• Over inflated confidence

    If everyone chose not to have children , then humanity would cease to exist and i think for the stress that parents and grandparents experience raising their own children, i think that the next generation need to understand true unselfishness, which you can only understand once you sacrifice your life for your child

  • Having children is the only way to really grow up and continue your legacy.

    Top arguments of most that do not want children:
    1.) I get to do whatever I want and don't have to worry about taking care of some needy child.
    2.) I just don't want them
    3.) Too many people in the world

    Counter: How is this not selfish? Isn't this the very definition of selfish? By contrast, having a child puts you in a position to take care of another human being, in a parental role, where as you are responsible for someone other than yourself. You are responsible for someone who is helpless without you (until a certain age of course). You are the #1 role model in this human's life and mold them into the person they will become. So, becoming a parent that takes full responsibility for the child, and doesn't pawn the kid off to everyone else, doesn't neglect their responsibilities, and who grows as a person is definitely the less selfish option.

    What is our role as a species? To prolong and make better the future of our own. People that don't want children are simply not progressing in maturity, most likely due to the many distractions our society has to offer. Why have kids when you can party all night, go to college until you're 30 or older on student loans, and have sex with random partners without really ever, truly committing to someone else? This debate needs to touch on the erosion of the traditional family due to a tragic decline in morals and common decency.

    It seems the crowd that supports not wanting children at all costs also supports more progressive, liberal points of view that include the LGBT movement, abortion rights, and so on. This crowd is also usually the least successful (income wise), uses the most drugs, and has more casual affairs than the supporters of traditional families.

    Do I think not wanting kids necessarily makes you a bad person? Not bad, but definitely immature and selfish. It is obvious that people that have families end up living more for others, than themselves, in most cases. It is true that some have kids out of wedlock, on accident, and even under the influence of drugs. These people are more of the crowd that is against traditional, conservative principals that have kids out of necessity, because of an accidental circumstance. However, even some drug addicts see the light after they have a child, and turn their ways around. The single, childless drug addict can continue on until they OD, more often than the drug addict who has something else motivating them.

    This site's "debates" are pretty weak. Most of these people debating the subject don't even know what a debate is and type like uneducated nitwits.

  • Look at the "reasons"

    When you look at articles, most of the reasons women cite for not wanting kids include things like "it would bring too much money stress" or "I can't picture myself being a mom" or "I don't want to change my sleeping schedule." That is selfish to me. Ask any mother, and she'll tell you yes, having kids is hard, but it's the most fulfilling job in the world.

  • It really depends

    If you can afford a child, then yes you should really have as many as you can. This is because not only do families increase stability (it gives people something to do not revolving around hedonism or materialism for once) of a society, but they represent continuity. If we rely on migrants to fill in our demographic gaps, not only will the native population be resentful, but the nation will loose its legacy and character. And identity will be squandered and replaced with nothing but subgroups and division.

    I plan to have three children, because I know with the strain on the safety net and the crowd of people who ARE having children, I cannot any longer rely on the public purse to come to the rescue thanks to all these childless couples who will grow old and not have any children to pay for their retirement,

    The system only works to its fullest extent when EVERYONE makes a sacrifice. No sacrifice, no stability and no thriving, long - term society. Its that simple.

    The people on the no side who don't want kids are wasting their potential (assuming they can afford them). The dedication they say having children requires (and they would have to put in) means that they may be great parents if they decide to procreate, and for once, children raised by educated, middle class professionals may one day become a majority of births (imagine what rational and level headed society that would create).

    Plus, the state should do more as well and society should STOP promoting a consumerist lifestyle. Daycare should be free and covered, Families should get allowances of $450 each month per child (like in France). We need to spend in excess of 4% of our GDP (and reform the education system dramatically so that having children is strongly encouraged and children are "eased" into being a parent).

    Thats the only way we save the nation from financial demise.

  • With the assumption the couple is capable

    One needs to assume that the person, for all other purposes, would be a fit parent. I'm not addressing people who, for mental, physical, or even financial reasons choose not to have children. I'm talking about the person who has no reason other than 'I don't want a kid.'

    1) The more intelligent, stable, affluent marriages are in the best position to produce children who will benefit the next generation of humans. These children have the lowest rates for becoming criminals, drop-outs, drug users, etc. These are things that benefit society as a whole.

    2) Society programs (such as social security) are dependent on the beneficiaries having children. These programs are not paid for by your working dollar, they're paid for by the working dollar of the children or grandchildren who are working when you are retired. Basically, if you are childless you should not receive any society benefits when you retire. This is going to become a bigger problem as people choose to have fewer or even no children.

    3) The most common reason someone gives is that they are either not comfortable around children (indicating they believe that there is something wrong with them and did not inherit a parenting gene... Which studies show doesn't exist, parenting is learned, so these people are simply ignorant), or that they want to be free to pursue their own interests. Since the definition of selfish is "lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure." then choosing something that would negatively affect the next generation but personally profit yourself would be selfish.

    4) Even when the person will not be using society programs, there is the burden of an elderly couple who have no children to help take care of them. A large percentage of elderly who need help, but are not bad enough to live in a nursing home yet, are cared for by their family, often children or grand-children. Assisted living places are not cheap, and insurance paying for them drives up the insurance for, again, the working age group which the couple did not contribute to.

    The argument then becomes whether it's wrong to be selfish. Many today live for 'number 1' and look out for number 1. Excuses of "well, it's better for the planet..." ignore the fact that the population growth is actually at a negative when it comes to births in most places in the world, and that a 'zero population growth' is actually what most advocates argue for, not a negative one. Negative population growth can have extreme effects as the retiring group leaves and there's not enough workers to replace them. So, if you're going to go that route, then anything above 3 (taking into account infertile couples or children who die) would be selfish, but up until then it serves society to at least maintain a zero population growth.

  • One must sacrifice of his personal goals, aspirations, etc.

    Yes. Children need devotion and love. Children are hard to raise. To have them is not only to bear them but to make personal sacrifices for them and to devote time for them. No one is lacking in the ability to have children but the selfless will to do so.

  • Depending on the fitness of the couple

    This is not addressing those who are infertile, incapable mentally, or even financially unfit, but to those whom this is a true choice. Selfishness is defined as "lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure."

    1) If a couple is fit, then they should contribute to the next generation of society in order to benefit the future of society. A couple who are stable are less likely to have children who grow to have problems that are to the detriment of society. By removing the children of this stable couple you are making that society less fit.

    2) If a couple are planning on using any society or insurance programs when they retire, these programs are dependent on the current working population of that society. By having no children they are not contributing to these programs while adding to the burden. Unless they save up the money they have, they are hurting future society (insurance does not count as, again, it's dependent on the healthy working group they did not contribute to.)

    3) Children are part of taking care of you in your own age. There are many people who don't want to move into a nursing home who, instead, have their children take care of them on different levels. Assisted living apartments are not cheap, and having insurances cover them again puts the burden on the working class, the group of people they did not contribute to. Basically, the childless are a pure burden, and if it was something they chose to do then it's not only not benefiting the future it's hurting it.

    4) Most people who choose childish states are either afraid they don't have a parenting gene (which is ignorant since this behavior is learned, not inherited...) or say they just want the freedom they are accustomed to (self-serving even at the detriment of society, basic definition of selfish.)

    To counter some of the arguments presented... If the world is at a high population and should not increase population, the experts recommend attaining a negative population growth, which requires a 3 child average in order to replace the parents and take into account mortality and those naturally infertile. Currently, most places in the world are at a negative population growth, which causes an increase of burden on the working class and hurts the overall health of society. Since a negative population growth hurts society, having at least 2-3 children should be considered necessary for society's health, though it could be argued having more than that would be selfish but having none is as bad or worse.

  • It is not selfish.

    I can play with children, take care of children, and if I see a child run out in traffic I would not hesitate to jump in front of a car to protect them. Does that make me special? Of course not. We as human beings are hardwired to take care of children and want them to be happy. But does it make mean you only care about yourself if you decide not to have children of your own? Sure people can say I didn't have them because I didn't want to change diapers, and wanted to be able to go out whenever I wanted to. But I say there are plenty of people out there who had children for purely selfish reasons. To have someone love them unconditionally, be dependent on them. Someone they can mold into a "mini-me". Someone to carry on the family name. Someone to take care of them when they are sick. Maybe even just because it's what everyone else does so they think they have to as well. I maintain that not everyone who decides not to have children is a selfish person. I think it is a shame that questions are drawn on a person's (especially a woman's) character if they decided not to be a parent. People make that decision for all kinds of reasons, and it can't be automatically assumed that those are selfish reasons. They may be sad reasons (or not so sad), but those reasons should be respected. God bless the parents of the world, I ain't one of them!

  • Dont assume things about others

    It’s bot hard to find a mother who will enthusiastically (desperately?) extol the virtues of motherhood, about how joyful and rewarding it is. I’m happy for those parents for whom that is true, but we can’t forgot that there are plenty of parents who would rather not be, and who take that resentment out on their kids. If you don’t want kids, you shouldnt ignore that intuition.

    Also the notion that only a parent understands true love and selflessness is just plain narcissism. There are plenty of humans who already exist in the world who need care and help, why should anyone be less willing to love them than an unconceived child?. Neglecting the preexisting needs of others so you can dote on your kid simply because it’s yours is crass self absorption.

  • Too great of an unfulfilled need.

    Raising a child in america will consume 30 times as many resources as a child in india, where 10 million starve each year. To bring a child into a world of such obscene inequality is to create nees while the needs of others who already exist go unfulfilled, and thereby deciding that the lives of real humans are disposable and less important than your own desire to raise a family. Having kids is selfish and destructive, not the other way around. Negative population growth is an ethical imperative in today’s world.

  • It's the opposite!

    I never understand this one. How on Earth can it be selfish to not have children?! Nobody is harming anybody by not having children. The world is heavily overpopulated. It's also in a pretty bad state, and I feel sorry for children being born now.
    Many people are messed up and damaged by life, and the odds of that happening are high; so it could be argued that having children is potentially quite cruel.
    In this day and age, I'd say it's selfish to HAVE children, not the other way round.

  • It's a stupid theory

    It's the most stupid thing I've ever heard of. I'm not obligated to have kids and I think the real selfish ones are the ones who shouldn't have kids and keep having kids overpopulating our planet and making the rest of us deal with them. For one how is it selfish to a kid that doesn't even exist in the first place? See the logic there?? When I hear people call people who don't have kids selfish I just want to slap them for saying something so stupid. The purpose of life is to do what YOU want to do with it, not conform to what others think you should do with it. First of all I'm a musician and enjoy that too much to give it up for the sake of raising a child. Most bands I see break up once kids start being born. Also I don't like people very much so I'm certainly not going to start overpopulating the world with more of them. And on the subject of overpopulation we are getting too many people here overpopulating the world running up the cost of living...Especially in the SF bay area where I live. I'm doing my part to cut it down by not reproducing. So if these things make me a selfish immature person, well that's just how it is. I accept that I'm that way and so can everyone else....Deal with it or blow me! And most of all, keep your nose out of my business! Get that??

  • Many reasons, this isn't even all of them...

    Already over 7 billion people. Do you hate traffic? Pollution? The only reason there's so much of this is because we all keep having children and increasing the population. If there weren't so many people there wouldn't be so many cars or factories, if there wasn't so much of all that then there wouldn't be so much pollution.

    Before you call yourselves good people for having kids, think for a moment about all the children without families who need somewhere to call their home and someone to call their family. Instead of helping one or more of these kids, you go and create new ones just to pass on this "legacy" of yours, even if your history is one of mental illness and genetic disease. Is it really selfless to have a child for the sake of having a little copy of yourself, regardless of your ability to give proper care for them? If you REALLY want to pass on those genes of yours, then why not have a child of your own, then adopt one? (If you can even provide enough for them)

    If you're able to provide enough love and resources for a child, then why choose waste it on one who doesn't even exist? Go out and provide for a child in need for God's sake, THAT'S what selflessness is about.

    Think about how terrible the Earth could come to be in the future. Pollution, overpopulation, potential wars, is this what you want to drag someone into? No one gives constant to be born, so think about the future before you condemn someone to it.

    When I came out of the womb I didn't sign a contact saying I'd give up half my life for a little brat like myself. Besides, it isn't selfish IF THE CHILD DOESN'T EVEN EXIST YET. Stop acting like you're doing the child a favour, there is no child. When the child is created then you have to start making sacrifices if you want to keep it. There is no child to show the wonders of the world to, unless it's already alive, in that case consider adopting that child before creating your own.

    The fact that you decide to create your own child instead of adopting one is what makes you the selfish one, the world has too many. More children will do more harm than good, you'd realise that if you sat down and thought outside your own bubble for once.

  • This is stupid

    I don't understand why something like his should be argued. Lets look at it this way, how many times have you 'fixed' your pets before they had children. Doesn't that make you selfish for making a choice for something/someone else without knowing what they want? Oh, you didn't want to look after the animals so it's okay to take away their right. You wouldn't get mad at your animal if they didn't have a kid, so why get mad at a person who doesn't have a kid?

  • If you don't want theme, or don't think you should have them You're probably right

    No one knows you better than you know yourself. If you think you shouldn't have kids you're probably right. It's your choice. It's not selfish at all. In fact it would be more selfish to bring a child into the world that will ended up resented because their parents didn't want them Inow the first place

  • I'm pretty certain I don't want kids.

    My mom passed in 2008 and the duty of taking care of my grandparents fell on me. Then my younger sister went on a downward spiral that led to her having 3 kids that I helped her raise. I gave up seven years of my life to support my family so the last thing I want to do is bring another life into this world that depends on me. Not when my I've started to gain momentum in my career and carve out a small niche of a life from the darkness I was drowning in. Do I blame my family? No, it was my decision to do what I did for them because it was me or no one else. It was a decision I could live with, the only decision I could live with.

    What annoys me more than anything is my family constantly asking with each girl I've told them I'm interested in is when are the kids/grandkids coming. Probably never! The last thing on my mind at this point is bringing a child into this world. Do I think I would make a great parent, yes. But after having a taste of how much I expect a parent should have to give up of themselves I know I'm not ready to do that anytime soon or maybe at all.

    I think the truly most selfish thing a person can do is have a child to "feel complete", fix a broken relationship or because they are expected to; not because they want to fill a life with love.

  • Having kids is the very epitome of being selfish

    Because nearly every parent when asked why they had a child will reply with I wanted...
    To carry on my genes
    To have a "mini-me"
    To have some one to look after me when I'm old
    To have my own biological baby because adopting wouldn't be the same.

    Everything that come after giving birth is something you choose because you wanted a kid. Sure you might have to give up stuff, but that doesn't make you selfless, that shows that you needed to have a child to make you be selfless, a child you made the selfish decision to bring into the world. You aren't selfless by being a parent. You are just reaping the rewards of the original selfish decision. Also expecting a child to take of you when you are old... If that isn't selfish what is? That child didn't ask to be born and you shouldn't expect them to take care of you just because you wanted to have them and take care of them.

    Just because some one doesn't want to reproduce, that doesn't make you selfish.

    The most selfish thing is to have a kid because you need a biological extension of your self.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.