Is it selfish to have children?

[Seki]

In my prime minister's and his father's view, ITS SELFISH TO NOT HAVE CHILDREN. Yea, you read it correctly, its SELFISH TO NOT HAVE CHILDREN in that old man's view. They are even offering incentives such as Baby bonus, compulsory Maternity and Paternity leave and many many more to those who have children. He said that he is doing all these just to make the country a "not ageing population nation". If you are curious to know which country I am from, its Singapore. (that small island in South-East Asia that is below Malaysia and have lots of Foreign Talent)

 

[Broken_Arrow]

i think there are people who shouldn't have kids as they can't be depended on...but also i knew some people who had a bad childhood and they kept saying when they have kids they gonna avoid what happen with them in childhood and they did...

don't worry about populations as there are new people born others die and wars kill lots of people...this is not in our hands though..

 

[Shining Raichu]

don't worry about populations as there are new people born others die and wars kill lots of people...this is not in our hands though..

Our population just reached seven billion. Even with people dying, along with wars and natural disasters, our population is increasing. It's not evening out - the rate at which people are giving birth is faster than the rate at which nature, disease and war are wiping people out.

Since population increase only gets faster with time (i.e. more people in the world meaning more potential breeding opportunities), the only way to slow it down is to either start murdering people or stop creating new ones. Considering that the people who already exist by virtue of this have a right to life, the option of murdering them is not an option, so we have to turn to the alternative. This is why I think it's selfish to have children.

 

[Broken_Arrow]

yes but also remember,it's your opinion there are people who dream about having children...

IMO the problem is in the people who give birth to a child then throw him\her away those are a lot nowadays and these kind of people should stop....

if someone planing to have a child then that person should think a good life to his child not to satisfy his desirs only...

 

[Shining Raichu]

Yeah, this is my opinion and I'd never try to suggest any differently lol. That's what debates are about, putting forth opinions.

Now yes, people do dream of having children. That doesn't make them having children any less selfish. When considering the big picture, the world has enough people without people dropping more into the world because it is their dream. I certainly don't condemn those that choose to have children, I just think it's really something to consider before you do: Does the world need your offspring? Also, those that dream of children have the option of adopting. There are tons of children out there that don't have a home and essentially by insisting on having your own biological children you are depriving them of one.

 

[Broken_Arrow]

Hmm,maybe yes...but even though people won't listen,they gonna keep having children and they won't care a lot...

yes,adopting is something people could consider but also i know people who adopt and also like to have their own children..

 

[Oryx]

Hmm,maybe yes...but even though people won't listen,they gonna keep having children and they won't care a lot...

yes,adopting is something people could consider but also i know people who adopt and also like to have their own children..

People often like to do things that are wrong or selfish, so that's not really an argument for whether or not it's truly selfish. Basically all you're saying is "people want to have children sometimes", which is something that no one is disagreeing with. :x

 

[Broken_Arrow]

yes,also i'm trying to say that if there are people wants to have their own children..it's not selfish...

 

[Oryx]

What's the reasoning behind that other than "people obviously can't want selfish things"?

 

[Oryx]

It's selfish, and yet, it's not selfish.

There's literally so much focus going on in the just about 7 billion here that a lot of people just miss certain points entirely. Take this scenario(that I've been thinking of): what if every single family adopted every child that was up for adoption? Of course, that would place the kids who are in foster homes actual homes to live in, yeah? Excuse me for digging a bit deeper, but whats stopping the adopted kids from wanting, sometime in the future, their own biological kids?

Adoption is a really sweet and cute method of having children, but it just doesn't sit well with some people. With other people, they want their child to literally be a reflection of themselves and the family as a whole(again, this is probably up for debate, but thats what this thread is for). One can say that's probably as selfish as it gets, but then again, isn't the human race at least a bit selfish in some way and in some fashion? Haven't we at least done one selfish thing in our lives? I know thats being beside the point, but having kids isn't really too far fetched, if you think about it.

Sure, it'll increase the population. Sure, the population would grow so huge someday that finding spaces for parking lots are going to be a huge pain in the ass. But it's inevitable.If you adopt a kid, and he/she learns how to drive, they're going to fill up that parking lot regardless of whether they came from a womb or not(Andy/ShiningRaichu is going to understand this example).

I apologize for going past the point here, but as humans, we have learned(and can learn) to adapt to just about almost any situation imaginable. You have billions of people in the country of China, and yet they've learned to adapt(although how well is irrelevant, the fact that they manage to be holding their own seems fair enough to me). If the world population even hits 10 billion, we'll learn to adapt. Build bigger parking lots, Create more seats in the movie theatre so it won't be so jam packed. Do something so the world can be less claustrophobic or something.

But that's my two cents.

I agree with the idea that it's selfish but that doesn't make it wrong, I believe that's what I myself argued earlier. But the problem of overpopulation is much bigger than parking lots; more like even more widespread starvation. :x

 

[Rogue planet]

Just going to throw a point I have in here. And I used to be on the same page as you guys too, so I'm not *****ing or anything here.

To those saying you should have all the financial resources before having children; put yourself in the same shoes as the underclass for a moment. Most people who are born in a lower class will stay in that class for the rest of their life, they have no hope of getting out of it. Are they supposed to not have children for their entire lives; perhaps one of the few things that could give them bit of happiness?

It all depends on what you consider adequate resources. Actually, what the hell is adequate resources? If you're surviving on a single can of baked beans per day and can afford nothing else, then no, you shouldn't have kids; but that's pretty extreme. What about if they can afford just food and a bed and scrape the bills, and that's it? Does that mean they shouldn't have kids? Money isn't everything. You don't need luxury items to be happy.

There are kids born into the lower working class who eventually become very successful; at the same time there are kids born into the upper class who become drop out drug addicts.

Where do you draw the line that says someone is incapable of supporting their children financially?

 

[Azzurra]

I guess it depends on how old you are. If you're say, fifty and you're wanting a child I'd say it's selfish since you probably won't be able to bring the child up properly (you'd be 70 when they're 20) but if you were in your mid to late thirties and you'd always wanted one, I can't see the harm in it.

 

[Esper]

I apologize for going past the point here, but as humans, we have learned(and can learn) to adapt to just about almost any situation imaginable. You have billions of people in the country of China, and yet they've learned to adapt(although how well is irrelevant, the fact that they manage to be holding their own seems fair enough to me).

China may seem like they're doing fine right now, but if you're driving toward a cliff you can still say that you're doing fine until you actually go over. I'm not saying I agree with the overpopulation argument (since I've read some arguments stating that we're due to level off population wise as the death rate and birth rate start to equalize), although I still sympathize with a lot of arguments in favor of people having fewer children anyway and don't discount overpopulation as a potential problem.

Actually, I was bored a while back and did up a little flow chart on the whole overpopulation argument while I was trying to organize my thoughts on it. Might as well share it here thought it's only somewhat related to the topic.

Spoiler:

 

[Dakotah]

To this, I will offer this one fact: The human population, although recently reaching 7 billion, is aging faster than it is reproducing. Every year more and more people are becoming senior citizen, and less and less couples are willing to have children. So even though the world's population has reached this number, given our rapidly declining birth rates, we can soon expect to see the population number begin to fall.

It is not selfish to want to continue the human race's existence. It is selfish to consider your needs more important than that of others. Having children is probably the most important contribution any of us can make to society. In the end, it is a very selfless act. Not a selfish one.

 

[Blade_of_darkness]

The only way that I can find that having children would be selfish would be that, after their child(ren) have grown up & are ready to take care of themselves, that one or both of their parents would start taking what their children has earned, namely the money, valuables, even a place in their own homes, without giving anything back to their children in return. It's almost like they've become leeches to their own children.

Some parents would think that, since they gave their children life, that they've got the right to take whatever their children have gained under their own power. No, it doesn't work that way. If a parent would be disabled to the point in which they can't take care of themselves anymore, then it would be understandable, but leeching your own children off of their hard earned money & goods? That's the definition of selfishness.

 

[Oryx]

The only way that I can find that having children would be selfish would be that, after their child(ren) have grown up & are ready to take care of themselves, that one or both of their parents would start taking what their children has earned, namely the money, valuables, even a place in their own homes, without giving anything back to their children in return. It's almost like they've become leeches to their own children.

Some parents would think that, since they gave their children life, that they've got the right to take whatever their children have gained under their own power. No, it doesn't work that way. If a parent would be disabled to the point in which they can't take care of themselves anymore, then it would be understandable, but leeching your own children off of their hard earned money & goods? That's the definition of selfishness.

Although, think of it more this way. Up until 18 years old (for most), a child lives with their parents. The parents pay the bills, all of them, they buy all of the child's clothes, they feed them, they deal with all of the child's problems for them, and then there are the little things like a parent may drive a child to school or buy a child presents every birthday.

For all that a parent does when a child is leeching off of them, it seems reasonable that if a parent retired that the child would take care of them without asking for the parent to give them something in return. While your argument does apply well to cases such as Gary Coleman and parents that take advantage of their children, but your generalization went a bit too far in claiming that all parents that have the physical ability to take care of themselves have no right asking their children to take care of them.

 

[Blade_of_darkness]

For all that a parent does when a child is leeching off of them, it seems reasonable that if a parent retired that the child would take care of them without asking for the parent to give them something in return. While your argument does apply well to cases such as Gary Coleman and parents that take advantage of their children, but your generalization went a bit too far in claiming that all parents that have the physical ability to take care of themselves have no right asking their children to take care of them.

That may be so, but if their children are already struggling to make ends meet on their own, taking care of their aging parents will most likely make things worse for both the child & the parent in question. If that child of theirs does indeed have a solid footing in this society & is having a life filled with prosperity, then it's all fair game if they're willing to help them live out the rest of their lives.

Don't get me wrong, Toujours, I absolutely agree with everything that you've said. However, if taking care of one of their aging parents is going to put a bigger strain on themselves, all I can say is, love is only going to take them so far...

 

[Sephiroth2009]

Our population just reached seven billion. Even with people dying, along with wars and natural disasters, our population is increasing. It's not evening out - the rate at which people are giving birth is faster than the rate at which nature, disease and war are wiping people out.

Since population increase only gets faster with time (i.e. more people in the world meaning more potential breeding opportunities), the only way to slow it down is to either start murdering people or stop creating new ones. Considering that the people who already exist by virtue of this have a right to life, the option of murdering them is not an option, so we have to turn to the alternative. This is why I think it's selfish to have children.

This here sounds selfish. And sounds like something out of a science fiction book. That's what fluoride is for anyway, to sterilize us.

 

[Oryx]

This here sounds selfish. And sounds like something out of a science fiction book. That's what fluoride is for anyway, to sterilize us.

I would like you to elaborate on what about that is selfish in your opinion, if you don't mind.

@Blade: I'm glad you backed up a bit on that cause that was all I was saying, that there are definitely circumstances where a parent "leeching" off of a child was completely reasonable. :P I would even go a bit farther back based on the parents' possible struggle to raise the children, but agree to disagree, yeah?

 

[Sephiroth2009]

I would like you to elaborate on what about that is selfish in your opinion, if you don't mind.

@Blade: I'm glad you backed up a bit on that cause that was all I was saying, that there are definitely circumstances where a parent "leeching" off of a child was completely reasonable. :P I would even go a bit farther back based on the parents' possible struggle to raise the children, but agree to disagree, yeah?

Guess I misunderstood it. I thought he was mentioning that acts of depopulation should be endorsed. Of course if you support the fluoride in the water you're really no different.