Opinion : Is it selfish to have kids?

[Ambivalent1]

Phantom post

 

[HappyForever?]

If I can guarantee a good life for my children then I don't think it's selfish. However it's impossible, due to the unpredicability of genetics and life in general.

 

[chloramine]

I don't know that selfish is the right word, but there are definitely some people who should not have children. It's possible to have them for selfish reasons of course. I just don't think the act of having children is inherently selfish.

 

[Amelie]

All parents need to be drawn and quartered in Hell...on repeat...forever.

So dumb….

 

[Ambivalent1]

So dumb….

Your French film is dumb

 

[Amelie]

Your French film is dumb

Touché

 

[Costrecce]

Most of the time yes. Most people "want" children, it´s inherently selfish. They don't think about the potential child, they think what they want for themselves. Because they want to blend in society, or they think children will emotionally fill them and give them purpose, or some just want someone to abuse and have power over. Many reasons why people want kids, but it's still selfish.

 

[Angst Filled Fuck Up]

I don't think "selfish" is the right word. The amount of self-sacrifice most half decent parents put in to raising their kids over the course of their lifetimes is pretty mind blowing. For that reason alone, I don't understand the label.

I couldn't really say what the exact emotion or desire behind having kids is. I do know they cost a shit ton of time and money. I wouldn't be capable of putting that into someone else, so if anything, I see myself as the selfish one. Given that, I think it's a bit cowardly and lame to hide behind my non-procreation and then pretend I'm somehow better than the family next door, or that I'm doing the world some amazing service. I'm not so smug as to think that of myself.

Most people really do seem to enjoy being alive. For many, it's inconceivable that life is this hellish existence that should cease to exist. So whatever the motivation behind having kids, it doesn't seem to matter at the end of the day. Fitting in, passing on resources, having mini-me's just for the sake of it. Irrelevant. Got genitals, will breed.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

It would be better if there were more sanctioned ways of opting out. It's fucked up to be forced to endure a congenital disability while choosing to leave is so stigmatized and made difficult.

A lot of our parents had normal lives and normal mental health and probably expected their children would be end up like them, sad sometimes but mostly content with living. Perhaps they most likely would have chosen to not to reproduce if they had known with certainty how it would really end up being.

 

[xlostie]

When i was a teen i was totally against (normal ig). Then i went to university (im studying for kindergarten and preschool teacher) we had visits in some kindergartens where i saw how cute kids are, they are smarter than i thought. I was amazed and started fantasizing about future life with kids. Then my mom died from cancer, i was shocked, I knew it's gonna be like that because she had went through it once and the chances for having it again were big, but it seemed too soon. And my grandma was in so much sorrow because her daughter died. And then i stopped dreaming about having kids. When i think about that i just think about how they might be self conscious, anxious, bullied, hurt.

 

[Celerity]

A lot of the time in the modern world, I think it can be.

It is undoubtedly a good thing that people can choose if and when to have children, but the use of reliable birth control also intensifies the central conflict between natalism and antinatalism. Is it morally good to have children, merely permissible, or actually bad?

When this question comes up, I am always reminded of the writings of Alice Miller, a psychologist, particularly the Drama of the Gifted Child. The subject of the book was parents who use their children as mere instruments of their emotional fulfillment. She described this as an inversion of nature. Instead of the parent providing emotional nourishment to the child, they instead act as a kind of parasite on their own child. When Mom or Dad is anxious or sad, the child must adjust and provide comfort but not the other way around as one might expect. In this way, the child acts as the parent figure. Some psychologists refer to this process as being parentified.

The existence of parentification raises the question of what examples of parenting exist where parents do not rely upon their children for emotional fulfillment. Unless someone chooses to have a child out of duty to their state or religion, I can't imagine a circumstance where the deliberate choice to have a child is not driven by the desire to chase the joy children are expected to bring or the status parenthood appears to offer. The point is that parents choose this for their own sake, not the child's, and are therefore acting selfishly.

That said, if I thought I could provide a happy life for my hypothetical child, where would the harm be? Assuming harm would require me to think that life is on balance more bad than good, something I no longer feel to be true. It is a completely subjective assessment. I can no more prove to you that life is mostly, usually better than nonexistance than you can prove the opposite.

 

[Arihman]

Yes, it is, and it can't be any other way, because in order for an action to be selfless, it has to meet already existing needs. But the unborn need absolutely nothing, which means that the only reason to bring them here can be nothing other than selfish. That, however is not on its own the reason why procreation is unethical.

Parents might not always have selfish intentions, like for example the ones who procreate out of duty even though they didn't want to, but the action itself can't be selfless when it comes to the created child. Creating needs to meet is not noble, it's basically just creating a problem, then solving part of it and patting yourself on the back. Now, I'm not saying that all parents are bad people (that depends on other things as well), but the action remains ethically wrong.

If you can't benefit a child due to the latter not needing anything before being created, that means that either you are having kids out of duty/obligation to society, or because you want to extract gratification from the act. Thus, the question is: how and why do such interests justify taking risks with someone else? Is the sadness currently alive people would experience were they to abstain from procreating equal or superior in value to the prevented suffering of not only the potential child, but also of countless generations after this one (with this suffering including extreme physical pain, or other harms like being depressed and suicidal)?

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I feel like having kids is at best, morally neutral and at worst, straight-up bad, and always selfish.

(also, I accidentally pressed the wrong option when casting my vote)

 

[Left]

I used to be an anti-natalist but now I just reserve myself to just being someone who is extremely judgmental of parents. If you don't devote your entire life and sacrifice your own well-being for your child, then I consider you a failure of a parent. I see most parents as failures. Then again, most people don't end up fucked up to the point of joining a suicide forum. I guess my upbringing was just an outlier and set the stage for me to experience a life of suffering (up to this point, at least). I have no sympathy for people who complain about how hard parenting is; I just don't care. Have some self-accountability for your actions. I hope that orgasm was worth it.

 

[SamTam33]

It's the single most selfish act one can participate in. To have the audacity to create an entire life without consent. Then to refuse that person the option to escape from the prison cell you shoved them into.

It's beyond selfish. It's flat out evil. To reflect on the pain you've experienced in your life... then to create someone who'll have to experience it as well. WTF goes on in the brain of a human to deliberately cast that burden upon someone else.

It's like having a disease and knowingly spreading it to others.

 

[iamalreadydead]

Imo, yes, but this is a conclusion i don't think most people would ever reach in their lifetime so I can't really fault anyone, especially well adjusted adults, for deciding to have kids. It adds meaning to a lot of peoples lives and thats fine. But I also think it's a decision thats selfish regardless of intent and outcome- the ordeal of being alive is terrifying regardless of if you're able to cope with it well, you're guaranteeing the child hardship- this is unequivocally true even if you do everything right, and even if they have a stable healthy life until a natural death. You're also gambling with the probability that they will suffer immensely for reasons out of your control, and that theres a chance you DON'T do everything right and they DON'T have a stable life. Also, this planet is fucked up in general. It's slowly degenerating both in an economic-societal sense and in the literal, environmental sense. If you're having kids in the present I think you're setting your kids up to experience eventual cataclysmic changes in the way they experience life on this planet. We're eventually going to be way too far removed from the way we're meant to be living for life to actually be worth living. Which, in my opinion, it generally kind of isn't, but we'd lack a lot of what makes us feel like it is.

 

[Antibody246]

yes

 

[whywere]

I used to be an anti-natalist but now I just reserve myself to just being someone who is extremely judgmental of parents. If you don't devote your entire life and sacrifice your own well-being for your child, then I consider you a failure of a parent. I see most parents as failures. Then again, most people don't end up fucked up to the point of joining a suicide forum. I guess my upbringing was just an outlier and set the stage for me to experience a life of suffering (up to this point, at least). I have no sympathy for people who complain about how hard parenting is; I just don't care. Have some self-accountability for your actions. I hope that orgasm was worth it.

I totally agree with you as far asself-accountability goes. I never had kids and folks always either said I was self-centered and selfish or gay because I had zero kids. I grew up ultra poor and did not want to go back to that ever again and I do not feel that it is up to the taxpayer to feed and clothe my kid, if I would have had one.

Walter

 

[Oneness]

Many philosophers contend that virtually every action one takes can be ultimately traced back to selfish motives. You can google the concept of "psychological egoism" for more information.

In my view, adopting children is a more commendable choice than bearing them.

 

[void kitty]

I'm not sure honestly, if it's actually selfish, although I do agree for the most of the part with life is just one of a hell, I never asked to be born in the first place. Someone close to is also having one soon. It is something only the one who could realize it is a privilege only the privilege one should be able to so I can see the wrongs with it. It would've been a lot better. I can't see it happening though.

 

[BananiFatFat]

I think it is. Why subject a person to live on this earth.

 

[R_N]

I have to say yes but I will also say I understand it is hard for humans to ignore their impulses.

 

[Rapière]

In my view, adopting children is a more commendable choice than bearing them.

I think so too. I never fully understood why modern-day hunans, including the modt sophisticatuted ones, are so keen on having genetic offdpring in the first place. Does the idea of passing on a (faulty) copy of one's DNA to the next generation actually fill anyone with a sense of meaning? I mean, people have no troubles pouring all their love and care into an adopted cat or dog -- so why not a human? Seeing the lenghts some people will go through just to have children of their own, in spite of genetic disorders and fertility issues, can really drive me mad.

At the same time, we, collectively speaking, need more children, not less, to, at the very least, dampen the detrimental effects of the imminent population collapse. In that sense we should be grateful that some biological clocks are still ticking and pray that they will tick even louder and faster in the coming years.

 

[hibikikyuxx]

Yes. No ifs and buts, it is always selfish to bring a child into this world. Why? Just look a the state the world is in. Overpopulation, wars, and inflation. Everyone is forced to go to school and work for the rest of their lives, or else they can't even afford to live. That's modern slavery. So many people starve, get abused, get killed, or die in accidents. Which means that parents care more about having a mini version of themselves, instead of caring about what their child will have to go through, see, and experience. Everyone, and I mean, everyone, should know know cruel and unfair life is. So much suffering and for what? We all die anyway. This makes parents automatically selfish because they KNOW that life is unfair and KNOW that their child will go through a lot of suffering no matter what. Of course, parents, no matter if good or bad, always have this logic:

Parents: "Life isn't fair".

To which the child should say: "Then why did you decide to have me?"

or:

Parents: "You should be grateful/thankful to us!"

To which the child should say: "But it was you who decided to have me, I never asked to be born."

Parents ALWAYS put their own needs first when it comes to having a child. The child never asked to be born, the parents decided to have a child, so they have no right to expect their child to be grateful to them. Especially if the parents didn't even do a good job and abused their child. The reason why so many parents want to have children is because they want to blend into society and look "normal". They use their child as their emotional relief, where they can take their anger out on. Talking from experience here. I don't know how many times my father, when angry, decided to take his anger out on me, even though I didn't even do anything. All because something, where I wasn't even involved, made him angry. Even when it comes to the good parents, I wouldn't refer to them as not selfish. Them doing the bare minimum for their child is not "self sacrifice". It was THEM who decided to have their child, so it is their JOB to care for their child. Period.

 

[whywere]

Yes. No ifs and buts, it is always selfish to bring a child into this world. Why? Just look a the state the world is in. Overpopulation, wars, and inflation. Everyone is forced to go to school and work for the rest of their lives, or else they can't even afford to live. That's modern slavery. So many people starve, get abused, get killed, or die in accidents. Which means that parents care more about having a mini version of themselves, instead of caring about what their child will have to go through, see, and experience. Everyone, and I mean, everyone, should know know cruel and unfair life is. So much suffering and for what? We all die anyway. This makes parents automatically selfish makes they KNOW that life is unfair and KNOW that their child will go through a lot of suffering no matter what. Of course, parents, no matter if good or bad, always have this logic:

Parents: "Life isn't fair".

To which the child should say: "Then why did you decide to have me?"

or:

Parents: "You should be grateful/thankful to us!"

To which the child should say: "But it was you who decided to have me, I never asked to be born."

Parents ALWAYS put their own needs first when it comes to having a child. The child never asked to be born, the parents decided to have a child, so they have no right to expect their child to be grateful to them. Especially if the parents didn't even do a good job and abused their child. The reason why so many parents want to have children is because they want to blend into society and look "normal". They use their child as their emotional relief, where they can take their anger out on. Talking from experience here. I don't know how many times my father, when angry, decided to take his anger out on me, even though I didn't even do anything. All because something, where I wasn't even involved, made him angry. Even when it comes to the good parents, I wouldn't refer to them as not selfish. Them doing the bare minimum for their child is not "self sacrifice". It was THEM who decided to have their child, so it is their JOB to care for their child. Period.

100% agree with you.

My "dad" beat the hell out of me when he got angry, and it was for no reason at all.

You are a very wise and kind spirit, thank you so much.

Walter

 

[Kattt]

No. Irrespective of our own thoughts on the matter, it's the result of human instincts, over which we have virtually no control. Without this instinct, the species would have failed long ago.

 

[RosySunsets]

I'd say no, if you're financially stable and know you'll be able to sufficiently provide for the child (which is in no way me trying to shame anyone for having children despite the finances, but it would make it considerably easier to raise a child). Also take into account your opinions on things. If you want a bring a child into this world will you love them if they are LGBTQIA+, if they do things that you don't approve of, like drugs? Will you be the sort of parent they can turn to for advice, if they mess up and need help, or just want someone to listen to them, and will you admit mistakes and apologise when you are in the wrong? (Imo it's so important for a parent to be able to do this)

 

[Krisis]

In today's world, potentially. In general, it depends on the individuals. In principle, no; it's the opposite.

 

[ForgottenAgain]

I don't think it's inherently selfish. I think some people have kids because they're in love with a fantasy which is not real - cute baby - forgetting that it's another human with it's qualities, flaws, aspirations and fears.

I think some people are not tailored to have kids, I think other people can be great parents. I spoke with my boyfriend several times about kids, since he has always wanted them. His reasoning behind wanting kids was to provide a life that was better than his and be happy with the child's happiness. I think that is a very selfless reason and aligns with what I'd like myself if adopting or having kids.

Now, when a person has history of mental illness, it can be harder to decide to have kids. I still don't think it is selfish.

My grandma's sister was schizophrenic, she had 3 kids. Two of them got schizophrenia. One has stayed at psych hospitals more than once - she is happy to be alive. She takes meds for life and is fine with that. Her brother has a wife and family, happy to be alive. My grandma's sister lived until her 80s when she committed suicide through overdose.

I don't think you can know if bringing the specific child one is conceiving will be bad, if the parents are responsible and dedicated to the child. You can have a perfect family and end up with a mentally ill child.

 

[Left]

Of course it is but I don't approach this question from the probably intended way. I don't think selfishness is inherently bad and I believe almost every, if not every, act is a selfish one. Of course, having a kid is just as selfish as breathing, which really means nothing in terms of reality.

The only way having a child is not selfish is if it happens involuntarily, such as in cases of rape or very strong familial, societal, and/or cultural pressure.

In today's world, potentially. In general, it depends on the individuals. In principle, no; it's the opposite.

How is the birthing and rearing of children a selfless act, in principle?