I try to be. Children would be exhausting to parent in the current era. Humanityâs future is gloom too.
You must log in or register to comment.
A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions
If your post is
- Open ended
- Not offensive
- Not regarding lemmy support (c/lemmy_support)
- not ad nauseam inducing (please make sure its a question that would be new to most members)
itâs welcome here!
- 0 users online
- 18 users / day
- 78 users / week
- 204 users / month
- 529 users / 6 months
- 8 subscribers
- 888 Posts
- 10.2K Comments
- Modlog
Hasnât been the message for the last 2000 years?
The current era is better to raise children than many other eras where human rights didnât existed. Although it depends on which society too. Many of those worries are very subjective. Having or not having children ultimately is a personal choice* (except when is not e.g. Rape) and neither is wrong. Whichever you chose you will miss the benefits of the other. Both have pros and cons.
yeah this is what I agree with.
No plans to create my own children. Iâve always felt that itâs far more important to adopt a child thatâs been abandoned by an uncaring society then to make another. I donât have any genes important enough to try to reproduce (and few people do). If you canât find it in your heart to love a child that doesnât contain the same genetic material as you, I think you should reconsider being a parent
Haha. âAdoptionâ. There havenât been any recent world wars. No plagues (close miss on that though). There are no children to adopt. So few, in fact, that those who want to adopt often find themselves on waiting listsâŚ
So much so, that many give up on that course of action, and instead choose to fly halfway around the world to buy children from warlords and conmen in Africa.
Or, you could become a âfoster parentâ, which is like adoption except that the kidâs even less yours⌠they might come along and yank them away from you for a variety of reasons. The most heartbreaking of which, Iâm told, is that the real parents have convinced some bureaucrat that they wonât abuse or neglect them like they had been doing, when experience suggests that it will just happen again.
Though, donât be too sympathetic to the foster parents, theyâre helping the government prosecute the war on drugs and ruin families, just by supplying the demand for child abduction technicians. And all so they can scratch their itch of (fake) parenthood and feel self-righteous about it.
Also if you want to adopt you need a very square life where I live. You need proper jobs, a lot of money to show them, be married etc. Not saying this is bad, itâs probably best for the adopted children, but I donât have many of these things.
Nah, for $50,000 you can buy an African child. Takes about a year or so. Itâs not human trafficking because itâs good and wholesome.
I did not know human trafficking is wholesome. You are scoring some big wins in this thread, DPUGT2, especially as a married male with 2 kids.
extend DPUGT2 ban to like a week imo
I get what heâs trying to say here; heâs being ironic about it, as some people gullibly adopt from immoral sources such as african warlords. It is child trafficking but, since it is being âwhitewashedâ and not labeled as such, it becomes somehow acceptable in the public eye.
He is not being sarcastic, as you already seem to have experienced. He said in one comment now removed:
He claims to have a wife and 2 kids, and preach all this load of right wing purist nutjob levels of crap to people.
Yeah, Iâve read that comment. I donât agree with what he said in general but itâs undeniable that there are plenty of scams to lure rich people, typically americans, to poor countries under the guise of adopting children from underfunded orphanages when in fact there are far grimmer ulterior motives behind them.
It is a whole different discussion though, which starts with the agreed point that human trafficking should result in harsh punishment instead of it being acceptable under X or Y marketing labels.
There are no moral sources. Those who would adopt morally would be compelled to adopt children from their own family first⌠who better to not let an orphan forget their parents than someone who also loved and knew those parents?
And if there were no family, then friends of those parents for the same reason.
And if no friends, then that community⌠except today, there arenât really any communities left. Just people who live near each other as accidents of geography.
And if none in the community, then at least someone from that culture. So that the child might grow up knowing his or her own language and songs and whatnot. But western culture isnât a culture so much as the absence of one, a void, and so it canât imagine that anything like thatâs important.
But none of these rules allow hipsters who live in California but are too eco-conscious of their carbon footprint to want to âbring another child into this worldâ but want to raise a child to do so. So these rules are bad. And thatâs why adopting African children is good and moral. Because they want to, they have the money to do it, and that warlord uses a cutout so that the adoption has the appearance of being above-board.
I⌠agree with you? Youâre making a strawman out of me in this argument. I never said I advocated for adopting from Africa before adopting from your own family or circle of friends. Heck, if I do decide to adopt in the future, thatâs the route Iâd try to take first. Not that itâs a big desire of mine, but thatâs what Iâd choose to do.
Weâre on a public forum. Though my comment may be the literal reply to yours, it isnât necessarily true that I am speaking to you and only you. Iâm speaking to others in response to what youâve said.
I apologize if this makes it seem Iâm hostile to you.
But Iâll drop another rule on you and see what you make of this. Adoptions are about the children who need someone to care for them, and not for the people adopting who want to gratify their need for a human pet. If youâre doing it for yourself, youâre doing it for the wrong reasons. Therefor, the only people who should adopt are those who do not want to, but out of a sense of duty.
And if people accepted that rule, then weâd have no discussion at all about adoption in this thread. Because adoption can no longer be a substitute for having oneâs own children.
Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood your argument.
I somewhat agree, in the sense that, from a moral perspective, if youâre adopting just to satisfy a desire, without any good intention to help the child being adopted, youâre just as evil as if youâve had a biological child for that same reason. That might be where you disagree with me though.
I donât think people in this thread are advocating for adoption from a strictly selfish point of view, they are merely acknowledging that, in the face of wanting a child to take care of, adopting a child who was neglected seems like a more morally sound choice than having a biological child, in those circumstances.
Absolutely. Quite honestly, adopting from another country had never crossed my mind, since I grew up with so many orphans. I was surprised that some people immediately jumped to that conclusion
It can be. You just have to label it correctly. Call it âinternational adoptionâ and the money âadoption feesâ, and itâs all good.
âŚWTF? Labelling something in a sugarcoating manner does not justify it.
Nazis call atrocities like Holocaust a form of justice, DOES NOT mean it will ever be acceptable.
Your pessimism and ignorance is truly astounding. There need not be wars for children to be abandoned, and it should be common knowledge at this point that foster parents have a high chance of being nothing but another loveless cage for orphans to suffer in. Full fledged adoption is hardly done right, but thatâs all the more reason why good and caring people should step in and try.
I grew up around orphans, and I know how hard and lonely it is to be foisted from foster family to foster family, surrounded by siblings and adults who resent and use you until youâre once again abandoned to some other equally cruel house. Maybe you donât think adoption does any good (god knows why), but I know for certain that there are a lot of children who grow up alone without any support that would be so much better off if they had someone in their life who truly cared for them. Is it really better to just not care at all than to try and help even one person? If you think so, youâre a terribly sad person.
âI try to be.â Uhm is there a middle ground here between do or do not? It seems like rather a binary choice lol. Anyway ya, life is shit and this is hell, no way am I bringing more sapient life to this shithole.
Well there is adoption or babysitting; but Iâm trying to stay committed to my decision to be childfree.
Iâve raised four kids but reared none of my own. Of the four step kids, three girls and one boy, only one of the girls has hatched their own. The other three have zero interest in having kidsâŚunless you count cats.
Never had any interest in having children, and the more Iâve learned about the state of the world the happier I am with my choices.
Same.
I am not, got a 10 month old boy. Its a lot of work, but definitely worth everything. Its incredible how happy he is all the time.
I would have liked to, but my husband was a hard no. Weâre gay and the risks and difficulty involved with adoption are pretty high. He just didnât feel like either of us were up for that, and honestly it may be true. If heâs a no and Iâm a soft yes, the default goes to no. It looks like my brother is headed the same direction.
Still, I always will feel a little sad that I wonât be able to raise a kid or two. In terms of a stable marriage with decent income, we could offer that. I think I could be a decent parent, so it makes me a little sad that I will have little legacy to pass down to the next generation.
I have zero desire to continue my bloodline. Iâm okay with adoption, but not particularly interested right now.
I donât have kids nor do I want kids, but I try not to judge others, particularly people who arenât super privileged, for having kids.
Privileged (rich) people who have kids though? They kinda irk me because itâs so obvious that they know the world is fucked but they clearly have the money and privilege to keep their kids in a little bubble.
i donât want to have kids because i believe itâs unethical for some average joe, or in fact anyone that isnât an expert in child psychology and child development, to subject a human being to potential lifelong trauma because âbabies be cute doeâ. also i think the hype is overblown. society feeds you the lie that you need to have kids to feel fulfilled and happy, but in reality there are many other ways to do that and they donât involve a very high risk of ruining someoneâs entire life. surround yourself with people you like, create a daily lifestyle that energizes and refreshes you, and spend time on your passions. one or all three of those things could involve children, but for most people they will not.
i think refraining from raising children because âhumanityâs future is gloomâ isnât entirely logical. even absolute climate catastrophe would be better than most of human history because of the technology available to us, and at worst it would be just as bad. humans have been born and lived in the worst possible conditions, they can do it in these ones too. definitely adopt though, creating children is still dumb for other reasons.
Only PhDs in child psychology should reproduce? So, you want humanity to be extinct, thatâs a more ethically sound position than âsometimes bad things happen to some peopleâ?
Youâve got 4 billion years of genetic coding that insists, even demands that this is true. The last few tens of millions of years hardcodes it directly into your meat brain.
Society? If society ever did that, it ceased doing it almost a hundred years ago. Now, you canât turn your head or hear a dozen words from some random stranger proclaiming the opposite is true and that anyone who says otherwise is a misogynist, masochist, or biblethumper.
There of course are many reasons for that. If you believe transexuals are healthy, important individuals⌠how could they participate in parenting if theyâre mutilating their reproductive organs? So, parenting and reproduction now have to be bad or at least discouraged, to push the other message more fully. Not just them, of course, itâs not fair to single them out when there are so many other degenerate lifestyles that, if you embrace them, you also canât embrace the idea that parenting is important without being hypocritical.
The end result will be, of course, that these lifestyles die out. The question is, will they take everything else with them.
Yes. Suffering should be eradicated at all costs. Humanity doesnât have an inherent right to exist, it simply does as long as it is perpetuated by both humans themselves and while external conditions allow it.
I see your beliefs now. Well, no wonder you also disagree with this viewpoint then.
What is suffering? Iâve lumped that word in with all the other religious claptrap like âsoulâ and âafterlifeâ and whatnot.
Are you talking about pain (the sensation)? It doesnât seem that you mean that, but if you did it would be absurd. âPain should be eradicatedâ makes no sense. It canât even be said that pain should be avoided, since discomfort is often associated with worthwhile, and ultimately pleasant, activities.
Define suffering so we can be on the same page.
True, as far as it goes. But itâs like âturnips have no inherent right to existâ. Pretty meaningless, and in the context where people actually want to exist (and for others to exist), somewhat misleading.
Please, read my palm. Tell everyone what my beliefs are.
That is merely a component of suffering. That should be avoided imo, but it isnât the only thing that should.
I struggle to find such activities. Iâm not stating there are none, just that I canât remember any off the top of my head.
A negative experience which causes physical or psychological distress to a person or group of people, often for extended periods of time or with lasting effects after the experience itself has stopped (ie. trauma).
Saying this statement is meaningless is the same as saying philosophy itself is meaningless, but it can be a valuable tool to help us define our values and offer a base from which every other aspect of life can be evaluated more precisely. I donât see how itâs misleading at all.
That statement was more hostile than I intended it to, in hindsight, and I see how it might be hypocritical to complain that you are lumping all âyoung liberalsâ (as it seems) in the same strawman when I ended up doing the same to you. I was quite offended by the transphobic comment so I reacted in an emotional way. Sorry.
I believe you follow some conservative beliefs (from an american standpoint) pretty strictly and that might be the bias shown in your arguments towards traditional values and against modern, sort of more âextremeâ or what you perceive as catering to emotions rather than rationality (which I think they really arenât, but even if they were, emotions are a part of life, if you value life, surely youâd value emotions too?). My critique to that is that conservatives often fail to see that their own positions and points of view are similarly coming from an emotional, and not rational, place, as they react to change by clinging to traditional views âbecause thatâs what has been done until nowâ, without any actual rational reasoning for them. Like you yourself said, just because a lot of people follow a given ideology doesnât make it right, the majority might be wrong, itâs just the majority. The same could be applied in this situation.
For instance, you might see having children as the rational choice because thatâs what humanity has done since it began existing and due to it being a necessity for the continuation of the species, but is that not your natural, biological impulses speaking for you? Is it truly rational, logical thought? Why does humanity have to keep existing? You might have arguments and answers to those questions and that would make them rationally valid, but âjust becauseâ is not a rational answer.
Only those with some qualification in child psychology should raise children.
most times small things happen to most children that have a huge psychological impact on them. these things can be avoided by child psychology experts because they actually know what theyâre doing.
There are primal instincts that push us towards wanting children, but pleasing the more complex parts of your brain is much more fulfilling, enough that you donât need to appease those primal instincts. Iâm not arguing that having children wouldnât provide some happiness at certain points for everyone, just that there are other things that will make you much more happy and donât risk the lifelong wellbeing of another human being. and again, for some people the more complex part of their brain will want children, because of genuine interest in the process of raising a child, not because of a temporary high that will fade as soon as they need to pay attention to their actions around the child or make tough decisions about discipline.
Thatâs great to hear, my observations must be anomalous then.
Just had my first want 2 or 3
I donât have any but want 2 I think. A few years ago I didnât want any but I guess I got older
Iâd recommend considering adopting, if you donât mind me saying so. More paperwork sure, but way less pain for you or your partner, and theyâre really usually perfectly good kids. My neice, nephew, and cousin are all adopted, and theyâre no less a part of the family than anyone else.
It makes a world of difference to a child that already exists, and you spare the unborn the existential crises our world is facing- huge win-win.
Twoâs a good number. Not sure Iâd say it out loud, itâs like daring fate to give you triplets.
I personally donât want to, Iâm not good with children
as far as i know
Do cats count? Otherwise, Iâm childless.
I am not currently, but wish to be that in my future.
Yes. Iâd rather be the âeccentric uncle QuentinCallaghanâ to my siblingsâ kids than a father to any kid in a world like this. Iâm so used to having my own independence and freedom, and Iâm a hedonist to some extent. Also having kids would require a relationship, and the Yellowstone volcano erupting is more likely than that.