Is having children selfish?

[apexofawesome]

Why not? The whole point is if it is accidental, that it wasn't their CHOICE. THEY ARE NOT TO BLAME.

You would have to moe specifically define accidental.

Rape: Accident. The raper should burn in hell.
Unprotected Sex: You're asking for it. No sympathy.
Protected Sex: Accident. Sometimes it happens anyway, but you should be prepared for the consequences of sex whether you're protected or not. Having sex is gambling on whether she'll get pregnant, and things like anti-fertility drugs and condoms reduce the threat, not eliminate it completely.

You always have the choice to have sex (excluding rape). Be prepared for the results.

(I think we're getting a little off-topic here)

 

[Dinru]

Actually, you can have unprotected sex and never, ever have to worry about pregnancy (although you still have to worry about disease)- it's called a same-sex partner :3

But still, it's very respectable that someone would take care of a child they weren't prepared for. It's not selfish at all if you intend to care for it.

 

[Tarvos]

Unprotected Sex: You're asking for it. No sympathy.

how is unprotected sex asking for it exactly

 

[apexofawesome]

how is unprotected sex asking for it exactly

I thought it would be obvious, actually. Unprotected sex= sperm making their way into the female and fertilizing her egg.

 

[Tarvos]

not every bout of unprotected sex causes babies, there may be other reasons for unprotected sex. just because you didn't use a condom doesn't mean you can't have sympathy for having a baby anyhow. unprotected sex as teenagers is not recommended and stupid, but just saying "well you didn't use a condom it's your fault you got a baby kid" is not doing anyone any good here.

 

[Slartibartfast]

We all live on an overpopulated area. It's called Earth. You know, the one that's running out of natural resources due to global overpopulation? The one that we've essentially strip-mined? The one who's atmosphere, climate, and general natural balance we are destroying? I don't think those problems are limited to just Africa and Asia. They've happened over several generations. Some continents doing more damage than others, sure, but we're all feeling the effects of overpopulation, I'm sure.

Hello, Al Gore.

The Earth couldn't care less what happens to it. We aren't blowing the planet up, and even if we were, it couldn't care. It. Is. A. Lump. Of. Rock. The Earth, furthermore, is not in the least overpopulated. The current resources, if they were spread out properly, would be perfectly sufficient for our needs. The mining? We have touched a relatively tiny sliver of the total surface area.

The global warming? It's a natural cycle, and the Earth, as well as most of the life on it, will survive it. We are, in fact, lucky that we are in an abnormally warm time of Earth, and we can hope that our 'global warming' extends that.

 

[Negrek]

The global warming? It's a natural cycle, and the Earth, as well as most of the life on it, will survive it.

Whoah now. Not to take this one off-topic, but I've gotta say that's not real kosher there.

I agree with you on this post, except for where you seem to be saying that "we can do whatever we want, it's just the Earth, who cares" and "so we might cause problems, sure, but most stuff will be okay, so that doesn't matter."

 

[Tarvos]

The earth does have a natural cycle but we are pretty much UPSETTING IT. Our carbon cycle is pretty fucked up, mate.

The earth isn't going to naturally adjust itself completely. If it is, it's going to take ages before it does; the adjustment processes don't work from one day to the other. Our timescale is far too small for the earth to adjust to any of these processes the way we wish it would. We do have to be careful about our Earth. We live on it. We are responsible for making it our home to live in properly.

 

[Camisado]

I came about due to failed contraception. Go me! Accidental conception is unfortunate, especially when people like my parents were trying so hard to be careful.

apexofawesome, I agree, unprotected sex is pretty much asking for it. In the UK, condoms are free at family planning clinics, as are contraceptive pills/injections/implants from the doctor, and even emergency contraceptives (all free services, thank you very much National Health Service). It's not hard to stay protected! Not sure what Watershed is trying to argue really.

Back on the main topic, I don't believe having children is selfish. Why would it be selfish? We've been going on about overpopulation rather a lot. There might be overpopulation in some parts of the world, but then, more and more people are focusing on their careers and not having children, when it's their genes we want most in the pool.

I guess if I had to set a limit, if every couple has two children, that's replaced themselves. That's a good rate of reproduction.

 

[Tarvos]

It's very simple. You don't always not use a condom just because you forgot to. I agree, using contraceptives is better, but that doesn't make not using them "asking for it". A teenager that can't make those decisions for themselves is furthermore not benefitted by people saying "you got a kid, that's your own dumb fault!"

That's exactly the attitude I dislike. You see, you've never met a teenager with a kid. Those people are in fucked up situations. It isn't that simple that people just fuck and forgot the pill or contraceptives or whatever and get a child. It almost never is that goddamn simple. Most of the time, these people do need help and they do need sympathy and just because they made a careless decision doesn't excuse you from that.

 

[Camisado]

Actually, no, don't assume anything about me. One of my best friends had a child at age 17. Jason is three now. Her life is really difficult; she's a single mother and the father absolutely hates her now, and she wishes it could have happened about ten years down the line instead, with someone else.

Maybe "asking for it" is too harsh a term, I admit.

 

[Tarvos]

Yeah well I fell in love with a teenage mother at one point so I know how it is. But most of these people... they aren't asking for it. There are way too many other circumstances around. Most of the time, these people need the opposite of antagonistic behaviour. They need help.

 

[Jetx]

Hello, Al Gore.

The Earth couldn't care less what happens to it. We aren't blowing the planet up, and even if we were, it couldn't care. It. Is. A. Lump. Of. Rock.

No need to be so patronising. Nobody is saying that we need to protect a "lump of rock", just that we need to protect the life that depends on it, and this is so much more important than you appear to think it is.

The Earth, furthermore, is not in the least overpopulated. The current resources, if they were spread out properly, would be perfectly sufficient for our needs.

The thing is, resources will never be properly spread out, so we may as well forget that part. If there was really no lack of resources, there would be less countries in poverty. What little resources these countries do have, they cannot share the benefits of sufficiently among their populations - this isn't overpopulation?

The global warming? It's a natural cycle, and the Earth, as well as most of the life on it, will survive it. We are, in fact, lucky that we are in an abnormally warm time of Earth, and we can hope that our 'global warming' extends that.

But not everyone is contented with the idea of just letting the planet's biodiversity wither because of this process which we more or less are speeding up significantly.

 

[Vyraura]

Global warming is not a natural cycle. At all. Need to point that one out. Furthermore, the effects of damaging the earth are pretty darn important considering they effect us. Oh dear, the earth won't care. Duh. But I'll care, when I can't move to Los Angeles because I would get lung problems from the smog that we created. Oh wait, that happened.

 

[Dewgong]

we aren't concerned about global warming so much because of the earth itself.

it's us, because we live on it. we're concerned about the health and continuation of our species. (i could care less what happens to earth itself, if we weren't on it, anyways.)

 

[Slartibartfast]

No need to be so patronising. Nobody is saying that we need to protect a "lump of rock", just that we need to protect the life that depends on it, and this is so much more important than you appear to think it is.

Okay, I admit that I just have really wanted to call somebody Al Gore. Sorry, I got carried away. And about the life--right now, most species are in no trouble whatever. The ones that are--well, all I can say is that it has been, is, and will continue to be survival of the fittest, and--short of nuclear war--there will always be enough species that survive.

The thing is, resources will never be properly spread out, so we may as well forget that part. If there was really no lack of resources, there would be less countries in poverty. What little resources these countries do have, they cannot share the benefits of sufficiently among their populations - this isn't overpopulation?

No. It is lack of development. Besides, the babies we have are not shipped over to these countries, so (returning to the original argument) having children cannot be selfish for this reason.

But not everyone is contented with the idea of just letting the planet's biodiversity wither because of this process which we more or less are speeding up significantly.

Humans are not speeding the cycle up noticeably. And the biodiversity will not wither, even if they are. The ecosystem does not work that way. New species will develop, old ones will adapt, and if they cannot change, they die. This is the way it has been and will continue to be.

You will find that the temperature change over the last hundred years or so (since the start of the industrial revolution) has risen slightly, but not more so than it naturally does. The changes take tens of thousands of years. A few hundred years with a new variable cannot change it significantly. Again, this is all slightly off topic, but I don't like it when people are global warming alarmists.

 

[Tarvos]

in before hockeystick graph

 

[opaltiger]

No. It is lack of development.

Um, yes, they are overpopulated because they are undeveloped.

You will find that the temperature change over the last hundred years or so (since the start of the industrial revolution) has risen slightly, but not more so than it naturally does.

Except for the part where the carbon dioxide concentration - which is in correlation with temperature - is way higher than it has been at any point in Earth's history. Right now, sure, we are still within the natural limits. But the carbon dioxide concentration isn't, which is why, in all likelihood, the temperature will soon begin to exceed those limits as well.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Hello, Al Gore.

The Earth couldn't care less what happens to it. We aren't blowing the planet up, and even if we were, it couldn't care. It. Is. A. Lump. Of. Rock. The Earth, furthermore, is not in the least overpopulated. The current resources, if they were spread out properly, would be perfectly sufficient for our needs. The mining? We have touched a relatively tiny sliver of the total surface area.

The global warming? It's a natural cycle, and the Earth, as well as most of the life on it, will survive it. We are, in fact, lucky that we are in an abnormally warm time of Earth, and we can hope that our 'global warming' extends that.

look at how dumb you are

 

[Slartibartfast]

look at how dumb you are

Impressive. A flame without rationalization or explanation. That's a first.