Life is an incredible gift. It is, after all, the substrate upon which all of our hopes and dreams are built.
And we were given this gift. Many people made many sacrifices so that we could be here, alive, enjoying life. To decide, then, to not share this gift with your own children, well... I can't conceive of anything more selfish.
Naturally, I'm in that category. I'm female. I've never wanted children. I hid that for some time, as people acted like I just lied to them or something was wrong with me. I've been called selfish and childish. Some people think that is confirmation of not really being straight enough, somehow. But no one cares why I don't want children or anything like that before they say these things.
It is confusing. I'm not questioning why people want kids nor thinking folks are selfish for doing so, even though it could be argued. I care that the schools are good, that families have more time off from work than I, and so on because society depends on it. I married a like-minded man, so that this decision isn't negatively affecting someone else's happy life dream.
There are lots of reasons for me not to have children, including thinking I'd be a bad parent and actually being afraid of being pregnant, especially for mental health reasons (I have trouble with birth control and pms hormones..). Found out a few years back that it really isn't recommended by the doctor either (Relief for me).
But most importantly of all this: I simply don't want children. At all. No drive, no biological clock. I don't feel a duty to have children since we aren't in danger of dying out: In that case, I'd happily do what was best for humanity, despite my personal urges. But as it stands, there are other ways to contribute to humanity and humanity's future.
1. It's your life, live it in a way that you will be satisfied with on your death bed.
I brought up this POV, because I see lots of people making the decision to have (or not have) children based on how it affects them. To my mind, though, the more important consideration is the fact that not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less.
I understand that this is a stark way to view things, by it's also, you know, the truth. And I think people should walk into major life decisions with both eyes wide open.
2. My point is not really about survival of the species. It's more about the moral issue of denying life to other humans.
Who don't exist. You can't take rights away from those who don't exist.
And it's an argument that can easily be extended forever. How many children do you have? Oh, N? Why not N+1? How dare you deny life to that child?
See my reply to Broken_Hippo's sibling comment.
> And it's an argument that can easily be extended forever. How many children do you have? Oh, N? Why not N+1? How dare you deny life to that child?
Yeah, I know. Like all matters related to raising children, you simply do your best.
The fork one? They still don't exist.
> Like all matters related to raising children, you simply do your best.
That doesn't address my problem with your argument at all. Are you trying your best? Are you pregnant right now? If not, why not? If you're a male, why are you not in a polyamorous relationship? Etc., etc.
I am hardly the first person to make decisions about my actions based on the welfare of people who do not yet exist. Many reasonable people agree that we owe it to future humans (people who do not exist), to leave the Earth more or less habitable for them.
> Are you trying your best? Are you pregnant right now?
I am literally typing this reply while holding my 8 day old son. He is my third child. I'm sure some could quibble with the level of my effort, but we plan to have more and, well, 3 is greater than 0.
By the way, this N+1 argument is not a refutation of my argument. If there are a bunch of people drowning after a boat capsizes, do you choose not to rescue any of them just because you cannot rescue all of them?
No, you get in there and rescue as many as you can. Afterwards, you agonize about whether or not you could have saved more if you had done this or that differently. Eventually, you come to terms with how things worked out and your inadequacy as a human being.
> If you're a male, why are you not in a polyamorous relationship?
It generally takes two people to make a baby. The female's willingness to make a baby is usually inversely correlated with her belief that the male has relationships with other females.
So either the guy really lucks out, or (more commonly) polygamy involves a level of coercion or deception that conflicts with basic decency.
I fail to see how this is true in any sense without having some sort of moral fabric, religion, or something to base this off of. I can't possibly see how not having children is denying life to anyone. I can't deny life to something that doesn't exist, after all.
Could you explain how you come to the conclusion that a person not having children denies life to other humans - both your own children (who don't exist!) and folks that aren't?
This is not a legal argument. Unborn people do not have rights. Nor do I think choosing not to have children is equivalent to murder or anything like that. Nonetheless, this is a moral issue I think is worth considering.
Furthermore, though my view may seem outlandish, I think most reasonable people engage in similar reasoning about the wellbeing of unborn people. For instance: Do you think it's important to leave the Earth a decent place for future generations of humans? If so, why? After all, those future humans don't exist yet.
But, sure, believe there are no moral consequences to this decision if that makes you feel better.
Obviously, murdering an already alive person is not the same thing as not having children, but is not the reasoning the same? Am I missing something?
I specifically pointed out that the two are not the same thing.
I know a gypsy family in my country (it's been aired on TV 2 weeks ago - there are many such examples) which has 12 kids, all of them sent in Paris and Berlin to beg on the streets for money. Back home they have a palace and 4-5 cars each above 30-40k euros from everything they raised over the years. Most of those kids bring zero value to the society (it's not their fault - it's how they were raised), even worst, "it takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch" meaning that I see a trend in the youth to go for the "easy money" which brings us to the top of the list when it comes to fraud, identity theft, credit card theft, hacking and so on. This is just an example (and there's plenty more I can think of) but I want to ask you...are they a gift? To whom? To their parents maybe...in which case, isn't it selfish in some cases to make more kids than none at all? Aren't you just subjective by using yourself as an example to all arguments?
As a father myself, I don't see a goal in "preserving my bloodline" at all. The bloodline doesn't matter. I always go for quality over quantity. I don't need to pay tribute to anybody (ancestors). I didn't ask anybody to bring me into this world. A gift is something that you're offered, never imposed.
And the nature of those other possible outcomes changes whether or not we consider one person killing another to be murder. Imagine that somebody puts a gun to your head and threatens to kill you unless you kill somebody else. If you decide to kill that other person, it is not considered murder because of the other possible outcome (the person putting the gun to your head kills you).
So what I am saying is that it is perfectly valid to consider forks in the road (or alternate outcomes or whatever you want to call them) when making moral arguments. We do it all the time.
(I am not saying, btw, that choosing not to have children is equivalent to murder. Murder is just a useful example for thinking through the validity of considering alternate outcomes.)
I don't think it's selfish at all to choose not to bring a child into the world when there are still 6+ billion of us to carry the species forward.
I love my kids immensely but also respect my friends who choose not to have them.
But my argument is not about survival or wellbeing of the species. It's about denying life to your children.
We live in a strange transitional era, and are still coming to grips with the notion that women have careers and that we don't really need to work as much as we do.
As half of a couple who struggled to have a family (because we waited too long to meet goals that ultimately didn't matter too much), I think a lot of the child free rhetoric is just that. Sometimes when you discover that getting and staying pregnant at 40 isn't a sure thing, it's easier to move on and make the best of things.
That's certainly my own plan. Just welcomed number three into the world last week. Definitely have plans for more, but, you know, babies generally come one at a time.
1. Most people in the developed world who decide not to have children are not doing so to prevent their children from experiencing a life of suffering followed shortly by death. They are choosing not to have children because there are other ways they would rather spend their lives.
2. I'm not dictating anybody's actions. I'm making a moral argument on the internet.
on the other hand you have siblings and they did procreate, problem solved.