Kids or No Kids?

[draconix]

It is not discrimination as far as I can tell. I might decide against having children directly and I would still be conscious of the fact, that as an animal, that is my reason for being here, namely replicating my genes.Your infertility is of course not contrived, how could it be? But even with that infertility, spreading our genes is still our species' reason for being here, whether I like it or not. London.

 

I understand perfectly well what you are saying, however I think that it's important to note the difference between why we are here, and how you got here.

 

To use a bad example, when ants in a colony are born to be hunters or gatherers, (like I said, bad example,) they are there because of breeding, but their function is to never breed. Only the Queen will pass on her genes, the rest of the ants are there to make life better for the rest of their society. So aside from that being a terrible analogy, it's a perfect illustration of how the idea that reproduction is the objective meaning of life is patently untrue, objectively speaking.

Edited August 6, 2011 by draconix

[SpellAndShield]

It is not discrimination as far as I can tell. I might decide against having children directly and I would still be conscious of the fact, that as an animal, that is my reason for being here, namely replicating my genes.Your infertility is of course not contrived, how could it be? But even with that infertility, spreading our genes is still our species' reason for being here, whether I like it or not. London.

 

I understand perfectly well what you are saying, however I think that it's important to note the difference between why we are here, and how you got here.

 

To use a bad example, when ants in a colony are born to be hunters or gatherers, (like I said, bad example,) they are there because of breeding, but their function is to never breed. Only the Queen will pass on her genes, the rest of the ants are there to make life better for the rest of their society. So aside from that being a terrible analogy, it's a perfect illustration of how the idea that reproduction is the objective meaning of life is patently untrue, objectively speaking.

 

Homo sapiens are not Formicidae. We don't work that way.

[draconix]

Homo sapiens are not Formicidae. We don't work that way.

Progeny may be one bodily function that allows the human race to continue to survive, but so is breathing, eating, and drinking. How can you be so certain given your logic, that it is actually producing offspring that is our objective purpose? How can you be sure that consuming is not the purpose of all life?

 

How foolish of me, you are totally correct. Homo sapiens aren't formicidae. Nor are we any other species of animal. You see, we don't work like they do. We have evolved conscious thought, our purposes are no longer predetermined. We can perform any role we choose, hunter or gatherer, drone or queen. Life is what we make of it.

Edited August 6, 2011 by draconix

[marharth]

I would like to point out the obvious here.

 

Even if the only purpose to the human race was to breed, isn't it quite clear that you could also help the human race by making life better for everyone?

[Saraane]

I definitely want children. I'm thirty, married, and my hubby has a good job. I'm getting by doing odd jobs for friends since I was laid off and temp work has dried up. But we have enough, especially if we use cloth diapers and make our own baby food. Our city just started doing a cloth diaper service and I'm excited about it! Feeding an extra person doesn't cost that much, really and the public schools are good here (yay!)

 

As for being a parent, I'm going into it with my eyes wide open. I know it will be hard, the hardest thing I've ever done, really, but we will have our families support and our friends and, with everything we have both been through, I don't think we would screw up the kid too badly lol. We learn from what we've been through.

 

Being a parent is the biggest, most painful and rewarding responsibility a human being can tackle. Not everyone is right for the job and honestly, I wish teen girls had to take contraceptives until they were 21, at least. But... I don't make the rules. I just do my best with what I have.

 

It's all any of us can do.

[draconix]

Sounds like you'll do just fine, best of luck to you. :thumbsup:

[ginnyfizz]

Being a parent is the biggest, most painful and rewarding responsibility a human being can tackle.

 

Wow. Yet another one joins the ranks of those who look down their noses at the childless. I guess the likes of Mother Teresa and others like her who, for whatever reason, have devoted their lives to the service of others, rather than having children of their own, were wasting their time then and automatically rank below those who do have children? And what about our world leaders, irrespective of what I personally think of His Obamaness? I suspect having your finger on the nuclear trigger ranks pretty damned high on the list of most painful responsibilities possible.

 

I am really keen to stress this "infertility/childlessness does not make you worthless" thing because I have seen other people who chose not to deal with their infertility in the manner that I did, namely by accepting and moving on, have their lives destroyed. And it is the pressure from society, and ignorant remarks like the ones we are seeing in this thread, that have led them to undergo gruelling cycles of IVF followed by disappointment, get involved in dubious surrogacy arrangements and crash to financial ruin that can leave them homeless, have their relationships (ironic isn't it?) destroyed, all because they are conditioned to believe that they are less than a whole person, that they are worthless, because they do not have children.

[marharth]

I have to agree with Ginny here fully.

 

It amazes me how anyone can follow the logic of "Well humans are only meant to reproduce, so clearly everyone who can't/doesn't want to is useless."

 

I don't even know why anyone should have to explain why that is extremely faulty.

[ginnyfizz]

I know, Marharth.

 

It would help if those making the sweeping statements gave any acknowledgment that they realized how crass their remarks have been. Since they haven't, I have to conclude that they really do think that the childless are lesser being.

[SpellAndShield]

Homo sapiens are not Formicidae. We don't work that way.

Progeny may be one bodily function that allows the human race to continue to survive, but so is breathing, eating, and drinking. How can you be so certain given your logic, that it is actually producing offspring that is our objective purpose? How can you be sure that consuming is not the purpose of all life?

 

How foolish of me, you are totally correct. Homo sapiens aren't formicidae. Nor are we any other species of animal. You see, we don't work like they do. We have evolved conscious thought, our purposes are no longer predetermined. We can perform any role we choose, hunter or gatherer, drone or queen. Life is what we make of it.

 

Because despite the accident of evolved consciousness and intelligence, most things we do are directly and indirectly still geared towards reproduction, mitigated by our evolved intelligence of course. Thus, the constant need to date, the need for men to compete within the dominance hierarchy by doing well financially and being successfull, whilst women strive for (and have) physical beauty. These things are still rampant in society. These rules are millions of years old and whilst we can do things that have little to do with reproduction, we are still animals beholden to our instincts. There might be a time when that is not the case but for now it still is.

 

I do not necessarily want children in a traditional sense but would be very content after having donated sperm to a sperm bank, somehow knowing that some female made use of it and that my DNA would be out there; I need not participate directly in raising that DNA though.