. It is one thing to contribute towards the success of your children and yet another to use your children to achieve success through them.

If we are talking about different things, then the argument I made to begin with is not "exactly the sort of rationale that turns children into objects that are owned by their parents" (where you define objects as "objects that don't achieve anything, the people that make use of them do though").

 

[flowerpower]

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.

If you have noticed, Capitalists adore high birth rates.
Because they need more and more slaves to exploit.
They need someone to till the soil, while they smoke cigar.

Okay, you've definitely become one of my favourites with these two short posts.

I think the decision to make children goes beyond mere sex drive (which, as you said, can be avoided by contraception) and biological urges (which can be quelled by intellect and consolidated personal values). Social pressure is understated and people often become deluded into thinking that having children is the most important thing a person can possibly do and that if a person doesn't reproduce and contribute to the gene pool, then they've literally failed as a human being. Nasty stuff.

Anti-Natalism hey?

I'm actually leaning towards deciding to never have children myself. Abigail Shirer's novel We Need To Talk About Kevin (not the movie made on it) explores the dilemma in great detail and really illuminates the fact that the social pressure is seriously understated and extremely foolhardy if a person gives in to it and makes a decision to have children on that basis alone.

I might be projecting a little bit here, but I'm usually skeptical of seemingly docile people who talk about their children as the best thing that's ever happened to them. I've heard a lot of people tell me - in confidence - that having children and starting a family was probably the worst decision they've ever made and I have an enormous amount of respect for their honesty about it. Then you've got the types of scumbags who brag about having 9 children to 9 different women and all of those children are in foster care - these people are typically stuck in self-perpetuating cycles of crime and poverty that you vaguely alluded to - I get disgusted by these people on face value, but posts like yours remind me that they're actually somewhat victims of something much more sinister going on in society.

I've definitely noticed in my relatively short life that thoughtful, sensitive, intelligent and critically thinking people are far less likely to reproduce (especially with their own DNA) while people who - let's say - are antithetical to those virtues seem to breed like rabbits.

None of this is good for society or humanity as a whole lol.

 

[Estro Felino]

Okay, you've definitely become one of my favourites with these two short posts.

Thank you so much. I just speak my mind.

I think the decision to make children goes beyond mere sex drive (which, as you said, can be avoided by contraception) and biological urges (which can be quelled by intellect and consolidated personal values). Social pressure is understated and people often become deluded into thinking that having children is the most important thing a person can possibly do and that if a person doesn't reproduce and contribute to the gene pool, then they've literally failed as a human being. Nasty stuff.

Social pressure is what pushes people who don't have the parental vocation to make children.
They basically do what others want them to do. That's terrifying.

I might be projecting a little bit here, but I'm usually skeptical of seemingly docile people who talk about their children as the best thing that's ever happened to them. I've heard a lot of people tell me - in confidence - that having children and starting a family was probably the worst decision they've ever made and I have an enormous amount of respect for their honesty about it. Then you've got the types of scumbags who brag about having 9 children to 9 different women and all of those children are in foster care - these people are typically stuck in self-perpetuating cycles of crime and poverty that you vaguely alluded to - I get disgusted by these people on face value, but posts like yours remind me that they're actually somewhat victims of something much more sinister going on in society.

As I said, if someone is rich enough to give their own children a bright future, and an assured future...well...why not?
I mean...good for them if they make children.
Unfortunately most people aren't rich.