Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think of it like this: If one fails to have children, then all those millions and millions of years of making you - your particular combination of dust - from the first one-celled living thing on earth, past the oceans, past the dinosaurs, past the advent of the mammal and the upright primate, surviving all that nature could throw at it, wars, famine, disease and persevering to become you --- ENDS with you. Your twig on of the tree of life just dies when you die and whatever little miracle of survival you might represent is lost for eternity.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant by continuing one's line. Most people don't realize that every human being can be traced back directly to the first most primitive life forms billions of years ago, without a single interruption or missing link in that line. That is impressive when you think about it. Although I think few people are aware of it, they kind of feel it. A couple that has no kids is kind of dying out...
This poster doesn't even want people to get maternity/paternity leave, saying the taxpayers foot the bill in government agencies and the consumers eat it in private companies.
Some people are just born to feel cheated.
Are those not the facts? Why should consumers, employers or taxpayers foot the bill? If you can't have maternity leave, just don't have children. How hard is that? It is YOUR decision to have children, then YOU really should foot the bill yourself, no? But no, YOU are going to put a gun on other people's heads and force them to pay for YOUR children.
I don't see why child free people need to defend themselves. Everyone has a different perspective. Personally I see no point to being able to do whatever, whenever, without having someone to support, or care about. To each their own.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant by continuing one's line. Most people don't realize that every human being can be traced back directly to the first most primitive life forms billions of years ago, without a single interruption or missing link in that line. That is impressive when you think about it. Although I think few people are aware of it, they kind of feel it. A couple that has no kids is kind of dying out...
That's the selfish perspective.
People who decide not to have children are doing society, the humanity and the earth a huge favor.
Some people here are a bit immature and unwise, they don't see the bigger picture, only their own wallets.
Simply consider society your extended family, then the point of giving is easier to understand...
Having said that, I do think there should be a limit. Support should only be given for a mother's first two children. If someone emulates the Waltons for whatever reasons, they should indeed not do so at society's expense, it would be a kind of abuse.
Some people here are a bit immature and unwise, they don't see the bigger picture, only their own wallets.
Simply consider society your extended family, then the point of giving is easier to understand...
Having said that, I do think there should be a limit. Support should only be given for a mother's first two children. If someone emulates the Waltons for whatever reasons, they should indeed not do so at society's expense, it would be a kind of abuse.
Are you not the ones getting the money? Are you (the parents) not the ones worry about your own wallets?
You somehow have the audacity to call others "Some people here are a bit immature and unwise, they don't see the bigger picture, only their own wallets."
People who decide not to have children are doing society, the humanity and the earth a huge favor.
No. To the contrary, I would even say that it is kind of egoistic and antisocial to enjoy all that society and the government provide and yet not have any children that will help provide those things to the next generations in the future.
Having kids is not a problem in the first world, not having them is.
Having kids is a problem in developing countries, simply because they have too many.
Are you not the ones getting the money? Are you (the parents) not the ones worry about your own wallets?
You somehow have the audacity to call others "Some people here are a bit immature and unwise, they don't see the bigger picture, only their own wallets."
Hardly anyone if anyone has children in order to receive money. That would be the only justification for you to call parents egoistic.
It still doesn't make it right to forcefully take other people's money to feed your own children.
Yes it does, because when you live in a society and enjoy all the perks of living in a society, you should give back.
I know a guy on another forum. He is 50 years old, never been married, no kids. He also thought that he should not participating in raising the next generation. Few months ago he started to date a 25 years old lady, and he was really happy about it. So in one of our discussions I told him, that maybe, if there were not some tax breaks for kids that he paid for in his 20-s, her parents would decide to make an abortion. And now, pardon my french instead of **** a nice piece of *ss, he would **** his hand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
