EmotionlessWanderer
Specialist
- Jan 19, 2019
- 352
I'm not going to raise children. This world is shit and I might honestly CTB before I get too old. I don't want them to have to cope with this shithole alone.
It would be cruel to them and leave me a big loose end on Earth when I enter the afterlife. Karen can go beg someone else to expand their bloodline.
It would be cruel to them and leave me a big loose end on Earth when I enter the afterlife. Karen can go beg someone else to expand their bloodline.
Chalken
Decaying
- Nov 20, 2018
- 214
No, no one should have children. There's too much suffering in this world, but people still breed because they want someone to take care of them when they're old, they want to have miniature versions of themselves running around, they want to continue their legacy, which is complete bullshit. People who breed are either selfish or ignorant of the current state of the world.
I wanted a dog of certain breed/bloodline but I didn't buy it because I would be contributing to bring more life to this world and life is suffering.
You never know if you can handle. I would not judge parents who ctb as abandoning their children. And looks like you don't have good genes. Don't take as a offense, my genes are terrible. You could adopt if you really want kids.
AnnihilatedAnna
A Joke
- Apr 17, 2018
- 1,346
I wish I was vegan. The problem for me is not killing animals, but bringing them to life in a industrial way (and giving them crap lifes)
marcusuk63
CTB
- Mar 24, 2019
- 1,735
why would you want to breed the most dangerous , most destructive ,most selfish ,most ignorant animal on the planet ? the planet would be much better off with out humans ,we fight wars and kill each other over a pencil line on a map
Misanthrope
Mage
- Oct 23, 2018
- 557
That limitation was not clarified in your question so I answered it at face value. Others also mentioned genes and overpopulation. That same reasoning has been used to get governments involved. Who already answered your question with a no and took it to a non-voluntary place. I highlighted the consequences that led to. So it seemed relevant to your question. We also live in societies where things like this still happen.
Forced C-section was ‘the stuff of nightmares’: Social Services
Social services obtained a court order because the mother had suffered a mental breakdown
www.independent.co.uk
Where people with mental health difficulties are already on the sharp end of ridiculous generalisations about them and judgmentalism of others insinuating what they should or should not do with themselves. Or the risks they pose simply because of the presence of mental health labels applied to them. Like that is a crystal ball of absolute certainty. Labels that are not convincingly grounded in hard science either or even solely genetics. A person tortured in gulag unsurprisingly who has severe depression, should they not have children either when they escape? Where do you want to draw the line when we don't even meaningfully understand depression?
They are still chasing ghosts of patterns at this point. Personally, I think neurology and sociology will have better answers than clinical psychiatry in its current form ever will.
Also how far do you want to take risk aversion when it comes to genetics? There is no one alive perfectly genetically risk-free suited to have children. Especially considering many maladies skip generations before manifesting. So how far back do you want to go when it comes to who should or should not have children? How do you define who has 'good' or 'bad' genes with that in mind? Even if you do define that, then what?
Who else should not have children? How about a person who develops cancer? Should they not have children because they have demonstrated a predisposition to potentially passing that on? What if it is a carcinogenic environment that produced the cancer in the first place? Does that distinction even matter when it comes to them then having kids or not?
In some circles, it is thought criminal behaviour has a genetic component as well. They identified the MAOA gene and a variant of cadherin 13. The people with those genes, should they not have children either as 'apparently' they are 13% more likely to engage in violent criminal behaviour?
There is a pretty decent film that explores these ideas through DNA technology, resulting in a society of designer babies. It is called Gattaca.
It's not about the genes. But depressive people, like me, sometimes can't handle emotions well. So I think I wouldn't want to be father, to avoid doing any harm to the children (active or passive)
I do believe people with hereditary serious disease should not procreate.That limitation was not clarified in your question so I answered it at face value. Others also mentioned genes and overpopulation. That same reasoning has been used to get governments involved. Who already answered your question with a no and took it to a non-voluntary place. I highlighted the consequences that led to. So it seemed relevant to your question. We also live in societies where things like this still happen.
Forced C-section was ‘the stuff of nightmares’: Social Services
Social services obtained a court order because the mother had suffered a mental breakdown
Where people with mental health difficulties are already on the sharp end of ridiculous generalisations about them and judgmentalism of others insinuating what they should or should not do with themselves. Or the risks they pose simply because of the presence of mental health labels applied to them. Like that is a crystal ball of absolute certainty. Labels that are not convincingly grounded in hard science either or even solely genetics. A person tortured in gulag unsurprisingly who has severe depression, should they not have children either when they escape? Where do you want to draw the line when we don't even meaningfully understand depression?
They are still chasing ghosts of patterns at this point. Personally, I think neurology and sociology will have better answers than clinical psychiatry in its current form ever will.
Also how far do you want to take risk aversion when it comes to genetics? There is no one alive perfectly genetically risk-free suited to have children. Especially considering many maladies skip generations before manifesting. So how far back do you want to go when it comes to who should or should not have children? How do you define who has 'good' or 'bad' genes with that in mind? Even if you do define that, then what?
Who else should not have children? How about a person who develops cancer? Should they not have children because they have demonstrated a predisposition to potentially passing that on? What if it is a carcinogenic environment that produced the cancer in the first place? Does that distinction even matter when it comes to them then having kids or not?
In some circles, it is thought criminal behaviour has a genetic component as well. They identified the MAOA gene and a variant of cadherin 13. The people with those genes, should they not have children either as 'apparently' they are 13% more likely to engage in violent criminal behaviour?
There is a pretty decent film that explores these ideas through DNA technology, resulting in a society of designer babies. It is called Gattaca.
But severe depression is a different kind of disease. It's not only your shit genes. It is you think life does not worth living, so why bring one more being to life? I doesn't make sense.
And severely depressed people probably don't make good parents anyway. If you don't have energy, you are not good parent. And there is the risk of ctb and leaving the children fatherless/motherless.
Last edited:
deflagrat
¡Si hablas español mándame un mensaje privado!
- Apr 9, 2018
- 360
This world is kind of shitty, I would only see having kids as a good thing if you have very good genes and you can provide indefinite economic support to your kids. One of the only reasons why I still stick around even though I am not really enjoying my life is because of my parents. They provide for me and I don't need to worry about money or working (I am 29 now). This makes life way easier, because your worst problem is basically boredom and lack of pleasure due to mental illness.
If you are born in the old world (ours currently) you have no choice but to accept it, I don't think people will start to be happy until hundreds of years pass and science gets to a different level.
If you are born in the old world (ours currently) you have no choice but to accept it, I don't think people will start to be happy until hundreds of years pass and science gets to a different level.
That limitation was not clarified in your question so I answered it at face value. Others also mentioned genes and overpopulation. That same reasoning has been used to get governments involved. Who already answered your question with a no and took it to a non-voluntary place. I highlighted the consequences that led to. So it seemed relevant to your question. We also live in societies where things like this still happen.
Forced C-section was ‘the stuff of nightmares’: Social Services
Social services obtained a court order because the mother had suffered a mental breakdown
Where people with mental health difficulties are already on the sharp end of ridiculous generalisations about them and judgmentalism of others insinuating what they should or should not do with themselves. Or the risks they pose simply because of the presence of mental health labels applied to them. Like that is a crystal ball of absolute certainty. Labels that are not convincingly grounded in hard science either or even solely genetics. A person tortured in gulag unsurprisingly who has severe depression, should they not have children either when they escape? Where do you want to draw the line when we don't even meaningfully understand depression?
They are still chasing ghosts of patterns at this point. Personally, I think neurology and sociology will have better answers than clinical psychiatry in its current form ever will.
Also how far do you want to take risk aversion when it comes to genetics? There is no one alive perfectly genetically risk-free suited to have children. Especially considering many maladies skip generations before manifesting. So how far back do you want to go when it comes to who should or should not have children? How do you define who has 'good' or 'bad' genes with that in mind? Even if you do define that, then what?
Who else should not have children? How about a person who develops cancer? Should they not have children because they have demonstrated a predisposition to potentially passing that on? What if it is a carcinogenic environment that produced the cancer in the first place? Does that distinction even matter when it comes to them then having kids or not?
In some circles, it is thought criminal behaviour has a genetic component as well. They identified the MAOA gene and a variant of cadherin 13. The people with those genes, should they not have children either as 'apparently' they are 13% more likely to engage in violent criminal behaviour?
There is a pretty decent film that explores these ideas through DNA technology, resulting in a society of designer babies. It is called Gattaca.
There's a world of difference between ethics and law: the first emanates from the individual and consists of a set of rules of conduct one voluntarily follows. The latter imposes and limits behaviour and is binding upon the individual. This discussion is clearly about ethics yet you enlarged it to politics and law. I think it would be best to start a new thread to discuss the latter topic.
Surely you can't think a person who has had multiple episodes of severe depresssion is fit to be a parent? I don't put much stock in psychopathology and psychiatric research but surely it is pretty well established that the more episodes of depression a person has the higher the chances of a relapse. Having had one episode means a 50% chance of relapse, two 70% and three 90%. Anyone who bets against those odds is an idiot imo, especially with negative chances above 50%. Especially when the stakes are as high as the well-being of another human-being.
If we take 'severe depression' to mean the individual can't take of herself properly then it's clear if such an episode where to happen again during the time period it takes to raise a child (at least 18 years) it's very likely the child will be neglected and/or actively harmed in some way and will suffer because of it.
To me this is simply unacceptable: bringing a child into this world entails it it will suffer in some way (how much is unpredictable) and will certainly die at some point (how painful/frightful this process will be is also uncertain) but to burden it with one's personal problems and emotional baggage is extremely selfish and unethical. If children are to be born at all it should be under reasonably good circumstances: by people who are of sound moral character, who have no serious physical ailments nor severe mental problems, whose finances are sound enough to take on the burden... Even then it's still a huge gamble (the child might still suffer horrendously) but at least the odds aren't stacked against them from the get-go.
The point remains that people who aren't able to lead productive, fulfilling, stable lives should not procreate. Anyone who doesn't meet those criteria will likely mess up his or her child and this means doing harm without any justification whatsoever. Harm inflicted on completely innocent beings who for the most part aren't able to stand up for their rights and protect themselves is the very definition of evil.
Having children is always selfish (using others solely for one's own benefit): the least one can do in return is to offer unconditional love, support and a stable environment for the child to grow up in. Those who experience severe mental problems especially if this has become a pattern will almost certainly not be able to meet those conditions. If you're severely depressed and in great emotional pain it's very difficult to care for others, provide for them, nurture them... How is one to raise children under those abysmal conditions? That's about as smart as having children in the middle of a war-zone.
Your example about a survivor of the Gulag has nothing to do with living in society today and is therefore irrelevant. If one becomes severely depressed due to an extreme event that is almost certainly unique and will not return obviously it's another matter entirely as it's not representative of how well or poor one will do in everyday life. Even then it's a fact that there's a disproportionate number of suicides among Holocaust-survivors (prima facie somewhat comparable to the Gulag): they were strong enough and lucky enough to survive the hell of the death-camps yet they could not live with the memories haunting them. Clearly going through severe physical and mental trauma is not good for one's overall well-being but I would not dispute people's rights to procreate under those circumstances. Especially in cases such as the Holocaust when the very goal of the enemy was to wipe their victims' genes from the face of the earth.
The chances of getting cancer are only partially due to genetics: whether it'd be immoral to procreate in those circumstances would depend on how well-established the genetic factor is, the type of cancer and the statistical likelihoofd of acquiring it. If one has it and in that condition decides to get pregnant or impregnate one's partner that's clearly immoral as one stands a good chance of dying (clearly higher than a physically healthy person) and depriving the child of a mother/father. If one has had it but is cured it would depend on the chances of a relapse. If it's not significantly higher than the rate of cancer occurence in the general population I don't see a problem with procreating in those circumstances.
If severe illnesses run in one's family that are known to have a strong genetic basis obviously it would be best to play it safe and not take the chance of having to witness one's own child's extreme suffering and possible early death. Or deprive the child untimely of one of his/her parents.
This topic boils down to a simple question: does one have the moral right to burden innocent, defenceless humans who are completely dependent on their parent(s) with one's pre-existing grave personal problems or not? Especially when those problems are known to be highly recurrent.
My response is and remains an empathic 'hell no'.
Last edited:
Misanthrope
Mage
- Oct 23, 2018
- 557
Great rebuttal I will get back to you when I am not feeling so sick.
I think any one has the right to have children. Personally I dont want any ever. But you never know having a child may bring joy to those who are lacking. It gives people a reason to live and focus on others
You seem to think it's ok to use a child as a means to an end. Anyone who needs to produce offspring in order to have a 'reason to live' is a sad excuse for a human-being. Too many follow this line of reasoning and far too often it leads to great misery.
The supreme irony: out of pure egotism and egocentrism I'll produce a tiny human who'll suffer and die so I can learn altruism...
The original sin is birth which we all pay the price for and which the majority of humanity foolishly perpetuates: the same boring, sad story full of pain and dissapointment that stretches over the generations leading nowhere. I wonder how long it will take our species to realize the gains do not cover the costs and life is nothing but a rigged, losing game with high stakes (very little and fleeting actual joy vs. the omnipresence of suffering with extremes that one couldn't phantom in happier times) and the certainty of annihilation. At that point we will either die out or transfer our consciousness into robots and refrain from procreation.
Last edited:
200_ponies
Member
- Apr 8, 2019
- 32
No one should ever have children in my opinion. Even if there are truly happy people out there, they still live in a world where it's necessary for forums like this to exist. There are too many ways for life to go wrong to justify bringing your child into the world, especially when they have no choice in the matter.
One does not need to reproduce in order to care for others and feel useful and worthwhile by assisting others.
I'm always up for intelligent debate and you made a good point: where do we draw the line? That's the million dollar question, isn't it?
I hope you have recovered from your ailment by now.
Last edited:
Misanthrope
Mage
- Oct 23, 2018
- 557
Law is distinct from ethics, but ethics can often have an influence on the law. Especially when you are dealing with mental disorders, genetics and the question of 'should' which does not have a criminal basis. I may have jumped the gun. However, the question of what people with mental health issues 'should do' will provoke that as it was rarely a philosophical or voluntary question. That is my own unhinged baggage at work.
Could you do me the courtesy of providing your source of figures for this statement? Preferably not an abstract.
I am curious about the methodology of how these figures are arrived at. I have a suspicion there are going to be issues with definitions used which will put the shock horror of these figures into better context. I will likely use that to undermine some of the premises of your argument. Especially as you are citing statistical risk as part of the debate. I don't however, dispute the increased likelihood of recurrence in severe depression. However, I do dispute what you believe that to mean in regards to being a fit parent. I also intend to undermine the relevance of genes when it comes to severe depression.
There is no rush, and you are going to have to be patient anyway. I feel like I am buried in a fog bank right now, even Undertale is difficult. Sadly illness for me is not going anywhere, it is more waiting for good days among the consistently bad.
Thanks for your patience, peace.
Divine Trinity
Pugna Vigil
- Mar 20, 2019
- 310
The overpopulation bit isn't an actual issue. Reducing waste (namely poverty and transportation) would allow the population to double or triple if so desired. Though by reducing poverty population size naturally stabilizes. But I agree with the other 2 points.
"Life is suffering"
I think the general consensus is if we don't kill ourselves (species), nature will. Less than 1% of life in the history of Earth survived to this point, and most species go extinct around 100k years, modern humans have been around for about 200k years, civilization 10k, era of European empire about 500-700 years.
Last edited:
Eeyore
Member
- Aug 4, 2018
- 94
humans are a plague, a massive plague.
the cause of most of the suffering in the world.
nobody should have children imo, but those with depression genes even less so ofc
the cause of most of the suffering in the world.
nobody should have children imo, but those with depression genes even less so ofc
Lol the only way humans feel useful and worth while is by assisting others - it's what we do. You're right they dont, but doesn't mean to say that just because people are depressed doesn't mean they shouldn't have children. Everyone has that right. If anything. A depressed person that has children will probably devote their life to look after that child which is better tgen those who use children to get benefits and houses
