Is it selfish to have children?

[Shining Raichu]

That got your attention, didn't it?

Before you lynch me, hear me out. I'm well aware that having children is necessary to the continuity of the human race. That said, population growth scares me. We are simply growing the population of the world far too fast, and it will get to the stage where there won't be enough food, water or room for everybody.

This much is well-known, yet there are who people continue to crank out kids like they've got nothing better to do with their time. If they are doing this for no other reason than the desire to be parents, is this selfish? Are they considering only their own desires and not the needs of the greater population in a future world where there won't be enough resources for anybody to fulfil their needs? Furthermore, is it inconsiderate to the new children themselves who will have to live in this world? Do you believe that holding back on having children is the solution for this problem?

It's also worthwhile to note that the desire to be parents could be satisfied by adoption, rather than creating a whole new mouth to feed from scratch.

Discuss.

 

[Myles]

Ugh, saying we can't have kids would be infringing on human rights. I guess you could make a case for if people had more than a kid each (two for two parents).

But I'm not sure you could really put the overgrowth in terms like that anyway. Since countries right now seem to be very strict on borders, in countries that can easily take more people like Australia, there doesn't seem to be a need to limit. But limiting in China or India would be necessary. Or they could loosen immigration laws.

 

[Onyx_X]

I can't say, in honesty, that I would call it selfish. It is certainly a rash decision, but then the heart doesn't think. The metaphorical one, not the blood-pumping one, of course.
I personally would adopt, but I'm a...not looking for a female companion, so that narrows my choices a bit, doesn't it? The problem here is, if a man never has a child of his own, his family line ends when it ends, unless he has a brother who is having children, or a sister, or he banks some sperm for future use. Now we come back to that irritating, metaphorical organ, the heart: people want to see their offspring grow into an independent being. Why? Because of emotional attachment.

 

[Freedom Fighter N]

I'm not sure that if I have two kids like I'm planning, three if I'm getting carried away, or four if my wife is hypersexual is going to make a big difference.

This much is well-known, yet there are who people continue to crank out kids like they've got nothing better to do with their time.

I doubt this is the average, rational family that knows one child is already a big upkeep. Combine that with your wife, goddamnit.. but that's irrelevant. In fact I doubt the average family has three kids, and anything above is probably uncommon. I didn't look at statistics, but I think it's safe to assume what I just said.
Damn I got to a more financial point of view. I really should do something with going offtopic.

If they are doing this for no other reason than the desire to be parents, is this selfish?

They're already parents with one child. How much children do you need to classify yourself as a parent?
Also, if we're talking about selfishness.. I'm pretty sure religious people (and I mean religious, not the "I do what fits with my lifestyle" idiots who claim to be religious.) fall into the selfish part, not because of being a parent but rather to serve god or something like that. It also goes well with the first question.

Are they considering only their own desires and not the needs of the greater population in a future world where there won't be enough resources for anybody to fulfil their needs?

What is this, Soviet Russia? Why does rich people do not give money for people with a worse financial state?
There's the "OK, I can give up this for community/environment/whatever", but kids are actually a ^%^% huge deal.

It's also worthwhile to note that the desire to be parents could be satisfied by adoption, rather than creating a whole new mouth to feed from scratch.

And it's also worthwhile to note that there is a difference between your own child to a child you adopted. I'm stopping here because that worthwhile note pisses me off.

 

[Oryx]

And it's also worthwhile to note that there is a difference between your own child to a child you adopted. I'm stopping here because that worthwhile note pisses me off.

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.

 

[Shining Raichu]

What is this, Soviet Russia? Why does rich people do not give money for people with a worse financial state?

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.

 

[twocows]

Ugh, saying we can't have kids would be infringing on human rights. I guess you could make a case for if people had more than a kid each (two for two parents).

How is having children a human right?

Personally, I see no problem with providing incentives for people to have fewer children. I think it's a great way to reign in overpopulation.

 

[mameshiba]

China is already doing that. One kid a family, because people over there prefer male babies, due to the shortage of females, soon millions Chinese men can no longer find a Chinese girlfriend, which would definitely hurt their population growth.

 

[Myles]

How is having children a human right?

Personally, I see no problem with providing incentives for people to have fewer children. I think it's a great way to reign in overpopulation.

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

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:

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

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

 

[Blue Nocturne]

I'd rather adopt than have a child, I don't want to add to the worlds problems by bring more people into it (and if I end up with a guy, have to waste a lot of time and resources). But that's just me. I know if I end up with someone who really wants a baby of his/her own, then I'm happy to go along with it. Similarly, if you want children, go ahead. As long as they're not starving because there's no food left.

 

[Mr. X]

Is it selfish to have children? No.

Is it a good idea to have a lot of them? No.

I'm all for having limits on children. Having a enforced one birth per family law in effect for... hmm... 40 years would go a long way for controling our poplulation. I say birth, not children, because sometimes two or more are popped out at once.

The only way this law could be effectively enforced is if the woman gets 'fixed' after the birth.

Radical? Yes. Needed if this planet will survive? Yah. The way things are now it will only be around 50 years before this planet can't support any more life, unless we have a drastic cut in the amount of people on it. (By my above suguestion... Or another World War, perhaps one where all the super powers hate each other guts. That will get the population down real fast.)

 

[Hybrid Trainer]

I'm all for having limits on children, do people really need to have 5+ children? were not exactly near extinction we don't need to repopulate. I'm even more for pushing for adoption instead of having a whole new child.
Also, something popped into my head while i was looking through this thread. Maybe being gay is like evolutions way of slowing down the population growth of the human race?

 

[Melody]

No, it isn't selfish. But it isn't wise neither to keep popping out children like they're going outta style.

But that's a person's and a couple's right. If they want to have 30 children, let them do so if they can support them. Else, there really is no need to have more than what they can financially support and proper penalties should be assessed for parents who have more children than they can afford to care for. Personally I think something like being rendered infertile should take care of it...if they've gone too far over the limit.
(Having like 3 children when there is only proper income for 1)

Other than that...there isn't a reason to limit people. As long as you can prevent idiots from creating more "wards of state", drawing too much welfare, or shirking their parental duties then the major problems have been solved.

Sure, a court order to be rendered infertile along with possible jail time IS harsh...but I'd reserve that only for the worst offenders. Not the couples who just got a little too amorous and accidentally popped out Got blessed with twins.

 

[Esper]

When it's not an accident I think most people have children for selfish reasons so I would say that usually it is selfish. They want someone to love them, they want someone to care for, they want someone to care for them when they're old, etc. I don't think everyone considers the full implications for the child itself.

So you see people having kids when they are in debt and already have a kid, but they don't want to wait on having that second kid because then their kids will be too far apart in age, as if that's more important than making sure they can afford to raise their kids well, or they want to make sure they get that second kid made before they get too old when maybe it'll be harder to have kids and completely ignoring the option of just having one kid. They'd be putting their own desires ahead of what would be best for their kids.

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

A family doesn't necessitate children. A married couple is a family. Three adult siblings living in the same house and caring for their cousin is a family. But more to the point, it says that people can have a family, but it doesn't say they can have that family in any way their hearts desire. Someone with 12 kids and no means of supporting them is causing harm and shouldn't be allowed to have more children. Only allowing people to adopt after their first biological child wouldn't prevent someone from having a family either. It would just limit the forms their family could take. I'm not going to say where to draw the line, but there is a line between acceptable and unacceptable limits.

Maybe being gay is like evolutions way of slowing down the population growth of the human race?

Doubtful. Evolution isn't a goal-oriented process.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

If you choose to become parents you end up sacrificing a lot for your children. I don't see how that's selfish.

 

[Brendino]

I don't really believe it is selfish, I believe it's just human nature.

In places that are extremely over-populated (such as China and India), I do believe there should be some way to control the amount of births, because it's getting out of hand too quickly. I agree with twocows in that there should be some incentive for having less children, especially in areas like this.

However, I understand why there was a need to have many children in the past, especially with agricultural families that needed as many hands as they could get to help out. In modern society, though, I don't really see a reason why someone would want to have a substantial amount of children (1-3 should be fine).

 

[Her]

Some people just love the joy that children bring into their lives that they want to have as many kids as possible, whether that be selfish or not. It doesn't matter if it's selfish to have a lot of children, but if they're good parents to them. And besides, you give up so much to have a child so really, you're being the opposite of selfish.

I do understand the need for population control in areas like India and China, and I believe giving incentives to not have children is fine. But in the end, having children isn't selfish. It's just a way of life.

 

[Ascaris]

population isnt too much of an issue in general. in which i mean its solvable. its an issue in that god knows if you can ever get people to solve it but it IS perfectly solvable. there is enough food in the world right now to feed everybody comfortably, and food production could be feasibly expanded considerably. i doubt that the peak of the human population will truly overtax the earth in terms of food, it just depends whether or not anyone is able to implement the solutions which do exist. clean water is a bigger issue but with enough funding and concentration im sure various science programs could take care of that reasonably well.

rate of growth itself is decreasing and should level off before long

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

if you want to reply to this just to dispute wikipedia as a source then kindly piss off

 

[2Cool4Mewtwo]

Reproduction is part of many people's lives, so no.

 

[Anders]

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.