Who should have children?

[Night FM]

I think it's readily obvious that some people shouldn't have children (e.x. severe cases of child abuse and neglect). Likewise, I think we can agree that society needs some amount of people willing to have children at any given time (e.x. if no one had children, humanity would cease to exist), but obviously that doesn't mean that society needs everyone who is currently having children to be doing so.

Regarding "how many children" society needs people having, this is a tricker question. Theoretically humanity could "survive" even if only a small amount of people were having children (just as how humans existed for most of history as hunter-gatherers, and larger populations presumably didn't come about until the advent of agriculture and civilization). How many would be a "good number" therefore would have to be relative to the resources needed to sustain them and provide them with quality of life, however this matter is rather subjective. Just as how some may argue that children are needed to sustain what currently exists, though in reality not everything that currently exists necessarily needs to be sustained, and some things might be better off not being sustained.

[swansont]

Who should have children? People who want them, and make the decision to do so.

It’s really not anybody else's business whether someone decides to have children or not.

[Phi for All]

I voted against having my society tell us how many children it needed us to have. In fact, JD Vance can go have sex with a couch and I still don't think society should require him to have children by it.

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Who should have children? People who want them, and make the decision to do so.

It’s really not anybody else's business whether someone decides to have children or not.

Sure. Speak for the West...it's certainly Putin's business in Russia (and eventually other recovered territories):

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-battling-birth-rate-dip-is-working-child-free-ideology-ban-says-putin-2024-09-24/

[swansont]

“not anybody else's business” doesn’t mean that some won’t try and poke their nose into it, but where people have agency to decide, they tend to keep those intruders out.

[MigL]

Who should have children?
Anyone who wants that responsibility; children tend to make people better versions of themselves.

Who should not have children?
Mothers whose sons post inane topics on SFn, and whose name has 'FM' in it.

[cheeshe]

As a former child, I believe that all should have children. If you are a person, you can have one. Children should not have children, because then the population will be multiplied and get out of control. Also, it is illegal. I don't want any people to have children with dogs or cats though. 

[DeepBlueSouth]

as a former abused and neglected child, I wholeheartedly disagree. not everyone is equipped to raise children, and many of them don't even want to. those [alleged] adults who act like spoiled children and insist that their feelings should dictate all the rest of our lives should really check their behavior and focus on their own lives, PARTICULARLY once they have children of their own.

[Alex_Krycek]

On 11/4/2024 at 12:02 PM, Night FM said:

I think it's readily obvious that some people shouldn't have children (e.x. severe cases of child abuse and neglect). Likewise, I think we can agree that society needs some amount of people willing to have children at any given time (e.x. if no one had children, humanity would cease to exist), but obviously that doesn't mean that society needs everyone who is currently having children to be doing so.

Regarding "how many children" society needs people having, this is a tricker question. Theoretically humanity could "survive" even if only a small amount of people were having children (just as how humans existed for most of history as hunter-gatherers, and larger populations presumably didn't come about until the advent of agriculture and civilization). How many would be a "good number" therefore would have to be relative to the resources needed to sustain them and provide them with quality of life, however this matter is rather subjective. Just as how some may argue that children are needed to sustain what currently exists, though in reality not everything that currently exists necessarily needs to be sustained, and some things might be better off not being sustained.

Considering how expensive and time consuming it is to have children in the developed world, we need as many people willing to take on this challenge as possible.  The population demographics of western countries are imploding, in case you weren't already aware.  

Edited Thursday at 09:12 AM by Alex_Krycek

[TheVat]

On 12/13/2024 at 1:22 PM, cheeshe said:

I don't want any people to have children with dogs or cats though. 

I'll pass thought that along to Dr Moreau.  

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I'll pass thought that along to Dr Moreau.  

 

Your brain has some unique wiring! 😂

Edited Thursday at 05:08 PM by zapatos

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Considering how expensive and time consuming it is to have children in the developed world, we need as many people willing to take on this challenge as possible. 

I don't think it is an issue of time consuming- AFAIK children grow roughly at similar rates everywhere. I.e., it would imply that folks in the developed world are busier than in developing countries, but I kind of doubt that.

Cost may be something, but then I am wondering whether children are really only expensive (in relative terms) in developed countries. One could ask the opposite question- why would folks want children? There are social pressures (familial, religious etc.) which are diminished in many developed countries, for example.

 

[DeepBlueSouth]

this is YET another non-issue or "nothing burger", if one prefers, which seems to be taking the west by storm as a direct result of racism and propaganda from russia [who really needs warm bodies because the Ukraine is sick of their malarkey and better than ever at combating it, LITERALLY]. neocons and other sorts of traditionalists must be sick and tired of the truth having a liberal bias.... but not as sick as we are of refuting this same codswallop year after year.

my favorite part is they believe that forced births will someday give them men [and presumably women and nonbinary people?] who will be better capable of fighting in war than young people are today. raising more unwanted pregnancies in dystopian poverty [while they and their classmates have drills for being shot at] is not going to help much of anything, not even the economies of the world with this austerity and controlled poverty most of us must now endure.

I love children, and I always wish them all happy and healthy lives, but nine to ten billion miracles is quite enough. deadbeat dads like "Leon Tusk" simply have a pregnancy fetish, and this has led them to try to force their proclivities onto the world because they are constantly made to feel as if their opinion is more important than facts because of the media, and other misguided people.

most pro-lifers in the US do not mind abortion at all when the pregnancies are terminated in inner cities or developing nations [having trouble finding this article, you tell ME why], and they do not care about infant or childhood healthcare here in the US either. in fact, very near to where I live, the UN has shown the still rising infant and motherhood mortality rates to rival these developing nations in the global south.

but do tell me this is about babies and "families" again. I fecking dare you.

Edited Thursday at 11:00 PM by DeepBlueSouth

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, DeepBlueSouth said:

this is YET another non-issue or "nothing burger", if one prefers, which seems to be taking the west by storm as a direct result of racism and propaganda from russia

What is the "this" that you are referring to?

[DeepBlueSouth]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

What is the "this" that you are referring to?

"who should [be forced to] have children": the subject of this entire thread from the banned member, and the topic of most of the links I cited in my post which you quoted. sorry for the confusion.

personally, I am not as much of an anti-natalist as I once was, but as most people of science are [I do not include myself, I am just some guy with a communications degree and an account here] I have always been and will always be staunchly pro-birth control and pro-choice.

Edited Friday at 01:53 AM by DeepBlueSouth