the low fertility rate in the United States
- Thread starter GQ Chris
- Start date
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert Humphrey, US VP 1965-69
Upvote
0
intricatic
...a dinosaur... or something...
The action is childlessness and the motivation is not included within the action. This is the problem.
Upvote
0
E
Everlasting33
Guest
Perhaps people can start taking some parenting classes or something so that by the time science finds a way to fix this, they'll know how to actually take care of the kids they have
Exactly. So often I see parents who really shouldn't be having children and it saddens me...it causes such a chain reaction within our society.
Upvote
0
JonMiller
Senior Veteran
We were discussing motivations. I listed some, all the ones I had heard, which were all selfish.
Same with almost all the ones I had seen in this thread (I mentioned the ones that weren't, like dedicating your life in service to God, although I will note that most people can have a family with the amount of their life that they dedicate to God).
Give me a motivation that isn't selfish.
JM
Upvote
0
Oddish
May your unfailing love rest upon us, O LORD.
Wanting children/or not wanting them is like any other preference. Some people like strawberry icecream, some don't..there is no motivation or intention behind it, that is just the way it is.
I honestly think that it is selfish and unfair of people to expect couples to have kids when they don't want any.
I honestly think that it is selfish and unfair of people to expect couples to have kids when they don't want any.
Upvote
0
JonMiller
Senior Veteran
No it is selfish for people to not want any. Why do you not want any? It is because you don't want to give some portion of your life to support someone else. You don't want the responsibility and to be inconvenienced. This is the reason time and time again.
So yes, these are selifsh motivations. And these are the motivations people have, even though they try to lie to themselves (but you can tell they lie, because their reasons are empty).
Society has put a lot of effort/money/time in to each of us. We have all been given so much. To not have kids (biological or adopted) is to not put anything into future society. To not have people around to work to produce stuff, to solve the worlds problems, to create art, science and other results of civilization.
When you don't have kids you are a dead end. A waste, all the money and time and so on that society spent to keep you alive, to feed you, to educate you, and so on is lost without anything to show for it.
And I say that biological doesn't matter, and to some extant it doesn't. But it is obvious that we are suppose to procreate as a species. If you want to have sex, that is because you are meant to be procreating. Same with many other of our desires and urges and hormones, are entire bodies are made for this purpose! And yet people selfishly deny their bodies, souls, and the human species out of their own self centered desires.
JM
So yes, these are selifsh motivations. And these are the motivations people have, even though they try to lie to themselves (but you can tell they lie, because their reasons are empty).
Society has put a lot of effort/money/time in to each of us. We have all been given so much. To not have kids (biological or adopted) is to not put anything into future society. To not have people around to work to produce stuff, to solve the worlds problems, to create art, science and other results of civilization.
When you don't have kids you are a dead end. A waste, all the money and time and so on that society spent to keep you alive, to feed you, to educate you, and so on is lost without anything to show for it.
And I say that biological doesn't matter, and to some extant it doesn't. But it is obvious that we are suppose to procreate as a species. If you want to have sex, that is because you are meant to be procreating. Same with many other of our desires and urges and hormones, are entire bodies are made for this purpose! And yet people selfishly deny their bodies, souls, and the human species out of their own self centered desires.
JM
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
this thread is still alive? wow..
anyway i maintain that God did not create all people to share the same life experiences. Some people just do not have parenting instincts because thats how God created them and those are people who shouldn't be pressured into having children. most likely God intends to use them in another capacity. I've yet to see a single Bible verse that says God created everyone to be parents.
but since no one here is willing to budge i'll bow out until i see that Scriptural reference. take care all
anyway i maintain that God did not create all people to share the same life experiences. Some people just do not have parenting instincts because thats how God created them and those are people who shouldn't be pressured into having children. most likely God intends to use them in another capacity. I've yet to see a single Bible verse that says God created everyone to be parents.
but since no one here is willing to budge i'll bow out until i see that Scriptural reference. take care all
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
JonMiller
Senior Veteran
this thread is still alive? wow..
anyway i maintain that God did not create all people to share the same life experiences. Some people just do not have parenting instincts because thats how God created them and those are people who shouldn't be pressured into having children. most likely God intends to use them in another capacity. I've yet to see a single Bible verse that says God created everyone to be parents.
but since no one here is willing to budge i'll bow out until i see that Scriptural reference. take care all
Explain to me how so many first world/western people were created by God to not have the parental instincts, while pretty much the rest of the world has them?
Especially when first world/western culture is known to be materialistic/individualistic/etc. To even postulate that these are unrelated is rediculous.
What should be related is population density and child births, but the western world/first world has less than many very densely packed third world nations.
JM
Upvote
0
We'd have a much larger and more robust economy if people worked 16 hour days, 7 days a week. Not to mention a lot more public money because of the increased tax base. The only reason people won't do that is because they want selfish free time for selfish fun activities.
I'd actually agree with you here. The "I'd be a lousy parent" line is rubbish. Soceity at large is wildly child centric, so it make it difficult of people just be honest and say: "We're not having children because we don't like kids very much." Of course, the study that came out a few years ago showed most enjoyed spending time with their kids only slightly more than household chores. So when not in the public spotlight people can be honest and admit kids are a mixed bag.
Which brings us to the fact that child centricism is a result of a soceity obessed with "the future." At any rate, the world is hardly hurting for population. Thus this argument is a total failure.
Applying this logic everything we do is a waste because we will all die in the end. In many ways having a base population without children is great for the economy. Singles/child free have large amounts of disposible income which can be spent on items/inways that actually assist economic growth. People with kids tend end up spending on basics which don't produce any real economic growth. They often end up hoarding money as well in "college savings accounts," and the like, that produce little return in the general economy or on a personal level either. Since we all earn our own keep, your argument fails. The only thing society currently provides is an educational entitlement. Of course, many people use private schools so even that isn't a universal.
The mind is capable of making choices that override instincts, and we do it all the time. Many other animals are able to do this as well. The choice to have children is rarely rooted in some selfless desire to serve anything, but rather as some share of physical immorality. Either choice is, in the end, selfish in nature.
Upvote
0
Actually considering the lack of sex ed in the third world nations and the state of so many kids over there, I'd say thats a poor argument. A lot of children have been born to families that don't want them over there. Do a quick google search on African street children or the African child witch movement and see for yourself how many children have been abandoned by their parents(or worse - mutilated or killed by their own parents). Personally i'd rather see couples refusing to have children than to see another child end up in that situation.
Got that Bible verse btw, Jon?
Upvote
0
JonMiller
Senior Veteran
Jesus was God, not man.
Jesus did actually dedicate His life to serving others. A lot of you seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension considering I have said from the beginning that dedicating your life to service was a non-selfish reason to not have children.
There would be lots of complications if Christ had kids, I mean consider what people have done to things that are just rumored to have touched Christ (shroud of turin/etc)! Imagine what would have happened if He had had kids.
You know, on other forums people are a lot more willing to acknowledge their selfishness. It is only here, where we have Christians, where it seems that most people aren't willing to acknowledge it.
JM
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Hersey, Jesus is both fully God and fully man.
But as you said, if you don't have kids than any resources you used were a waste. If you admit people can be productive without have kids then this entire rant falls apart.
I have asbolutely no problem admitting the reason I desire neither a wife, nor children, is that both those things would get in the way of the lifestyle I enjoy. However, just because someone doesn't want kids doesn't mean they share my reasoning.
Upvote
0
JonMiller
Senior Veteran
Most of the population of the world is in the third world, which is also where the growth is. Here, the people have problems, they get food from the first world, and ideas, and factories. They are trying to come up, but obviously there is a big difference of opportunities. By first world people refusing to have kids, that means that there are less kids with opportunity out there.
And yeah, many people who have kids in the first world don't value them enough. That is because they are selfish too. They are just maybe a bit less selfish than those who don't have kids. If you go to the third world counrties, some of them value children a lot more.
I don't think that the first world is child centric. Look at what is voted in! It isn't laws to encourage things that will help future generations. Instead people spend all their money, increase debt, decrease inflation, don't take care of the environment. All of these things are screwing over the future generations. Also, people here spend way less on education and put less push into it than in other counrties. I didn't realize how child unfriendly the US was until I started talking to my Indian friends.
And yeah, third world counrties often can't take care of their children. This is the other end of when society is collapsing, when there isn't enough. But here in the first world we are wealthy. I spend three times as much on food as what people with good jobs (teacher/engineer/etc) make in India.
In the Bible they heavily valued children and most of it is focused on how children was the greatest blessing. Look at Abraham/etc. The low value of children in today's culture would be an anathema to them, they wouldn't even be able to conceive it.
And the world is hurting for population. Population that goes to school, population that has opportunity. Many of the poor areas of the world need our help, they need us to feed them and educate them and give them opportunity. And do we do that? No, we exploit them.
Sure, you die. But you have children, those children have impact, and your genes continue on.
You can say all you want about choices/etc, but evolutionary/biologically/as far as nature is concerned, you are a deadend if you don't have children. Meaningless...
And the whole first world not having children is a factor too. It will end up with our culture not continuing, because more children of other cultures (Indian/Muslim/SA Catholic) (I know that some Catholic nations are first world too) will inherit the world. This is a sign of a sick and dying culture.
And you are lying to yourself if you say society only provides education (sometimes). Your parents provide you with homes, food, clothing, etc. They only have those available because society provides them work/etc. Education is provided as already discussed, but also safety. And infrastructure. Compare living in the US to living in some African nations How can you say that we only give education to someone! So much is provided. The only way you can say that society doesn't provide anything to you is if you were raised out in a cabin in Alaska and never interacted with people (and even then, surely you were only allowed to do this because of the people in the US protecting you/providing yuor parents with wealth/etc). Really you would have to be raised by wolfs to say that society provides nothing to you!
JM
And yeah, many people who have kids in the first world don't value them enough. That is because they are selfish too. They are just maybe a bit less selfish than those who don't have kids. If you go to the third world counrties, some of them value children a lot more.
I don't think that the first world is child centric. Look at what is voted in! It isn't laws to encourage things that will help future generations. Instead people spend all their money, increase debt, decrease inflation, don't take care of the environment. All of these things are screwing over the future generations. Also, people here spend way less on education and put less push into it than in other counrties. I didn't realize how child unfriendly the US was until I started talking to my Indian friends.
And yeah, third world counrties often can't take care of their children. This is the other end of when society is collapsing, when there isn't enough. But here in the first world we are wealthy. I spend three times as much on food as what people with good jobs (teacher/engineer/etc) make in India.
In the Bible they heavily valued children and most of it is focused on how children was the greatest blessing. Look at Abraham/etc. The low value of children in today's culture would be an anathema to them, they wouldn't even be able to conceive it.
And the world is hurting for population. Population that goes to school, population that has opportunity. Many of the poor areas of the world need our help, they need us to feed them and educate them and give them opportunity. And do we do that? No, we exploit them.
Sure, you die. But you have children, those children have impact, and your genes continue on.
You can say all you want about choices/etc, but evolutionary/biologically/as far as nature is concerned, you are a deadend if you don't have children. Meaningless...
And the whole first world not having children is a factor too. It will end up with our culture not continuing, because more children of other cultures (Indian/Muslim/SA Catholic) (I know that some Catholic nations are first world too) will inherit the world. This is a sign of a sick and dying culture.
And you are lying to yourself if you say society only provides education (sometimes). Your parents provide you with homes, food, clothing, etc. They only have those available because society provides them work/etc. Education is provided as already discussed, but also safety. And infrastructure. Compare living in the US to living in some African nations How can you say that we only give education to someone! So much is provided. The only way you can say that society doesn't provide anything to you is if you were raised out in a cabin in Alaska and never interacted with people (and even then, surely you were only allowed to do this because of the people in the US protecting you/providing yuor parents with wealth/etc). Really you would have to be raised by wolfs to say that society provides nothing to you!
JM
Upvote
0
JonMiller
Senior Veteran
True. My point is that He didn't need to have kids because He was God. So I guess I should have said He was God and not just man. You caught me in a minor typo.
Umm, you obviously fail at reading comprehension. I have over and over again said that if you live a life of service, that you are not a waste. This is because you have in essence adopted many kids.
I am all in favor of adoption.
OK, so you admit you are selfish.
What reasoning, that hasn't already been considered OK (can't have kids/life of service), isn't selfish?
JM
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
kevlite2020
rawr means I love you in dinosaur!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
