Is it selfish to have children?

[Oryx]

If you want to be absolutely literal then yes it's selfish to want a kid. It's a means of living for some people and their happiness. But being serious no it's not, because you guys are approaching it with a negative stigma as if somebody is a bad person for having or wanting a kid because they could adopt or because you think the world is severely overpopulated and on the brink of destruction. That might be true for China but not America. As for adopting, I don't consider my mom bad for having me, sorry. Maybe some of you think your real parents are selfish people but I don't.

The point I was making with my post is that it is selfish in a way that every human is selfish, and not in a way that makes them a bad person. That's why I used the example of buying a steak instead of buying cheap chicken or rice and donating the difference to starving people in Africa; sure it's selfish to enjoy luxuries like steak when there are people dying all over the world, but it's not a selfishness that's considered 'bad' in any way. It's selfish in a distant way, even if you know that you could be indirectly killing a person by not donating money, they're very far away from you so it doesn't affect you whatsoever and it shouldn't. If you let every death in the world affect you, you would end up penniless from donating money tbh.

Everyone is selfish to some point, there is no one that's entirely selfless. If you think your parents are then you must think they're some kind of god, because I have certainly never met an entirely selfless person. Just because you can admit that your parents aren't completely selfless doesn't mean you think they're a bad person or love them any less.

Tbh I think the people talking about how much sacrifice a child takes are missing the point. Those sacrifices would be made whether you gave birth to a child or adopted one, so it doesn't really apply. The only extra sacrifices made would be the 9 months of childbearing, which is minimal compared to the sacrifice of actually caring for a child.

 

[Anders]

Tbh I think the people talking about how much sacrifice a child takes are missing the point. Those sacrifices would be made whether you gave birth to a child or adopted one, so it doesn't really apply. The only extra sacrifices made would be the 9 months of childbearing, which is minimal compared to the sacrifice of actually caring for a child.

Edited out the rest of your post because it's a two paragraph description of what I was implying with my first two sentences. In short I agree so I don't see why you reiterated.

Responding to this part because I never said my parents were perfect or selfless. I said that they weren't selfish for having me because they didn't even expect to have me in the first place, and even if they did it wouldn't fit the definition of selfish that this thread seems geared towards, when it's more like the selfish you described.

 

[Oryx]

Hahaha how do you manage to type this much when the only thing in my post relating to you or anything you just posted is adoption? I'm not gonna type you a tl;dr answering all of these things that have nothing to do with what I posted, but I will address you saying that I think people are perfect and whatever. I never said that, I didn't say that about my parents either. I said they weren't bad or selfish in the way that people are suggesting in this thread pertaining to having a kid aka me. I don't even know how you came to the conclusion that I think they're perfect.

Not all of that was directed towards you, in particular the last paragraph was a general statement to the thread. I replied because most of the posts are saying that it's not selfish (in fact, only one person other than myself said it was outright selfish), so your rebuttal of why it's not would obviously be directed at the people that said it was. It's not rocket science to see why I replied to you.

You said "Maybe some of you think your real parents are selfish people but I don't". It's very reasonable to assume that when you say you don't think your parents are selfish, with no qualifying statements, that you think they...well, aren't selfish. It was a very straightforward statement, if you meant "I don't think they were being selfish in having me", that would mean something different. I can only go off of what you say, not what you were thinking when you said it. :P

 

[Phantom1]

Can I just say what is natural is natural?

 

[Bluerang1]

Flame me baby! Because I was thinking that those living in extreme poverty really shouldn't bring children into their world just to suffer like they do. Maybe they hope for a silver lining, I don't know. If you can't take care of the child, don't have it is what i think. But that's against human rights.

 

[Anders]

You said "Maybe some of you think your real parents are selfish people but I don't". It's very reasonable to assume that when you say you don't think your parents are selfish, with no qualifying statements, that you think they...well, aren't selfish. It was a very straightforward statement, if you meant "I don't think they were being selfish in having me", that would mean something different. I can only go off of what you say, not what you were thinking when you said it. :P

You really didn't know I was talking about having me when referring to my parents in the thread about having children?

 

[Mr. X]

While the population growth rate is projected to decline, this won't effect the number of undernourished people in the world.

From your wikipedia article,
"The observed figures for 2007 show an actual increase in absolute numbers of undernourished people in the world, 923 million in 2007 versus 832 million in 1995.;[110] the more recent FAO estimates point out to an even more dramatic increase, to 1.02 billion in 2009."

So, while the growth rate might be going down these numbers won't, This is why we need birth limits for every country. You can have one birth. and if you want more kids then adopt them.

Also, 2cool. Most people now don't care for reproduction. They just want sex.

and to mameshiba. This is from wikipedia.
"A spokesperson of the Committee on the One-Child Policy has said that approximately 35.9% of China's population is currently subject to the one-child restriction."

 

[Emolga]

I think that some parents have children so that they can obtain money for well-fair. This is very selfish, in a bad way. These parents usual do not even spend enough of the money on what the kids need.

But for the most part, I think that it is emotionally/phsically/finacially draining to have kids, so I do think it is selfish.

 

[Freedom Fighter N]

This is the whole point of the thread, imo. Is it selfish to want to have a child so it can be a "part" of you, when so many children are struggling through terrible living situations in orphanages and under government care and could be saved if you chose to adopt them instead of bringing another child into the world?

In my opinion, yes, it is selfish. In the end, you choose not to help that struggling child to make yourself feel better, because you want a child that's "yours". But not all selfish is unacceptable. It's selfish to buy steak that you don't need when people are starving in Africa. It's selfish to be upset about not being able to go on a vacation one year when some people down the street are homeless. But this is socially acceptable selfishness; no one expects you to give up all luxuries to help people starving around the world, and no one expects you to not care about any problems you may have because someone else has a worse one.

Having a child of your own is what I like to call "acceptable selfishness". If you want to be the perfect, most unselfish person on the face of the Earth, then adopt children into your tiny house (because you donate all your money to starving Africans) even if you want to have your own children. But I wouldn't judge anyone as more selfish than anyone else because they choose to have children over adopting.

You're going too far with the "selfishness" here. I can't really take all those things into account and say no because they don't have it.

Yeah alright, calm down Robin Hood. I should note that by 'resources' I did not mean financial resources, I meant physical resources. Food, water, space. The Earth is not infinite. In fact, I think if the world were to come to this, finances would be the least of all our worries.

First of all, Robin Hood is a damn thief and I hate him like all thieves.
Second, I know what you meant by resources. I was just giving an example why it's not selfish.

 

[2Cool4Mewtwo]

Also, 2cool. Most people now don't care for reproduction. They just want sex.

It's called protection...

I really fail to see how having a child is selfish in any way. Can someone enlighten me on this? (not being sarcastic)

 

[Rogue planet]

If we want to be strict about selfishness here, is it not selfish to do 90% of the things we do? Every time you drive a car, eat a meal that's slightly expensive, buy a luxury item, or basically do anything that isn't necessary for survival, someone can call you selfish. You could have given money spent on that to someone that's homeless or starving, but let's be realistic here...

Using selfish in the 'rich westerner' sense, no it isn't selfish to have children as long as you're having them for the right reasons. It's more selfish to try and tell people they shouldn't be having kids. It is a very nice idea to put nature and the environment before us, but it's not going to happen. I could say that I'm not going to have kids because it's bad for the environment, but whilst I'm doing that nobody else gives a **** about being eco-friendly. I live my life for me. Like Ascaris said, it's an issue that can be dealt with, but it's not my duty to look out for overpopulation.

But then again, more people have children for the "wrong" reasons. Not even going to write a rant on that again.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

While the population growth rate is projected to decline, this won't effect the number of undernourished people in the world.

From your wikipedia article,
"The observed figures for 2007 show an actual increase in absolute numbers of undernourished people in the world, 923 million in 2007 versus 832 million in 1995.;[110] the more recent FAO estimates point out to an even more dramatic increase, to 1.02 billion in 2009."

So, while the growth rate might be going down these numbers won't, This is why we need birth limits for every country. You can have one birth. and if you want more kids then adopt them.

In every country, really? Because they're overpopulated over there, we have to take a hit over here? Why?

 

[twocows]

Reproduction is a basic function of life. In some definitions of life, not being able to reproduce could practically exclude you from the definition being alive. The fact that you're individual cells can reproduce inside your body is probably the only thing that would save you.

From an evolutionary stand point, the meaning of life is basically reproduction after all. :X

That's a naturalistic fallacy. Simply because we have the capability to reproduce does not mean we should. We have the capacity to kill, as well, but I think we're all agreed that we shouldn't be doing that so much.

As for that definition of yours, I'd like to point out that Mules cannot reproduce. I'm pretty sure they're still considered "alive." There are also people who are sterile; they're also alive. And as for reproduction being the "meaning of life" from an evolutionary standpoint, that's another naturalistic fallacy. Evolution favors anyone who reproduces like crazy and manages to keep their children alive, but I hardly think that's what most people are going to want to do.

Edit:

Here we go. In the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights that every country (except Vatican City and Taiwan if memory serves) has agreed to:



One can assume that they would think that includes having children.

I guess I'll be disagreeing with the United Nations, then. I don't see any reason why it should be a right. People are able to live perfectly normal, happy lives without children. Limits on the number of children a family can have would not cause a great deal of suffering to people (at worst, they'd be a bit upset, but when aren't people upset?).

 

[icomeanon6]

I guess I'll be disagreeing with the United Nations, then. I don't see any reason why it should be a right. People are able to live perfectly normal, happy lives without children. Limits on the number of children a family can have would not cause a great deal of suffering to people (at worst, they'd be a bit upset, but when aren't people upset?).

I may be out of line, but I have to say that the notion that something is disqualified from being a right just because people can live perfectly normal, happy lives without it offends me like few others. It makes me sad to think that I know people who risked their lives to escape from communist East Germany just to find that basic liberty is on the table in the western nations as well. In my mind, a nation that claims to have indiscriminate and ultimate authority on whether or not its citizens can have children is one that holds its population in slavery.

 

[2Cool4Mewtwo]

That's a naturalistic fallacy. Simply because we have the capability to reproduce does not mean we should. We have the capacity to kill, as well, but I think we're all agreed that we shouldn't be doing that so much.

If every human on the face of the Earth goes with the bolded part and not reproduce, then humans will be extinct in next about... 100 years. Is that what you actually want?

Also, Reproducing and murder is the polar opposite of each other. One begins a new life, and one ends an existing life. Using an example that is completely opposite of what you're applying your example to isn't the best way to back up your opinion, methinks.


As for overpopulation, I'm not worried because I'm not living in a country where overpopulation is a problem, so my views on the original question would differ from what "should be ideal" in overpopulated countries.

 

[Windie]

Raising a child is one of the most selfless, difficult tasks in the world, so no, I wouldn't say it's selfish. Having lots of kids just for the sake of having lots of kids? That, I can't respect.

 

[Myles]

That's a naturalistic fallacy. Simply because we have the capability to reproduce does not mean we should. We have the capacity to kill, as well, but I think we're all agreed that we shouldn't be doing that so much.

As for that definition of yours, I'd like to point out that Mules cannot reproduce. I'm pretty sure they're still considered "alive." There are also people who are sterile; they're also alive. And as for reproduction being the "meaning of life" from an evolutionary standpoint, that's another naturalistic fallacy. Evolution favors anyone who reproduces like crazy and manages to keep their children alive, but I hardly think that's what most people are going to want to do.

Yes, the cells would probably save them. From a biological point of view. Life is reproduction. Since that's all it does. There is even controversy over whether a single molecule being able to replicate itself is life. Traditionally it's not considered that, but so are viruses, which have DNA.

That's a naturalistic fallacy. Simply because we have the capability to reproduce does not mean we should. We have the capacity to kill, as well, but I think we're all agreed that we shouldn't be doing that so much.

Yes, but it's literally part of what we are. That's a slippery slope fallacy. Being able to reproduce is a basic function of ours. As are:

- Homeostasis
- Organization (of cells)
- Metabolism
- Growth
- Adaptation
- Response to stimuli
- Reproduction

(The seven pillars of life.)

It's not what's natural. It's what makes us life. Reproduction can even be seen as the way we continue to live after we die. Since the growth of a fetus is originally part of females. Like a duplication, then they split at child birth. It's thought that all our cells come from splitting the original cell billions of years ago. Our cells continue to split if we reproduce or otherwise they die permanently.

(Female mules actually can reproduce with donkeys too.)

 

[Dawn]

The question is phrased awkwardly. .-.

If I were to take it literally the answer is obviously no, as you already have children and so it's not selfish to not cease to have kids. It would actually be selfish to expect others to cease to have kids they already have.

On the other hand, procreating is potentially selfish. The act of creating the kids in the first place is the selfish thing, not the continued raising of the kids.

At that point it's all circumstantial. See, the human population is nowhere near large enough that the earth can't sustain it. So the question is do we avoid ever reaching maximum capacity or do we not care until we have to?

That there last sentence is the real question, the answer of which will decide which circumstances are selfish or not.

There is also the issue of motive and intent in deciding whether something is selfish or not. Simply put, if one does not do it with their motive being for themselves, it's not selfish.

 

[twocows]

If every human on the face of the Earth goes with the bolded part and not reproduce, then humans will be extinct in next about... 100 years. Is that what you actually want?

You're misinterpreting the point. The point of limits on reproduction is to reign in an out of control population. Obviously these restrictions or incentives (either or) would be lifted once the population was under control. If we don't have population controls, in a few generations we'll have a major crisis on our hands.

Also, Reproducing and murder is the polar opposite of each other. One begins a new life, and one ends an existing life. Using an example that is completely opposite of what you're applying your example to isn't the best way to back up your opinion, methinks.

Then you completely missed the point. The point wasn't that they're related, it's that just because we have the capacity to do something doesn't mean we should go and do it. It wasn't that murder is somehow related to reproduction (that's silly).

As for overpopulation, I'm not worried because I'm not living in a country where overpopulation is a problem, so my views on the original question would differ from what "should be ideal" in overpopulated countries.

Overpopulation is not a problem in some areas of the US and yet. Places like Detroit have major problems with overcrowding. Give it a few years and it'll get worse in other places. You're pushing the problem on to future generations and saying "well, since it's not here, I don't really care." That's a very selfish attitude.

I may be out of line, but I have to say that the notion that something is disqualified from being a right just because people can live perfectly normal, happy lives without it offends me like few others. It makes me sad to think that I know people who risked their lives to escape from communist East Germany just to find that basic liberty is on the table in the western nations as well. In my mind, a nation that claims to have indiscriminate and ultimate authority on whether or not its citizens can have children is one that holds its population in slavery.

So then why should it be a basic human right? The burden of proof lies on the affirmative party; if you claim it's a human right, there should be a good reason why it ought to be other than "it will upset some people if it's not."

Yes, but it's literally part of what we are. That's a slippery slope fallacy.

Slippery slope "fallacies" are only fallacies if the suggested course of events is in doubt (and if it's more than one sequence of cause/effect, which in this case it's not). If we do not reign in population, the overpopulation will become worse. There is no intermediary step, there is no question of effects. It already happened in China, though their situation has improved drastically since their government implemented population controls (the favoritism toward male children was an unfortunate side effect of their highly male-oriented society, and their government has really cracked down on it in recent years).

Being able to reproduce is a basic function of ours. As are:

- Homeostasis
- Organization (of cells)
- Metabolism
- Growth
- Adaptation
- Response to stimuli
- Reproduction

(The seven pillars of life.)

It's not what's natural. It's what makes us life.

Though I'm not sure if your claim about mules is true or not, there are plenty of creatures which lack the ability to reproduce. And again, how about people with sterility? Growing hair is a basic function of ours; are bald people not alive? That is the definition of a naturalistic fallacy; you're saying that because it's an ability we posses through nature, that we should be free to exploit it as much as we want.

Reproduction can even be seen as the way we continue to live after we die. Since the growth of a fetus is originally part of females. Like a duplication, then they split at child birth. It's thought that all our cells come from splitting the original cell billions of years ago. Our cells continue to split if we reproduce or otherwise they die permanently.

That's nonsense; children are not their parents, they are unique individuals, and I take offense at the very notion. We are not defined by our biology, we are defined by our experience. And it still doesn't stand as a reason for why reproduction should be a basic human right.


Perhaps we should define what a basic human right is (or ought to be). I believe a basic human right is one for which quality of life would be drastically impacted for a significant number of people were it curbed. I don't see reproduction as having a significant impact on quality of life for most people.

I think one-child incentives are a perfectly reasonable way of implementing population controls; people are still free to have more than one child, they just won't receive government help for it. At worst, a few people would be upset for maybe a generation or two, after which it would be the norm and nobody would mind.

 

[Myles]

The slippery slope is that you were equating reproduction -> overpopulation with murder. I didn't say exploit it as much as we want. I think it would infringe on human rights to outlaw it. Discouraging it and limiting it to one child per person would be a good idea if we get out of control. Because even one child per person will cause a huge decline in population since only about ~80% (US statistics, since it's easier to find US statistics) of people reproduce.

That cellular thing is if you look at the world from a cellular point of view (cellular biology and all). If you're pro-choice, then your view would be at least similar t.o this in that the child is considered 'part' of the parent until the two separate at birth.

Either way, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And I'm pretty sure that most people would think reproduction is a human right and getting public support of illegalising it would be hard to get and ridiculous (since extinction would be soon to follow).

Female mules can reproduce with donkeys because cross-species breeding only sterilises the males. The females can still reproduce with males of close enough species fertile males. One of which is a donkey. Since mules are donkey-horse crosses. I don't know why you're pushing that particular point. I never said they weren't alive or human.

In some definitions of life, not being able to reproduce could practically exclude you from the definition being alive. The fact that you're individual cells can reproduce inside your body is probably the only thing that would save you.

Some definitions of life are self replication.