Thus, I want to find a REASON for having children, if one exists.
I'm suspect of ANY action taken by any human that was not a willful, conscious decision made with calculated forethought (ignoring the obvious solipsistic question of whether such is possible or can be known). Too many people act automatically, respond automatically, and live automatically. They take action, and have goals, but the two are often entirely disconnected.
Exactly. The whole "people just feel the need to have children" argument oversimplifies things, reflects a frightening lack of critical thought, and carries far-reaching implications, farther than most people actually take them.
I mean, I want to have kids because I think it's the only way to actually shape the world that I would like to see. That and educating children is the only way I see to reliably increase the level of enlightenment in the world. I want to teach my children to be critical thinkers and to question everything, and if everyone did that, we'd be much better off. However, those are hideously selfish reasons to reproduce, so that's why I initially asked the question: are there non-selfish reasons to have children?
A better question might be: if you have children, why did you decide to have them? Or, why did you decide to have the number that you did?
HungryJoe: I don't necessarily have a problem with people breeding desired traits into children, but that once again gets back to the core question: why are you having children? If you're trying to breed the biggest, strongest person, then you're obviously trying to accomplish some goal of your own through controlled breeding. You're effectively trying to create servants to your own ends. Is this OK?
I don't necessarily have a problem with people breeding desired traits into children, but that once again gets back to the core question: why are you having children? If you're trying to breed the biggest, strongest person, then you're obviously trying to accomplish some goal of your own through controlled breeding. You're effectively trying to create servants to your own ends. Is this OK?
I'm not trying to accomplish anything. I'm just asking you questions, since you said,
I think the real question is this. Someone has to have children. Why should it be you?
My answer to that is simple: the idiots are the ones breeding the most. If we want to strengthen the gene pool and better society, smart people need to breed and raise children.
My issue with that is that, well, I'm essentially advocating controlled breeding for the betterment of society. It's a very Brave New World viewpoint, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
I just want to know why you are unsure about breeding humans but okay with breeding animals. What's the difference?
This includes China, where it is more desirable to have a boy, but even in America and Europe there are more boys being born then girls.
(Yes, I know I'm nitpicking...) Edit: Aaarhg! beaten because of research!
Actually, with those numbers, his odds of getting 1 of each sex remain very, very close to 50/50. It's a 49.96% chance, in fact. So I think my saying 50/50 was perfectly acceptable due to rounding.
And yes, I know the boy-girl disparity is greater than 0.04%, but my calculations are right
I think the real question is this. Someone has to have children. Why should it be you?
I ask myself this question all the time, especially with my current situation.
I'm 28 going on 29 this year. I'm in a relationship of over 2 years with a person that I know I want to spend the rest of my life with. We've talked about marriage and have agreed that we do plan on getting married, but we are in no rush.
I remember thinking when I was of the ages of 18-21, I always knew I was still too young to get married and have children and that by the time I was 28, I should be married and with a child. Well, none of those original goals have happened, and I'm happy they didn't.
At work, I'm constantly surrounded by questions of coworkers and colleagues of asking me when I'm going to get married or when I'm going to have a baby. It doesn't help that my mother works in a different department at the VA and on the same floor. Her employees are always badgering me with those questions. I'm one of the youngest people here, so the older folk are always excited when they hear of marriages and babies. Other coworkers have been having children recently, and once again I get the question, "So Rochelle, when are you going to have a baby? Your mom really wants to have a grand baby."
I'm the only daughter in my family. My older brother is a captain in the Army and is a bachelor for life. My half-brother, from my father's previous marriage, has 3 children, so my father has grandchildren, but my mother does not. My mom asks me all the time when I'm going to give her a grandchild. She says it jokingly, but I know deep down she really wants one and pretty much only sees me as the source for providing one. I remember one time, after we had to put down our last cat, I told my mother we were thinking about getting another cat to help with the grief. My mom responded, "Don't get another cat Rochelle, go have a baby!". *sigh*
Now, my boyfriend's younger sister is about to have a baby next month. She's 24, has a job with no benefits, is largely in debt, and the father wants nothing to do with the baby. She was pregnant before by the same father, but chose to not have the child. I remember when we first heard of all this she said that she chose this time to have the baby because it "seemed right".
This honestly bugs the hell out of me. It's not my place to say anything to her but to be nice and supportive, but she doesn't have an health insurance, no steady income, and isn't the most responsible of people. Perhaps having this child will light the fire under her ass to get it together, but I still think it's very irresponsible to have a baby when you have no money saved up or have any real insurance. Sure, she's using Medicaid through the state for her pregnancy, but it only provides so much for so long. Most of the other expenses are being assisted by Jeremy's father and sometimes by us.
What makes matters even worse, her apartment recently caught on fire from a tenant below her. She lost most of her belongings as was only able to salvage a few items that she received at her baby shower. So now, Jeremy and I are helping out even more to help replace the things that were lost. Now, I don't mind helping her, but at the same time, she had renter's insurance, but she didn't pay it the previous month, so she is not eligible to get reimbursed for the fire damages.
It also really gets to me because Jeremy's parents give comments every now and then that give the impression that we should feel sorry for his sister and we should be helping more. This is because compared to Jeremy's parents and ourselves, we make more money so that means we should be helping out more.
I can not express how frustrating this is. I want to make very rude comments to his parents, but at the same time I don't want to get in between Jeremy and his parents, but gotdamn, I want to tell them off so badly. It was not our choice for her to have the baby. We are not responsible for her child. She is. When she decided to have the baby, she should have known that she needs to save. She didn't save any money.
So all in all, I really don't understand or comprehend why Jeremy's sister decided to have this baby.
As for myself, Jeremy and I have had many discussions about children. We have decided at this time we don't want to have children, nor are we financially willing to have a child. We would rather spend our time and money on our hobbies and interest. Anyways, all my motherly instincts are going towards my baby kitten, and that's enough for me.
Thus, I want to find a REASON for having children, if one exists.
I want to be a mother for a multitude of reasons. One of my biggest reasons is simply that I have a wonderful family. I prefer spending time with my parents and my husband more than any other people I have ever encountered, and my parents gave me so much of themselves so that I could simply be myself. I would like to expand on that and attempt to give that experience to another human being, not only to benefit the child, but to enrich my life and the lives of those I love. Both of my parents consider raising me to be the most rewarding and enriching things they have ever done. These are talented, intelligent, well educated and accomplished human beings, so when they say that raising me was the best way for them to spend their energies, I take them at their word. Through educating me, they passed on their shared knowledge (beyond anything that could be placed in a book or passed on to a professional protege. They saw the world anew and fresh in through my life and interests. Ignoring all of my personal experiences, there is something awe inspiring about creating, nurturing, and shaping a human life when it is done well.
I also think that passing on knowledge to the future generation contributes to the ever growing, ever deepening well of human knowledge and heritage, moving humanity forward in its ever inquisitive nature toward understanding itself and the universe in which it dwells.
I just want to know why you are unsure about breeding humans but okay with breeding animals. What's the difference?
Same reason why we eat animals and not humans, we can eat the animals as they have no real choice. If an alien species comes to earth and it proves to be far superior to us with us not being able to defend ourselves, then if they choose to breed us or eat us like we do animals, is the same thing.
I just want to know why you are unsure about breeding humans but okay with breeding animals. What's the difference?
Same reason why we eat animals and not humans, we can eat the animals as they have no real choice.
Could you elaborate on that a little? Are those the key differences that allow for animal breeding but not human breeding.
Also, I thought a major argument against cannibalism was that it makes people ill. Isn't that what's really at the heart of the taboo against cannibalism?
I also think that passing on knowledge to the future generation contributes to the ever growing, ever deepening well of human knowledge and heritage, moving humanity forward in its ever inquisitive nature toward understanding itself and the universe in which it dwells.
I think everything you said is great. What you said leads me to think that you two will make wonderful babies and have them grow up to be wonderful people that the world needs more of.
I feel the need/urge sometimes to want to have a baby to pass on the knowledge that I have learned to hope they continue it. However, because of all the pressure around me about babies and baby fever, I'm no longer in that place of thinking that I need or want to have a child. Maybe one day my biological clock will say "Hey, it's time." Who knows?
We don't eat each other not because it makes people ill, it's just not hardwired onto us and for the few that it is, its perfectly natural and normal for them. Plus, its always easier to eat a cow than eat a human being, that's why we eat and breed cows and not tigers or bears, they are easy to handle won't put on a struggle most of the time when herding them and are less likely to try and kill you when you go at them to kill them for food. Same goes for breeding, you can, with little to no effort breed some species as they won't complain, argue, scream, kick and lash at you, they can be easily contained, etc. Same thing doesn't happen with humans, they will fight back.
We don't eat each other not because it makes people ill, it's just not hardwired onto us and for the few that it is, its perfectly natural and normal for them.
So, cannibalism is okay for some people?
Same goes for breeding, you can, with little to no effort breed some species as they won't complain, argue, scream, kick and lash at you, they can be easily contained, etc. Same thing doesn't happen with humans, they will fight back.
Is this "fighting back" the major impediment to breeding humans?
Maybe one day my biological clock will say "Hey, it's time." Who knows?
And this is what Rym is talking about. Let's say your biological clock does tell you it's time. Should you listen to your biology? Because of biology, you might start to have feelings that make you want to do something, but your conscious and logical brain can simultaneously recognize that those things are actually bad ideas.
Too many people automatically unthinkingly obey their biology. That would work pretty well if we were all still cavemen. As a caveman, biological instinct is probably going to lead you to make good decisions. As a person living in our "advanced" society, biological urges often lead you to do things that are very bad ideas.
One mark of a quality person is someone who can manage their biology, without letting it ruin their lives. If free will does exist, then people who act automatically according to biology clearly are not exercising it as much as those who act according to conscious thought. In fact, acting against your biology is a way of proving to yourself that you are indeed capable of acting according to conscious thought. If your body tells you to make babies, and you are able to consciously prevent yourself from doing so, then you have some proof your brain is in control. Whether that is truly free will remains to be seen, but it is certainly more free than reflexive biological response.
We don't eat each other not because it makes people ill, it's just not hardwired onto us and for the few that it is, its perfectly natural and normal for them.
So, cannibalism is okay for some people?
I'm pretty sure there are tribes out there where it is culturally acceptable, I know some cultures ate some parts of their enemies after a battle. Some people also have their wires crossed and dig this whole cannibalism thing, in their mind its OK.
Same goes for breeding, you can, with little to no effort breed some species as they won't complain, argue, scream, kick and lash at you, they can be easily contained, etc. Same thing doesn't happen with humans, they will fight back.
Is this "fighting back" the major impediment to breeding humans?
Well, it's not that simple but yeah, when you boil it down it comes to that. There is the whole human rights thing too, but since you are comparing other animals with humans I'm just using the arguments that apply to both.
And this is what Rym is talking about. Let's say your biological clock does tell you it's time. Should you listen to your biology? Because of biology, you might start to have feelings that make you want to do something, but your conscious and logical brain can simultaneously recognize that those things are actually bad ideas.
Too many people automatically unthinkingly obey their biology. That would work pretty well if we were all still cavemen. As a caveman, biological instinct is probably going to lead you to make good decisions. As a person living in our "advanced" society, biological urges often lead you to do things that are very bad ideas.
Oh, I agree. I think there might have been times in the past where I thought it was ticking, but I knew I wasn't financially ready to have a child.
There are times where I find myself thinking, "I'm too young to have a baby!" but I then realize, "Holy shit! I am old enough to have a baby!". This is normally when I hear about someone younger being preggo or I hear about teens having babies. Maybe it's because I think I'm mentally not ready to have a baby. This is probably true, however if and when the times comes when my birth control no longer is as effective as it should be and I happen to become preggo, I have a lot of serious thinking to do. I know for most part, that when I make a big decision that requires a life change or more responsibility on my part, I will do what needs to be done.
I know this isn't the most cordial thing to do, but there are times when people who are all baby crazy ask me, "Rochelle, how come you don't have babies? " or "So when are you going to have children?". When they ask these questions, I want to respond to them, "Because I don't need to make it an excuse for my existence in this world, like you do." I normally tend to keep that in and just say, "I'm a selfish person and would rather spend my free time and my money on me."
Same goes for breeding, you can, with little to no effort breed some species as they won't complain, argue, scream, kick and lash at you, they can be easily contained, etc. Same thing doesn't happen with humans, they will fight back.
Is this "fighting back" the major impediment to breeding humans?
Well, it's not that simple but yeah, when you boil it down it comes to that. There is the whole human rights thing too, but since you are comparing other animals with humans I'm just using the arguments that apply to both.
So, if we could just get them to stop fighting, or perhaps if we fought them and then defeated them, we could start breeding humans with no other problems?
Maybe one day my biological clock will say "Hey, it's time." Who knows?
And this is what Rym is talking about. Let's say your biological clock does tell you it's time. Should you listen to your biology? Because of biology, you might start to have feelings that make you want to do something, but your conscious and logical brain can simultaneously recognize that those things are actually bad ideas.
Too many people automatically unthinkingly obey their biology. That would work pretty well if we were all still cavemen. As a caveman, biological instinct is probably going to lead you to make good decisions. As a person living in our "advanced" society, biological urges often lead you to do things that are very bad ideas.
One mark of a quality person is someone who can manage their biology, without letting it ruin their lives. If free will does exist, then people who act automatically according to biology clearly are not exercising it as much as those who act according to conscious thought. In fact, acting against your biology is a way of proving to yourself that you are indeed capable of acting according to conscious thought. If your body tells you to make babies, and you are able to consciously prevent yourself from doing so, then you have some proof your brain is in control. Whether that is truly free will remains to be seen, but it is certainly more free than reflexive biological response.
Any major life decision, particularly being a parent should not be a product of biological or social pressure (in the case of the "ticking clock" mentality, I think that is more of a product of social pressure than biology). I keep feeling like I want to eat an entire brick of cheese, but I - as a self-aware being, decide not to eat that much cheese. There is a lot of social pressure to be thinner, but I focus more on health than weight (an important lesson for women that are considering eating cereal and nothing else).
Any major life decision, particularly being a parent should not be a product of biological or social pressure (in the case of the "ticking clock" mentality, I think that is more of a product of social pressure than biology).
Agreed. I will not give into the pressure that I constantly get from my surroundings of having a baby. I actually get more defiant when people keep asking me. I was mistaken to say the whole biological clock thing. I should have known better. -_-
I keep feeling like I want to eat an entire brick of cheese, but I - as a self-aware being, decide not to eat that much cheese. There is a lot of social pressure to be thinner, but I focus more on health than weight (an important lesson for women that are considering eating cereal and nothing else).
I would gladly give into the urge of eating an entire brick of cheese over having a baby anyday. ^_~
Same goes for breeding, you can, with little to no effort breed some species as they won't complain, argue, scream, kick and lash at you, they can be easily contained, etc. Same thing doesn't happen with humans, they will fight back.
Is this "fighting back" the major impediment to breeding humans?
Well, it's not that simple but yeah, when you boil it down it comes to that. There is the whole human rights thing too, but since you are comparing other animals with humans I'm just using the arguments that apply to both.
So, if we could just get them to stop fighting, or perhaps if we fought them and then defeated them, we could start breeding humans with no other problems?
Well yeah, that happened with the Chinese not so long ago for example, and I'm pretty sure in the middle ages as well. That's where the whole HUMAN RIGHTS comes into play, as I said, I didn't mention human rights before, because you are ignoring the fact that ANIMALS and HUMANS are not the same thing, yes, humans are animals, but not all animals are human."Then what makes humans that much better than animals" is probably what you are going to say and if so, I will not continue because then you are just being an ass.
Same goes for breeding, you can, with little to no effort breed some species as they won't complain, argue, scream, kick and lash at you, they can be easily contained, etc. Same thing doesn't happen with humans, they will fight back.
Is this "fighting back" the major impediment to breeding humans?
Well, it's not that simple but yeah, when you boil it down it comes to that. There is the whole human rights thing too, but since you are comparing other animals with humans I'm just using the arguments that apply to both.
So, if we could just get them to stop fighting, or perhaps if we fought them and then defeated them, we could start breeding humans with no other problems?
Well yeah, that happened with the Chinese not so long ago for example, and I'm pretty sure in the middle ages as well.
What? They were breeding humans in the middle ages? They were breeding humans in China?
Any major life decision, particularly being a parent should not be a product of biological or social pressure (in the case of the "ticking clock" mentality, I think that is more of a product of social pressure than biology). I keep feeling like I want to eat an entire brick of cheese, but I - as a self-aware being, decide not to eat that much cheese. There is a lot of social pressure to be thinner, but I focus more on health than weight (an important lesson for women that are considering eating cereal and nothing else).
This is true. When I first escaped my parent's home, I had a hard time not giving in to the urge to eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
Same goes for breeding, you can, with little to no effort breed some species as they won't complain, argue, scream, kick and lash at you, they can be easily contained, etc. Same thing doesn't happen with humans, they will fight back.
Is this "fighting back" the major impediment to breeding humans?
Well, it's not that simple but yeah, when you boil it down it comes to that. There is the whole human rights thing too, but since you are comparing other animals with humans I'm just using the arguments that apply to both.
So, if we could just get them to stop fighting, or perhaps if we fought them and then defeated them, we could start breeding humans with no other problems?
Well yeah, that happened with the Chinese not so long ago for example, and I'm pretty sure in the middle ages as well.
What? They were breeding humans in the middle ages? They were breeding humans in China?
Kinda, as they only allowed one child per family, and some classes were not allowed to have children at all as a by product of their labor, like males in charge of looking after maidens and such were castrated as not to fool around with the girls. Same thing with the princesses as they were only allowed to have the kids of royalty, actually leading to some serious inbreeding.
I completely agree about passing on learned knowledge to future generations. In fact, I think it's paramount, and one of the reasons I want children is that it's (in my experience) virtually impossible to teach most adults. If you can raise someone to be forward-thinking from the start, then I'm inclined to believe that they'll grow up to be a more "intelligent" adult. I don't mean that I want to expose my children to a limited set of facts; rather, I want to shape them to be critical thinkers, in the hopes that they'll be able to one day make the world better.
The issue I have with that, fundamentally, is that it feels selfish. When I say "make the world better," I obviously have a preconceived notion about what is "better," and in effect, I'm trying to enforce my vision of "better" on future generations through my children. Even if it's with what I perceive to be good intentions, I can't say that it's any different than the white supremacist British family who named their son Adolf Hitler. They're coming from the same place, trying to pass on their learned "wisdom" to their children so that they might one day "set the world right." So, can we really only just pass on what we think is right and hope for the best? That'll just lead to more of the same.
The way it seems to me, unless we start enforcing how people are "allowed" to raise their children, we're not going to get anywhere, and while I generally think that's probably the only viable solution, I have issues with trying to maintain the concept of free will and self-determination while simultaneously imposing severe restrictions on behavior. It's generating cognitive dissonance.
The issue I have with that, fundamentally, is that it feels selfish.
Is it wrong to do it for selfish reasons? I tend to think most people do the things they do for selfish reasons. Not saying it's a good or a bad thing, but that's it's selfish.
This reminds me of a time when I had a conversation with one of those baby crazy girlfriends of a friend. They were preggo with their second child with their first child being only a year or so old. I was letting her go on her ranting and raving about how having children was so wonderful even though she was so young. That having children is the best thing anyone could experience and that she was so amazing because she's having a second child. She went on and on about how much her life has changed. She doesn't go out and party nor does she miss any of those social things she once did before she had children. Then she said that having and raising children is the most selfless things anyone could do.
This made me think the exact opposite. I didn't call her out on it, because it wasn't worth the aggravation, but from how she sounded it seemed that she was being selfish on having children. She adored the attention, the baby showers, and all the cooing and awing of people who would comment on her preggo belly.
I would say in this person's instance, I would not agree with her selfishness.
If you can raise someone to be forward-thinking from the start, then I'm inclined to believe that they'll grow up to be a more "intelligent" adult. I don't mean that I want to expose my children to a limited set of facts; rather, I want to shape them to be critical thinkers, in the hopes that they'll be able to one day make the world better.
It is rather interesting on how children are raised to thinking what is right and wrong and when you compare it to another child's view of right and wrong that they are complete opposite. I think you hit the nail on the head on making sure to raise a child to be a critical thinker. That is key.
You bring up a lot of good points that made me actually stop and think about it. I honestly can't give an answer, but only wonder on how things would be if we did and were able to enforce how people raised their children.
Mrs. Macross and Ro: The issue I have with that, fundamentally, is that it feels selfish. When I say "make the world better," I obviously have a preconceived notion about what is "better," and in effect, I'm trying to enforce my vision of "better" on future generations through my children. Even if it's with what I perceive to be good intentions, I can't say that it's any different than the white supremacist British family who named their son Adolf Hitler. They're coming from the same place, trying to pass on their learned "wisdom" to their children so that they might one day "set the world right." So, can we really only just pass on what we think is right and hope for the best? That'll just lead to more of the same.
The way it seems to me, unless we start enforcing how people are "allowed" to raise their children, we're not going to get anywhere, and while I generally think that's probably the only viable solution, I have issues with trying to maintain the concept of free will and self-determination while simultaneously imposing severe restrictions on behavior. It's generating cognitive dissonance.
First of all, entire ethical theories revolve around the idea that every act is in some way self serving. Like most ethical theories, it can be used to generally shape our understanding of ourselves and of human behavior, but it impractical to constantly quibble over the "Did I help the lady across the street because I car about the lady, or because it gives me an enjoyable feeling of goodness?". Raising your children with a basic moral compass that you define is a GOOD THING. You have learned through your experience, through the teachings of your parents and your role models (or in spite of their teachings in some cases) a set of ideals. This is EXACTLY how combined human knowledge works! You were instructed and intuited a certain ideas. Passing these on will help you child and that child will decide what he/she takes with them and what they leave behind. That is how the system works. Obviously, every parent is flawed and what they teach their children may/may not be healthy or even factually correct, but the point is to show your children what you consider to be the BEST and allow them to take it or leave it. We do enforce how people are allowed to raise their children (child services, etc.), but we cannot and should not dictate what people teach their children. While I abhor that some children are raised to be bigots, it is simply wrong to take away some one's basic human rights based on their thoughts. Shout them down, call them out, but never take away their right to be wrong. I think that raising my child to be a decent human being (which will be my primary focus as a parent) is one key step to fighting bigotry and ignorance.
That's really what I'm trying to figure out. It's part of the constant assessment of my wants and needs; I want to have children, but I need to know why this is important to me and why I want to do it. That way, I can figure out how to prioritize it. I really hate doing things because they "seem like the thing to do," though increasingly that's the direction I'm thinking. At some point, you hit the wall of uncertainty.
The selfishness can be good or bad, I suppose, but it depends on whose perspective you're using. I started thinking about this a great deal during the whole Terri Schiavo bullshit. I remember a quote from Terri's parents that was something to the effect of "We're keeping her alive because she makes us happy," and I remember thinking that that was the most incredibly and destructively selfish thing I'd ever heard from a human being. Keeping another human alive in a state of misery for your own happiness? We send people to jail for shit like that, but when it's your own child, we treat that differently for some reason. There are entire cultures that reward people for having large families and see it as being a good thing, but if it's all just self-serving, then aren't we just rewarding people for serving their own ends? At the same time, should we really ignore an avenue by which some people pursue happiness?
I'd really hate to one day tell my child, "Y'know, I'm still not quite sure why I ever had you. Seemed like the thing to do at the time." I feel like I should have a better explanation than that.
Kate: Yes, we have rules about how to raise your children, you are correct. So, why do we draw the lines where we do? I'm reminded of this family in particular, who named a child Adolf Hitler. They claim that they're not raising them to be bigots, but naming your son Adolf Hitler? Your daughter JoyceLyn Aryan Nation? There's definitely a line where teaching certain things to children is outright destructive of their intellect, and I consider that to be every bit as bad as physical abuse.
Kate: Yes, we have rules about how to raise your children, you are correct. So, why do we draw the lines where we do? I'm reminded ofthis family in particular,who named a child Adolf Hitler. They claim that they're not raising them to be bigots, but naming your son Adolf Hitler? Your daughter JoyceLyn Aryan Nation? There's definitely a line where teaching certain things to children is outright destructive of their intellect, and I consider that to be every bit as bad as physical abuse.
You cannot make laws based on that. It simply isn't right or feasible. I think it is disgusting that kids are taught to hate, but thought policing is simply wrong. Where does it end and who decides what is acceptable and isn't? You are entitled to your opinion, as are they. You will teach your child your ideals, they will teach their children their ideals. Guess which child is more likely to follow what their parents say and do? I believe you mentioned to me that one or several of your older family members were bigoted. Well, your parents, you and your siblings all ignored their teachings in that regard, right? I think this happens with time, it is why I wholeheartedly buy into the "well of human knowledge" theory. When human beings have all of their basic needs met and they are taught even a little bit of critical reasoning and basic morality, then human thought elevates and expands and each generation can take what works from their predecessors and leave behind/refine what doesn't work.
Kate: Yes, we have rules about how to raise your children, you are correct. So, why do we draw the lines where we do? I'm reminded ofthis family in particular,who named a child Adolf Hitler. They claim that they're not raising them to be bigots, but naming your son Adolf Hitler? Your daughter JoyceLyn Aryan Nation? There's definitely a line where teaching certain things to children is outright destructive of their intellect, and I consider that to be every bit as bad as physical abuse.
You cannot make laws based on that. It simply isn't right or feasible. I think it is disgusting that kids are taught to hate, but thought policing is simply wrong. Where does it end and who decides what is acceptable and isn't. You are entitled to your opinion, as are they. You will teach your child your ideals, they will teach their children their ideals. Guess which child is more likely to follow what their parents say and do? I believe you mentioned to me that one or several of your older family members were bigoted. Well, your parents, you and your siblings all ignored their teachings in that regard, right? I think this happens with time, it is why I wholeheartedly buy into the "well of human knowledge" theory. When human being have all of their basic needs met and they are taught even a little bit of critical reasoning and basic morality, then human thought elevates and expands and each generation can take what works from their predecessors and leave behind/refine what doesn't work.
What if I think it's right to beat my children? What if I think that's the only way to teach them how to behave? We have laws that disallow that sort of environment. We have laws that allow social workers to take obese children away from their parents. Why not have laws that take children out of intellectually destructive environments? We're already condemning certain environments as being unhealthy, so why can we not define OTHER environments that are also unhealthy? There are plenty of studies, for example, that show that children who are home-schooled have difficulty socializing later in life, and often receive an inadequate education. We can pretty readily say that it's detrimental to the child's development, but we allow it anyhow.
I just question why we've drawn the lines where we have. If we can recognize when something is "bad" for a child, can't we do something about it?
There are entire cultures that reward people for having large families and see it as being a good thing, but if it's all just self-serving, then aren't we just rewarding people for serving their own ends?
Yes. I would think so.
I think of this when we file taxes. My coworker just had his 2nd child this year. He's going to get back a lot of money when he files his taxes. He jokes sometimes and refers to his children as tax deductions.
I am also reminded of when I used to work as a bank teller and it came to tax time, I would cash tax refund checks that were over $4000 because this lady had like a dozen children.
Sometimes I would think, "Must be nice to get all that money because of a choice to have children." However, I would rather just pay taxes and still be child free.
This lead me to thinking about baby showers and wedding showers and celebrations involving those events. It's not that I don't disagree with them altogether, but being a single person it makes you wonder if you would ever get a celebration for the "choices" you make of not doing those things. I know it seems silly, but it makes some sense in that weird brain of mine. (I got to thinking about this a lot after watching a certain episode of Sex and The City.)
That's really what I'm trying to figure out. It's part of the constant assessment of my wants and needs; I want to have children, but I need to know why this is important to me and why I want to do it. That way, I can figure out how to prioritize it. I really hate doing things because they "seem like the thing to do," though increasingly that's the direction I'm thinking. At some point, you hit the wall of uncertainty.
I think when it comes to deciding to have and raising a child there will always be uncertainty. Perhaps you are thinking about it too much. I honestly don't know.
Oh, that's definitely the problem, I just can't help it.
And I don't expect a definite answer. I don't know either; that's why I'm asking. Maybe someone has it figured out, but if nobody really knows, then I guess nobody has it figured out, and I don't feel so bad. I'll still keep thinking about it, but at least I know I'm not alone.
What if I think it's right to beat my children? What if I think that's the only way to teach them how to behave? We have laws that disallow that sort of environment. We have laws that allow social workers to take obese children away from their parents. Why not have laws that take children out of intellectually destructive environments? We're already condemning certain environments as being unhealthy, so why can we not define OTHER environments that are also unhealthy? There are plenty of studies, for example, that show that children who are home-schooled have difficulty socializing later in life, and often receive an inadequate education. We can pretty readily say that it's detrimental to the child's development, but we allow it anyhow.
I just question why we've drawn the lines where we have. If we can recognize when something is "bad" for a child, can't we do something about it?
First, there is a difference between thought and action. You can think that it is acceptable to beat your kids all you want. If you actually beat them, then your kids will be taken away and you will be prosecuted. That is a fundamental difference. You are asking why we can't police thoughts and I have already addressed it. We can police actions very easily. If a parent teaches their kids to hate gay people, they certainly can. If that kid then goes and beats a gay kid, then the parent is liable. If you honestly have to ask why it isn't acceptable to police thought, then we need to make a completely different thread and talk about basic human rights, slippery slopes, and fascism.
Comments
I mean, I want to have kids because I think it's the only way to actually shape the world that I would like to see. That and educating children is the only way I see to reliably increase the level of enlightenment in the world. I want to teach my children to be critical thinkers and to question everything, and if everyone did that, we'd be much better off. However, those are hideously selfish reasons to reproduce, so that's why I initially asked the question: are there non-selfish reasons to have children?
A better question might be: if you have children, why did you decide to have them? Or, why did you decide to have the number that you did?
HungryJoe: I don't necessarily have a problem with people breeding desired traits into children, but that once again gets back to the core question: why are you having children? If you're trying to breed the biggest, strongest person, then you're obviously trying to accomplish some goal of your own through controlled breeding. You're effectively trying to create servants to your own ends. Is this OK?
It's a 49.96% chance, in fact. So I think my saying 50/50 was perfectly acceptable due to rounding.
And yes, I know the boy-girl disparity is greater than 0.04%, but my calculations are right
I'm 28 going on 29 this year. I'm in a relationship of over 2 years with a person that I know I want to spend the rest of my life with. We've talked about marriage and have agreed that we do plan on getting married, but we are in no rush.
I remember thinking when I was of the ages of 18-21, I always knew I was still too young to get married and have children and that by the time I was 28, I should be married and with a child. Well, none of those original goals have happened, and I'm happy they didn't.
At work, I'm constantly surrounded by questions of coworkers and colleagues of asking me when I'm going to get married or when I'm going to have a baby. It doesn't help that my mother works in a different department at the VA and on the same floor. Her employees are always badgering me with those questions. I'm one of the youngest people here, so the older folk are always excited when they hear of marriages and babies. Other coworkers have been having children recently, and once again I get the question, "So Rochelle, when are you going to have a baby? Your mom really wants to have a grand baby."
I'm the only daughter in my family. My older brother is a captain in the Army and is a bachelor for life. My half-brother, from my father's previous marriage, has 3 children, so my father has grandchildren, but my mother does not. My mom asks me all the time when I'm going to give her a grandchild. She says it jokingly, but I know deep down she really wants one and pretty much only sees me as the source for providing one. I remember one time, after we had to put down our last cat, I told my mother we were thinking about getting another cat to help with the grief. My mom responded, "Don't get another cat Rochelle, go have a baby!". *sigh*
Now, my boyfriend's younger sister is about to have a baby next month. She's 24, has a job with no benefits, is largely in debt, and the father wants nothing to do with the baby. She was pregnant before by the same father, but chose to not have the child. I remember when we first heard of all this she said that she chose this time to have the baby because it "seemed right".
This honestly bugs the hell out of me. It's not my place to say anything to her but to be nice and supportive, but she doesn't have an health insurance, no steady income, and isn't the most responsible of people. Perhaps having this child will light the fire under her ass to get it together, but I still think it's very irresponsible to have a baby when you have no money saved up or have any real insurance. Sure, she's using Medicaid through the state for her pregnancy, but it only provides so much for so long. Most of the other expenses are being assisted by Jeremy's father and sometimes by us.
What makes matters even worse, her apartment recently caught on fire from a tenant below her. She lost most of her belongings as was only able to salvage a few items that she received at her baby shower. So now, Jeremy and I are helping out even more to help replace the things that were lost. Now, I don't mind helping her, but at the same time, she had renter's insurance, but she didn't pay it the previous month, so she is not eligible to get reimbursed for the fire damages.
It also really gets to me because Jeremy's parents give comments every now and then that give the impression that we should feel sorry for his sister and we should be helping more. This is because compared to Jeremy's parents and ourselves, we make more money so that means we should be helping out more.
I can not express how frustrating this is. I want to make very rude comments to his parents, but at the same time I don't want to get in between Jeremy and his parents, but gotdamn, I want to tell them off so badly. It was not our choice for her to have the baby. We are not responsible for her child. She is. When she decided to have the baby, she should have known that she needs to save. She didn't save any money.
So all in all, I really don't understand or comprehend why Jeremy's sister decided to have this baby.
As for myself, Jeremy and I have had many discussions about children. We have decided at this time we don't want to have children, nor are we financially willing to have a child. We would rather spend our time and money on our hobbies and interest. Anyways, all my motherly instincts are going towards my baby kitten, and that's enough for me.
I also think that passing on knowledge to the future generation contributes to the ever growing, ever deepening well of human knowledge and heritage, moving humanity forward in its ever inquisitive nature toward understanding itself and the universe in which it dwells.
Also, I thought a major argument against cannibalism was that it makes people ill. Isn't that what's really at the heart of the taboo against cannibalism?
I feel the need/urge sometimes to want to have a baby to pass on the knowledge that I have learned to hope they continue it. However, because of all the pressure around me about babies and baby fever, I'm no longer in that place of thinking that I need or want to have a child. Maybe one day my biological clock will say "Hey, it's time." Who knows?
Too many people automatically unthinkingly obey their biology. That would work pretty well if we were all still cavemen. As a caveman, biological instinct is probably going to lead you to make good decisions. As a person living in our "advanced" society, biological urges often lead you to do things that are very bad ideas.
One mark of a quality person is someone who can manage their biology, without letting it ruin their lives. If free will does exist, then people who act automatically according to biology clearly are not exercising it as much as those who act according to conscious thought. In fact, acting against your biology is a way of proving to yourself that you are indeed capable of acting according to conscious thought. If your body tells you to make babies, and you are able to consciously prevent yourself from doing so, then you have some proof your brain is in control. Whether that is truly free will remains to be seen, but it is certainly more free than reflexive biological response.
There are times where I find myself thinking, "I'm too young to have a baby!" but I then realize, "Holy shit! I am old enough to have a baby!". This is normally when I hear about someone younger being preggo or I hear about teens having babies. Maybe it's because I think I'm mentally not ready to have a baby. This is probably true, however if and when the times comes when my birth control no longer is as effective as it should be and I happen to become preggo, I have a lot of serious thinking to do. I know for most part, that when I make a big decision that requires a life change or more responsibility on my part, I will do what needs to be done.
I know this isn't the most cordial thing to do, but there are times when people who are all baby crazy ask me, "Rochelle, how come you don't have babies? " or "So when are you going to have children?". When they ask these questions, I want to respond to them, "Because I don't need to make it an excuse for my existence in this world, like you do." I normally tend to keep that in and just say, "I'm a selfish person and would rather spend my free time and my money on me."
I completely agree about passing on learned knowledge to future generations. In fact, I think it's paramount, and one of the reasons I want children is that it's (in my experience) virtually impossible to teach most adults. If you can raise someone to be forward-thinking from the start, then I'm inclined to believe that they'll grow up to be a more "intelligent" adult. I don't mean that I want to expose my children to a limited set of facts; rather, I want to shape them to be critical thinkers, in the hopes that they'll be able to one day make the world better.
The issue I have with that, fundamentally, is that it feels selfish. When I say "make the world better," I obviously have a preconceived notion about what is "better," and in effect, I'm trying to enforce my vision of "better" on future generations through my children. Even if it's with what I perceive to be good intentions, I can't say that it's any different than the white supremacist British family who named their son Adolf Hitler. They're coming from the same place, trying to pass on their learned "wisdom" to their children so that they might one day "set the world right." So, can we really only just pass on what we think is right and hope for the best? That'll just lead to more of the same.
The way it seems to me, unless we start enforcing how people are "allowed" to raise their children, we're not going to get anywhere, and while I generally think that's probably the only viable solution, I have issues with trying to maintain the concept of free will and self-determination while simultaneously imposing severe restrictions on behavior. It's generating cognitive dissonance.
This reminds me of a time when I had a conversation with one of those baby crazy girlfriends of a friend. They were preggo with their second child with their first child being only a year or so old. I was letting her go on her ranting and raving about how having children was so wonderful even though she was so young. That having children is the best thing anyone could experience and that she was so amazing because she's having a second child. She went on and on about how much her life has changed. She doesn't go out and party nor does she miss any of those social things she once did before she had children. Then she said that having and raising children is the most selfless things anyone could do.
This made me think the exact opposite. I didn't call her out on it, because it wasn't worth the aggravation, but from how she sounded it seemed that she was being selfish on having children. She adored the attention, the baby showers, and all the cooing and awing of people who would comment on her preggo belly.
I would say in this person's instance, I would not agree with her selfishness. It is rather interesting on how children are raised to thinking what is right and wrong and when you compare it to another child's view of right and wrong that they are complete opposite. I think you hit the nail on the head on making sure to raise a child to be a critical thinker. That is key.
You bring up a lot of good points that made me actually stop and think about it. I honestly can't give an answer, but only wonder on how things would be if we did and were able to enforce how people raised their children.
We do enforce how people are allowed to raise their children (child services, etc.), but we cannot and should not dictate what people teach their children. While I abhor that some children are raised to be bigots, it is simply wrong to take away some one's basic human rights based on their thoughts. Shout them down, call them out, but never take away their right to be wrong.
I think that raising my child to be a decent human being (which will be my primary focus as a parent) is one key step to fighting bigotry and ignorance.
The selfishness can be good or bad, I suppose, but it depends on whose perspective you're using. I started thinking about this a great deal during the whole Terri Schiavo bullshit. I remember a quote from Terri's parents that was something to the effect of "We're keeping her alive because she makes us happy," and I remember thinking that that was the most incredibly and destructively selfish thing I'd ever heard from a human being. Keeping another human alive in a state of misery for your own happiness? We send people to jail for shit like that, but when it's your own child, we treat that differently for some reason. There are entire cultures that reward people for having large families and see it as being a good thing, but if it's all just self-serving, then aren't we just rewarding people for serving their own ends? At the same time, should we really ignore an avenue by which some people pursue happiness?
I'd really hate to one day tell my child, "Y'know, I'm still not quite sure why I ever had you. Seemed like the thing to do at the time." I feel like I should have a better explanation than that.
Kate: Yes, we have rules about how to raise your children, you are correct. So, why do we draw the lines where we do? I'm reminded of this family in particular, who named a child Adolf Hitler. They claim that they're not raising them to be bigots, but naming your son Adolf Hitler? Your daughter JoyceLyn Aryan Nation? There's definitely a line where teaching certain things to children is outright destructive of their intellect, and I consider that to be every bit as bad as physical abuse.
I just question why we've drawn the lines where we have. If we can recognize when something is "bad" for a child, can't we do something about it?
I think of this when we file taxes. My coworker just had his 2nd child this year. He's going to get back a lot of money when he files his taxes. He jokes sometimes and refers to his children as tax deductions.
I am also reminded of when I used to work as a bank teller and it came to tax time, I would cash tax refund checks that were over $4000 because this lady had like a dozen children.
Sometimes I would think, "Must be nice to get all that money because of a choice to have children." However, I would rather just pay taxes and still be child free.
This lead me to thinking about baby showers and wedding showers and celebrations involving those events. It's not that I don't disagree with them altogether, but being a single person it makes you wonder if you would ever get a celebration for the "choices" you make of not doing those things. I know it seems silly, but it makes some sense in that weird brain of mine. (I got to thinking about this a lot after watching a certain episode of Sex and The City.) I think when it comes to deciding to have and raising a child there will always be uncertainty. Perhaps you are thinking about it too much. I honestly don't know.
And I don't expect a definite answer. I don't know either; that's why I'm asking. Maybe someone has it figured out, but if nobody really knows, then I guess nobody has it figured out, and I don't feel so bad. I'll still keep thinking about it, but at least I know I'm not alone.
If you honestly have to ask why it isn't acceptable to police thought, then we need to make a completely different thread and talk about basic human rights, slippery slopes, and fascism.