|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bringing children into this world...
|
Aroha
Apprentice
# 16553
|
Posted
Hi,
I'm aware this is a pretty random post but as I'm pregnant at the moment it's been on my mind...
Basically I've been wondering whether it's irresponsible to be bringing children into this world and increasing the population of the earth while I'm not doing much to reduce my carbon footprint/not live in a typical western lifestyle which doesn't do anything for the future of our planet etc.
Or was it not actually my choice to have this child but God's will and therefore there are plans for it's life so I shouldn't worry about whether or not I should have had it...?
Hmmm....
Any opinions?
Thanks in advance ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 11 | From: NZ | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
As someone who is the father of four children, and does not feel the slightest guilt about it (and never has done), I am, frankly, sick and tired of people who make others feel guilty for doing what is, after all, the most natural thing: reproducing.
The earth can support a huge population. It's inefficiency, greed and corruption which essentially cause the problems blamed on innocent children.
But really, if someone is so concerned about the size of the world population, then I have only one message for him or her: "kill yourself, and make room for someone else, you selfish bastard. Otherwise STFU. Don't blame the traffic if you are the traffic."
Those who complain about the size of the world population must think that their lives are so much more important than anyone else's, because they, being part of the world population, are therefore part of the "problem". Therefore, if they have any integrity at all, they should remove themselves from this earth, for which they claim to care. But they don't. I wonder why...
(BTW... I don't advocate suicide, but I am only following the 'reasoning' of others to its logical conclusion.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I'm not going to kill myself, but I think that the world could have managed perfectly well without me (and pretty much any, oh, 4 billion of the others who are alive at this moment). And although Mrs A and I haven't taken an active choice either to reproduce or to refrain (as we have) from reproducing, I think it better, on the whole, that the population both of the world and of the island upon which we live should grow more slowly than it has (or not grow at all - or even better, fall).
[ 16. January 2014, 12:13: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I suppose it depends on whether you think nobody should have any children at all, or just think the number of children should be rationed.
If as I suspect the latter, then on what grounds would you ration them? It does seem to me that industrialisation ultimately lowers the birthrate, so presumably population growth will slow off in time.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But really, if someone is so concerned about the size of the world population, then I have only one message for him or her: "kill yourself, and make room for someone else, you selfish bastard. Otherwise STFU. Don't blame the traffic if you are the traffic."
Those who complain about the size of the world population must think that their lives are so much more important than anyone else's, because they, being part of the world population, are therefore part of the "problem". Therefore, if they have any integrity at all, they should remove themselves from this earth, for which they claim to care. But they don't. I wonder why...
(BTW... I don't advocate suicide, but I am only following the 'reasoning' of others to its logical conclusion.)
No, that doesn't follow. Suicide causes harm and therefore should not be done even for the greater good (unless one is some kind of hyper-utilitarian). However merely refraining from having children does not in itself cause harm, so if one believes the consequences of refraining are positive, then one has no reason not to refrain.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Erm... I don't think anyone is blaming the innocent children for the world's problems. They're just acknowledging that there are resource issues with overpopulation, which is true. Even if Earth can sustain a large human population, it can't sustain one that grows in size forever.
I don't think anyone resents people having kids if they have a strong vocation to be a parent. However, I'd like to see more respect for the choices of people who choose not to have kids. For every one person who tells a parent that they're being selfish, there are maybe five people telling people (particularly women) without kids that they're selfish, shallow, and will never know what it is like to experience love. And there are too many people having children because it's what you're "supposed" to do.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As someone who is the father of four children, and does not feel the slightest guilt about it (and never has done), I am, frankly, sick and tired of people who make others feel guilty for doing what is, after all, the most natural thing: reproducing.
The earth can support a huge population. It's inefficiency, greed and corruption which essentially cause the problems blamed on innocent children.
But really, if someone is so concerned about the size of the world population, then I have only one message for him or her: "kill yourself, and make room for someone else, you selfish bastard. Otherwise STFU. Don't blame the traffic if you are the traffic."
Those who complain about the size of the world population must think that their lives are so much more important than anyone else's, because they, being part of the world population, are therefore part of the "problem". Therefore, if they have any integrity at all, they should remove themselves from this earth, for which they claim to care. But they don't. I wonder why...
(BTW... I don't advocate suicide, but I am only following the 'reasoning' of others to its logical conclusion.)
What harm does someone refraining from having children do?
I don't want children and though my reasons have nothing to do with overpopulation, it's a valid reason not to have children and ultimately doesn't harm anyone else.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
What harm does someone refraining from having children do?
Given the worlds population is ageing, your not having children is going to impose extra burdens on the OP's children (and the rest) when they are all grown up and must look after the old people.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
What harm does someone refraining from having children do?
Given the worlds population is ageing, your not having children is going to impose extra burdens on the OP's children (and the rest) when they are all grown up and must look after the old people.
That is pretty hard. One never knows what the balance of cost vs benefit one's own children will bring. It is not unknown for children to die before they are able to look after you in old age, you know.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
What harm does someone refraining from having children do?
Given the worlds population is ageing, your not having children is going to impose extra burdens on the OP's children (and the rest) when they are all grown up and must look after the old people.
That is pretty hard. One never knows what the balance of cost vs benefit one's own children will bring. It is not unknown for children to die before they are able to look after you in old age, you know.
I'm not talking about ones own children looking after one (ffs!), but I'm talking about fewer children = smaller tax base; fewer doctors, nurses, carers etc.
I'm talking about the general case.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Those who complain about the size of the world population must think that their lives are so much more important than anyone else's, because they, being part of the world population, are therefore part of the "problem". Therefore, if they have any integrity at all, they should remove themselves from this earth, for which they claim to care. But they don't. I wonder why...
They don't because they don't want to cause the intense pain to their loved ones that suicide causes, or because they're afraid of the fallout of an unsuccessful suicide attempt. You're being flippant here, of course, but you should be aware that for many of us with mental health problems, this is something that we absolutely agonise over. One of the reasons why I don't have children is that I suffer from severe depression and I am afraid that I will pass that on to any children I have, and I don't want to bring people into the world to suffer like that. I fret about the effects that humans are having on the world. I don't think I'm more important than the rest of the world's population, but I am already here. Removing myself would have consequences. Not having children of my own does not have the same consequences.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
If EE has four, I think we can manage if Jade doesn't have any.
(The Cappadocian Fathers argued that childbearing was only a duty in a society that had no hope of the resurrection.)
I think trying to reduce one's environmental impact is worth doing whether or not one has children. At the moment the industrialised countries are doing a lot to use up resources, but we're not increasing the number of people on the planet by much. As long as there are people like Jade around not having children, I think having two point three children per couple shouldn't cause more anxiety than other aspects of the Western lifestyle. Get double glazing and the loft insulated if you haven't already and you can.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sherwood
Shipmate
# 15702
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
They don't because they don't want to cause the intense pain to their loved ones that suicide causes, or because they're afraid of the fallout of an unsuccessful suicide attempt. You're being flippant here, of course, but you should be aware that for many of us with mental health problems, this is something that we absolutely agonise over. One of the reasons why I don't have children is that I suffer from severe depression and I am afraid that I will pass that on to any children I have, and I don't want to bring people into the world to suffer like that. I fret about the effects that humans are having on the world. I don't think I'm more important than the rest of the world's population, but I am already here. Removing myself would have consequences. Not having children of my own does not have the same consequences.
This. A thousand times, this.
Would I like to be a parent? Yes. A lot. However, depression does run in my family and I have my own issues on top of the depression I inherited. On top of that, my wife's family has a history of Bi-Polar disorder. Both things combined, we can't be so selfish as to potentially saddle any child we would have with a lifetime of extra struggling and problems.
[code]
[ 16. January 2014, 13:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 62 | From: Finland | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Thomas Malthus said in 1798 that food resources would not sustain a continually growing population for the foreseeable future. He was wrong, because there have been scientific advances that have increased crop productivity, food shelf life, etc.
It's impossible to know what effect an individual couple having children will have. The children could become an additional drain on resources. Or one could become a research scientist that discovers the next agricultural or energy innovation that will make it easier for the earth to sustain a larger population.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
We were not going to have children, but y'know, things happen.
I can honestly say that having a daughter has been the best thing that has ever happened to me, bar nothing.
Any guilt I had regarding the world population was quickly dissipated by having the gift of a daughter.
The chances of having children are reduced to nil pretty successfully when one doesn't have relationships capable of reproducing ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I don't think we should over-think such things.
Have your family, and enjoy them. They are only young for two minutes before they are up up and away!
I think it's irresponsible to have children if you can't afford them, otherwise it's just fine. Choosing not to have children is just fine too - keeps the balance.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm not talking about ones own children looking after one (ffs!), but I'm talking about fewer children = smaller tax base; fewer doctors, nurses, carers etc.
I'm talking about the general case.
In the general case, if the population seriously shrank then resources now expended on childcare and education could be diverted to supporting the elderly.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm not talking about ones own children looking after one (ffs!), but I'm talking about fewer children = smaller tax base; fewer doctors, nurses, carers etc.
I'm talking about the general case.
In the general case, if the population seriously shrank then resources now expended on childcare and education could be diverted to supporting the elderly.
The biggest expense related to caring for the elderly is personnel. It takes people to be doctors, nurses, orderlies, PT therapists, nutritionists, aides, etc. If we stop reproducing there will be no one to care for the elderly, no matter how much $$ is available.
I believe it's a matter of calling. Whether or not to have children, as well as whether to have them biologically or through adoption or fostering, is a matter of vocation, that should be entered prayerfully and thoughtfully. Of course, sometimes "things happen", and God is in that too. Wherever we find ourselves, parent or not, we can seek God faithfully in that context.
With a previous poster, I would add that whether we have kids or not, we all have a responsibility to use our resources more prudently and to try to have less of an negative impact on the earth.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think it's irresponsible to have children if you can't afford them, otherwise it's just fine.
So children are a privilege of the rich are they? Our western society can afford all the children we want to bring up. In fact we need them all. Who will farm the food you eat when you retire? Who will drive it to the shops? Who will serve you at the counter? Your pension will be worthless without the next generation to turn it into goods.
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I fret about the effects that humans are having on the world. I don't think I'm more important than the rest of the world's population, but I am already here. Removing myself would have consequences. Not having children of my own does not have the same consequences.
And that fretting is a direct result of the self-righteous anti-everything campaigners. Reduce your carbon footprint by living an unfulfilled life and going childless to the grave when your real purpose was to raise children? They should shut up and let us raise our children in peace - and I hope we'll make a better job of it than their parents did!
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think it's irresponsible to have children if you can't afford them, otherwise it's just fine.
So children are a privilege of the rich are they? Our western society can afford all the children we want to bring up. In fact we need them all.
I didn't say it's irresponsible to have children unless you are rich!
But I would not have children and expect other people to provide for them.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The biggest expense related to caring for the elderly is personnel. It takes people to be doctors, nurses, orderlies, PT therapists, nutritionists, aides, etc. If we stop reproducing there will be no one to care for the elderly, no matter how much $$ is available.
That's ok. Retrain all the teachers, nursery nurses, childcare assistants and so on.
To be clear, I'm not actually advocating fewer children as a moral imperative. I just think some of the judgementalism on this thread is based on false premises.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable
What harm does someone refraining from having children do?
I don't want children and though my reasons have nothing to do with overpopulation, it's a valid reason not to have children and ultimately doesn't harm anyone else.
I am not aware that I criticised people for not having children. I have absolutely no problem with what other people decide concerning having children (not that it's any of my business anyway).
But those who do have children should not be made to feel guilty about it. Reproducing is not a sin!
I know what I am talking about, because we were criticised, and it fucking well hurt (and yeah, I am still very angry about it) - and, in some ways, there is still some serious fall-out from it (which I won't elaborate on).
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon
They don't because they don't want to cause the intense pain to their loved ones that suicide causes, or because they're afraid of the fallout of an unsuccessful suicide attempt. You're being flippant here, of course, but you should be aware that for many of us with mental health problems, this is something that we absolutely agonise over. One of the reasons why I don't have children is that I suffer from severe depression and I am afraid that I will pass that on to any children I have, and I don't want to bring people into the world to suffer like that. I fret about the effects that humans are having on the world. I don't think I'm more important than the rest of the world's population, but I am already here. Removing myself would have consequences. Not having children of my own does not have the same consequences.
Actually I wasn't being flippant, but deadly serious. I am certainly not advocating suicide (perish the thought!) - as I said in my earlier post - but simply pointing out the logical implications of the thinking of those who complain about the size of the world's population. They are part of the world population! So they are as much part of the 'problem' as any newborn. What gives them the right to think that their lives are more important than the lives of those yet to be born?
As for mental illness... I have suffered from mental illness, and had a number of breakdowns some years ago. I have a close relative who is a schizophrenic. This question has never deterred me from having children, because I don't accept the view that our lives are ruled by heredity. It's a factor, of course, but it shouldn't be overemphasised. A good upbringing, based on sensible and loving parenting, is the best antidote to mental illness. All my children are now adults, and none of them went through the agonies that I suffered in adolescence. I put that down to good parenting.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Actually I wasn't being flippant, but deadly serious. I am certainly not advocating suicide (perish the thought!) - as I said in my earlier post - but simply pointing out the logical implications of the thinking of those who complain about the size of the world's population. They are part of the world population! So they are as much part of the 'problem' as any newborn. What gives them the right to think that their lives are more important than the lives of those yet to be born?
I don't think anyone is advocating infanticide and I'm struggling to see how a hypothetical child who not only hasn't been born, but hasn't even been conceived yet, can be said to have any rights.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
I don't think anyone is advocating infanticide and I'm struggling to see how a hypothetical child who not only hasn't been born, but hasn't even been conceived yet, can be said to have any rights.
Well, it's rather ironic that environmentalists generally consider that the not yet conceived / born do have rights - i.e. the right to live on a well functioning planet (otherwise, what the hell's the point of all their campaigning?). The alternative is for the present generation to indulge to their heart's content without any thought for future generations.
Oh I get it! Perhaps these population activists are concerned for future generations - i.e. their own darling progeny - and "other people" can be childless to make room for them!! Sheesh! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I am not a father, and at my age I almost certainly will not be one. This is by no means due to any plan of mine, and I often feel that I have missed out on an important part of life. A good friend of mine (who already has produced two sons) sometimes congratulates me on not having children as she thinks the world is overpopulated. When she says this, it stings, but I never tell her so.
On the other hand, one of her two sons was killed in a car crash. I was one who mourned for him, and I observed how great was the grief of his parents. Perhaps it is just as well.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
I don't think anyone is advocating infanticide and I'm struggling to see how a hypothetical child who not only hasn't been born, but hasn't even been conceived yet, can be said to have any rights.
Well, it's rather ironic that environmentalists generally consider that the not yet conceived / born do have rights - i.e. the right to live on a well functioning planet (otherwise, what the hell's the point of all their campaigning?). The alternative is for the present generation to indulge to their heart's content without any thought for future generations.
Oh I get it! Perhaps these population activists are concerned for future generations - i.e. their own darling progeny - and "other people" can be childless to make room for them!! Sheesh!
IME Christian environmentalists see caring for the environment as part of Christian duty, commanded by God - and that responsibility regarding procreation is part of that. I find it hard to disagree. While I wouldn't say that four children (for example) is an irresponsible number, forbidding contraception totally (eg the Quiverfull types, a lot of RCs - though not all by a long way) does put an irresponsible level of strain on resources. The sustainability of one's own reproductive decisions is surely part of sustainability in general.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
I don't think anyone is advocating infanticide and I'm struggling to see how a hypothetical child who not only hasn't been born, but hasn't even been conceived yet, can be said to have any rights.
Well, it's rather ironic that environmentalists generally consider that the not yet conceived / born do have rights - i.e. the right to live on a well functioning planet (otherwise, what the hell's the point of all their campaigning?). The alternative is for the present generation to indulge to their heart's content without any thought for future generations.
Oh I get it! Perhaps these population activists are concerned for future generations - i.e. their own darling progeny - and "other people" can be childless to make room for them!! Sheesh!
A. I don't think anyone is arguing for having no children at all.
B. I think the point of environmentalism is that the natural world is worth preserving for its own sake. (That's sort of what animal rights means.) It's not obvious how anyone's children benefit from conserving Zambian tree frogs.
C. You still haven't answered the point that suicide causes harm while not having children doesn't.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Going back to the OP for a minute, here is Aropa, pregnant, and wondering if she should feel guilty....NO!!
As has been said by several, it's entirely natural, it's a great gift, it's the natural outcome of a loving relationship, it's a deep human instinct to build a family.....
so no, no guilt--she should just enjoy being pregnant!
And--congratulations!
Of course, people like Jade who do not want children have every right to feel that way, and in fact it's far better they recognise it rather than feeling under pressure to have them and then being reluctant parents....though, interestingly, many people who say they don't want them end up like pydsyebare (" the best thing that has ever happened to me, bar nothing") if one should happen along unplanned!
Many, but not all. Others of course never want them, and would not change how they felt whatever happened, and that is perfectly OK--I think it's dreadful to accuse people who choose not to have children of being "selfish" and other such things...
But I wish Aropa many blessings, and a healthy and happy pregnancy.
As Boogie says, let's not overthink these things! ENJOY IT, Aropa.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Surely the 'who will look after the old?' argument works itself through in a generation or two, doesn't it? For a transitional period of sixty years or so some peoeple will may have more uncomfortable time than they'd expected, but after that you settle down with a smaller and balanced population, no?
(Oh, and EE, tie a knot in it, there's a good chap... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
[ 16. January 2014, 19:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
There's a book out (relatively) recently (Death and the Afterlife / by Samuel Scheffler, edited and with an introduction by Niko Kolodny, and with commentaries by Susan Wolf, Harry G. Frankfurt, Seana Valentine Shiffrin, and Niko Kolodny) that proposes two thought experiments: what if you knew that the world would end thirty years after your death? What if everyone currently living was infertile?
In either case, do you question the meaningfulness of your own existence?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChaliceGirl
Shipmate
# 13656
|
Posted
I chose not to have children and honestly, my choice has nothing to do with overpopulation.
Even if this was a perfect world with a perfect population, I still would not want a child. Why? Because it would impact MY world too much, and I like my world as it is. (And please don't go trying to change my mind by telling me "I once felt like you too, but then I had a child and it's amazing, etc, etc.." I've heard it all before and nothing's going to change my mind)
I have never made anyone feel guilty about reproducing. If anyone gets the most criticism, it's those who choose not to reproduce at all.
I do in fact believe the world is overpopulated, but I know the reality is that people aren't going to stop procreating. so there's no point in fighting it. It's crowded planet, and yes I am one of the people in the crowd. The crowd lives with me, and I live with them. That's life, and you have to make the best of it.
--------------------
The Episcopal Church Welcomed Me.
"Welcome home." ++Katharine Jefferts Schori to me on 29Mar2009.
My KJS fansite & chicksinpointyhats
Posts: 710 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
To answer the original poster.
Mazel Tov! And don't feel guilty about having a child. However you should realize that having a child is not only God's will, but has something to do with your own actions. You should consider how many children you want to have.
As for those worrying about who is going to take care of the older generation when the younger one is much smaller; the problem can be solved by allowing immigration. There are plenty of people who live badly in other places that are happy to move into the vacancies in your society.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aroha:
Hi,
I'm aware this is a pretty random post but as I'm pregnant at the moment it's been on my mind...
Basically I've been wondering whether it's irresponsible to be bringing children into this world and increasing the population of the earth while I'm not doing much to reduce my carbon footprint/not live in a typical western lifestyle which doesn't do anything for the future of our planet etc.
Or was it not actually my choice to have this child but God's will and therefore there are plans for it's life so I shouldn't worry about whether or not I should have had it...?
Hmmm....
Any opinions?
Thanks in advance
Wow, you did stir up some strong feelings, didn't you?
Enjoy your baby and cherish him/her. Love her, teach her generosity, compassion, and appreciation of the beautiful world she's arrived in. Never feel guilty that you have given her birth.
(I wrote a much better post but the connection suddenly failed and when it came back my post had fallen into a black hole...)
Arohanui
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
You have a chikd. Mazel tov! Do your best to raise that child to be a net asset to the world and you will have done all that can be expected of you. Wouldn't it be awesome if your little one became part of the answer to our planet problems!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Oh I get it! Perhaps these population activists are concerned for future generations - i.e. their own darling progeny - and "other people" can be childless to make room for them!! Sheesh!
OK, so everyone who cares about the future of the planet and its capacity for unlimited population growth is selfish in your book. We're selfish if we don't have children, we're selfish if we do have children - we're all selfish unless we commit suicide. Which ironically enough is often presented as "the ultimate selfish act." The only way to not be selfish is to say "sod it - the planet can handle it" - whatever the evidence actually says.
And don't advocate suicide and then say you aren't advocating suicide. I've given you some reasons why you might not want to piss about with this kind of rhetoric but it seems to have bounced off you.
And for anyone scoffing at Malthus - yes, he was wrong about how many people the world could support. That doesn't mean that the world's population can continue to grow forever and everything will be fine.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
And for anyone scoffing at Malthus - yes, he was wrong about how many people the world could support. That doesn't mean that the world's population can continue to grow forever and everything will be fine.
I was the anyone scoffing - and he was wrong because he couldn't anticipate technological advances.
So either you believe that it's possible we can develop ways to feed and fuel ourselves at larger populations in the future, or you don't. If it's the latter then sure, no one should have children.
Have you ever seen the film "Children of Men?" It's not a rom-com.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
The maximum population that our planet can support may be higher or lower than currently thought. It's not infinite. At some point, even with the best and most efficient technology possible we'll hit our limit unless the population stops growing. Which it may do. Or, I suppose, unless we start colonising other planets.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
The maximum population that our planet can support may be higher or lower than currently thought. It's not infinite. At some point, even with the best and most efficient technology possible we'll hit our limit unless the population stops growing. Which it may do. Or, I suppose, unless we start colonising other planets.
Of course human life on Earth could easily be destroyed by a nuclear war - and we already have the capability to do so, right now. That's far more likely to happen in one generation than the environmental degradation of the planet.
In terms of the population - the rate of growth has dramatically declined over the past several decades. Populations in developed countries (in much of Europe) are already falling.
We are also only 50 years from the wide and affordable availability of medical contraception and many women in poor and/or religious fundamentalist societies don't have access to them. It will take time for those women to get the Pill but when they do you will see them having 1-2 children like in the West.
World Population Growth Rates
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I would like to apologise to Aroha if I have given the impression of being unsupportive. I think you should be congratulated on your child - all my other comments were directed towards EE and his "people who care about population growth should commit suicide" rhetoric.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
I think God wants human love to be open to the possibility of creation, always to be seeking to love more, rather than to limit or withdraw love.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think God wants human love to be open to the possibility of creation, always to be seeking to love more, rather than to limit or withdraw love.
Not open to the possibility of creation =/= limiting or withdrawing love. Not wanting to reproduce has no effect whatsoever on the limits of love between two adults who are romantically involved. I will never be open to the possibility of creation, that does not mean I want to limit or withdraw love between myself and an adult I would have a romantic relationship with. My body, my choice as to whether I reproduce or not.
For a start, my romantic relationships would mostly physically not have any chance of the possibility of creation without outside help....
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Not open to the possibility of creation =/= limiting or withdrawing love.
Agreed. There are other ways in which love can look to embrace rather than exclude others.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
...all my other comments were directed towards EE and his "people who care about population growth should commit suicide" rhetoric.
Thanks for twisting my words.
There is a difference between those who "care about population growth" and those who make people feel that they are selfish and irresponsible for doing what all other creatures do, namely, reproduce.
I was directing my comments at the latter constituency of idiots, and I make no apology whatsoever for what I said, which was perfectly logical and consistent with their view of reality. And if you think you've got such a great argument by saying that suicide would cause pain, whereas not having children would not, then you clearly do not understand the pain of those who are condemned for doing something, which only the most nefarious and perverted of people could conceivably consider to be immoral and irresponsible.
And as this is supposed to be a Christian website (although I have my doubts at times), then I wonder what God thinks about all this?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I should have thought that if suicide is the logical conclusion of antinatalism (which it isn't), then it is the logical conclusion whether or not the antinatalist is a judgemental arse or not.
I am also not aware that condemning people for things that are actually evil is in itself an evil. Of course you and I do not believe that having children is an evil, but that is precisely the point at issue (I.e. if your argument depends on reproduction being not evil, then it is circular.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
There are a number of factors involved in deciding if to have children and how many.
I don't think it is a bad thing to at least consider that the Earth can't sustain the human population indefinitely. And I don't think it is irresponsible, far from it, for people to say "I can only responsibly have 1 or 2 kids."
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I find it amusing that there's a serious discussion on this thread of what to do about a potential under-population problem. Just saying, but the world does not show any signs of having potential for an under population problem! I think everyone who isn't sure about having kids can very safely not have them or wait until they are sure without ANY risk of lacking people to take care of everyone else.
Actually, this doesn't seem to be entirely true.
I don't have any children, and I'm unlikely to do so, but it's been thought-provoking to discover that according to some forecasts population growth is eventually likely to slow down across the world. Some parts of Europe are already facing under-population, and it's expected that with time, the challenges this brings with it will increase. Of course, low birthrates aren't the only factor; lifestyle, healthcare, emigration and other issues are also relevant.
There are many websites and Youtube videos outlining the issues in individual countries, but this short article gives a general overview, and focuses mainly on birthrates:
Slate article link
[edited to fix scroll lock -Gwai]
[ 17. January 2014, 20:20: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
