WCOM -- Withold Comments, Only Monitor

I don't think it would be selfish to have your own kids. All beings on this planet strive to pass on their genes; so if that's selfish so is every other life form that has ever existed on this planet. My GF's sister though wants to adopt a kid one day. She pretty much agrees with your 3rd question. To many people on the planet already, why add more?

what I'm wondering is why do women choose to go through arduous labour rather than just buy/adopt a kid

That is an interessting question Fox. I think this is one of those questions that cannot be answered, yet can only be observed by both sides of the argument. I do agree that when there is so many children that need adopting it may seem foolish to make your own children. However, there are few fundamental rights that humans have that are more fundamental then being allowed to create a child if you want to and plan to cherish it. Not many parents feel the same about adopting a child then giving birth to a child, I know it's weird but that's just how it is I think.

I don't think it's actual child births that are the biggest problem when it comes capacity of the world. When you consider fat american kids that are consuming 10-20 times more then kids in India for example, that may be why there may be less wealth to go around, and ultimately less comfort for human beings.

The problem stems back to over-consumerism and lack of individual responsibility for ensuring the collective good of the world and making sure that there is an equal spread of wealth for all. That is living in la-la land however, because we all know that will never happen as long as capitalism continues raping the world.

Copypasta'd from R.A.T. Army:I don't think it would be selfish to have your own kids. All beings on this planet strive to pass on their genes; so if that's selfish so is every other life form that has ever existed on this planet.

If thats true then we should each be having as many children as we can.
Obviously we don't need to have more babies to succeed as a species, but what you say about passing on our individual genes holds true. I just hope that the whole ~*~"being sentient"~*~ can over rule that, but I suppose this isn't the only urge left over from our animal pasts.

Copypasta'd from npeanut:
I don't think it's actual child births that are the biggest problem when it comes capacity of the world. When you consider fat american kids that are consuming 10-20 times more then kids in India for example, that may be why there may be less wealth to go around, and ultimately less comfort for human beings.

I realize the biggest problem with food and resources at the moment is the misdistribution between the third and first world, but my point is that we can't keep having more people: eventually there is a limit and once it goes over what we can sustain, it will only excellerate the resource-dwindling-process until there is no turning it around. Once we have too many people it will already be too late.

This is true, we no longer need to have as many kids as possible. I'd say having one kid...two max is acceptable.

That is also true. The problem is we don't know what number is too much yet. Also, once we do fix the problem of misdistribution, it will be much easier to set estimates and accurately distribute to everyone because everyone will be equal. Until then, how would world governments discourage/stop people from having children? I mean they could follow the chinese example and demand taxation on every child of the family after the 1st one, but then it would make another problem of rich people being allowed to have more children then poor people because they can afford it, even though it is probably the poor families that will need to have more children to do tasks for the survival of their family.

To be fair, atleast the rich people can afford the children. If you can't afford tax on a child then you probably can't afford the child either. Ohgod this topic is turning from a child issue to a welfare issue.

I think the stupidest thing I ever heard was some young chick who had it all planned out: she was gonna be a single welfare mum. These ideas should be repulsive, not just unacceptable. Maybe I'm just out of touch with young people.

In closing, I still support welfare/taxcuts for mothers/children, but AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

it's wrong if you are this stunned coont:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09210/986936-298.stm


My and my gf at this time have no plans for children and I don't think will ever want to, although i hear women when they hit their 30s or once their friends all start having babies change their minds on this (although when i say this to her im called a liar).

Not really interested in raising a brood to be honest, i kind of like going to work making my money and coming home and spending my money on myself and not some whining annoying brats. I also don't make that much (i will be pulling 50 - 60k this year, combined household earnings over 100k) and although that may seem like a bit when factoring in bills it always seems like im po'.

Go ahead, all of you have kids, I will be laughing at you while im having fun and you are changing diapers.

Chups, we're adopting. We're adopting... you.

who were you formerly on warcraft3.com? this is critical info for the adoption process (i thought you were lightningfox but i still see hes posting under that name)

Nah its me, haven't posted under that in ages.

I think you guys are vastly overlooking the emotional impact of a mother giving birth to her child, and a man seeing his blood and genes and family legacy live on. Yes, the world probably has more people then it can contain, but there's always wars, diseases and natural disasters that takes away a large number of people every year.

What I do agree with you guys is that you should only have children that you can afford and they can grow up without being malnutrioned and whatnot. I would say a max of 3 for a wealthy family, 2 for a middle class family, and 1 for a poor family. There's little point in having so many children if their lives are gonna suck.

I understand there are issues with overpopulation. I understand it can be considered irresponsible to have more than 2 children at this point in history.

I still want at least three. At least. That's my desire.

I'll be happy with two. I don't want an only child.

My genes are superior to the average man's. My mate's genes are superior to the average woman's. Children will enhance my life, give it more meaning, and having someone to pass my life onto after I pass on is important to me--them being genetically related is imperative.

H1N1 will solve the problem.

Copypasta'd from shoshone:I think you guys are vastly overlooking the emotional impact of a mother giving birth to her child, and a man seeing his blood and genes and family legacy live on.

What I do agree with you guys is that you should only have children that you can afford and they can grow up without being malnutrioned and whatnot. I would say a max of 3 for a wealthy family, 2 for a middle class family, and 1 for a poor family. There's little point in having so many children if their lives are gonna suck.

I agree with these points wholeheartedly. The second point kind of leads on to abortion, which I quietly support also.

Copypasta'd from The Dunwich Horror:

Copypasta'd from npeanut:
I don't think it's actual child births that are the biggest problem when it comes capacity of the world. When you consider fat american kids that are consuming 10-20 times more then kids in India for example, that may be why there may be less wealth to go around, and ultimately less comfort for human beings.

I realize the biggest problem with food and resources at the moment is the misdistribution between the third and first world, but my point is that we can't keep having more people: eventually there is a limit and once it goes over what we can sustain, it will only excellerate the resource-dwindling-process until there is no turning it around. Once we have too many people it will already be too late.

Too late for what? The world will balance itself out. Once our numbers become too large we'll just start dying off and everything will even out in the end.

Copypasta'd from shoshone:I think you guys are vastly overlooking the emotional impact of a mother giving birth to her child, and a man seeing his blood and genes and family legacy live on. Yes, the world probably has more people then it can contain, but there's always wars, diseases and natural disasters that takes away a large number of people every year.

What I do agree with you guys is that you should only have children that you can afford and they can grow up without being malnutrioned and whatnot. I would say a max of 3 for a wealthy family, 2 for a middle class family, and 1 for a poor family. There's little point in having so many children if their lives are gonna suck.

except the 3 kids from the wealthy family will go on to be detrimental spoiled brats whereas the lone poor child will lead a life of hard work and misery

Just because their parents were wealthy, doesn't mean they will be.

Copypasta'd from Blaze:
Too late for what? The world will balance itself out. Once our numbers become too large we'll just start dying off and everything will even out in the end.

This sounds nice, but the reality would be the worst suffering humanity has ever faced.

We won't keep dieing as long as medical research keeps trying to keep us all alive. I really don't understand this desire to keep people alive forever, it's just natural for us to die.

Also, I never really know how to spell "dieing".

dying

I'm just dye ing to meat choo.

Copypasta'd from Vanilla Bryce:Just because their parents were wealthy, doesn't mean they will be.

um ya thats pretty much exactly what it means

Copypasta'd from The Dunwich Horror:

Copypasta'd from Blaze:
Too late for what? The world will balance itself out. Once our numbers become too large we'll just start dying off and everything will even out in the end.

This sounds nice, but the reality would be the worst suffering humanity has ever faced.

Doesn't sound so bad to me. I guess I'm more of a worldist than a peoplist.

Plus, you know. We'll be living on the moon in a hundred years and be farming plants and livestock up there soon enough.

what makes you and your "mate" "superior" to the "average man" excactly "bryce"? Water polo skillz aren't transferable to many other fields last i checked....

bryce is the superior being. faster, stronger, better.

but never after work is over.

For someone as hot as myself not having kids would be a crime. For most people though it wouldn't be, and in fact they are encouraged not to have any.

They ought to start euthanizing the ones that have been on sale for a few years instead of increasing our taxes to feed their little, useless, orphan mouths.
I hate children.

Plus statistics sshow marriages and relationships in general have a much higher chance of pulling trough WITHOUT children involved.
don't have kids.

Copypasta'd from Lemon:Plus statistics sshow marriages and relationships in general have a much higher chance of pulling trough WITHOUT children involved.
don't have kids.

But this is in direct contrast to a brilliant composition from the musical geniuses of our time!

Blink-182- Stay Together For The Kids.

You probably shouldn't stay together for the kids. The constant tension will ruin them.

I blame this all on the feminist movement.

You're not the only one to blame feminism for our problems.

http://moderateindependent.com/v6iJuly232008ash.htm

Copypasta'd from shoshone:I blame this all on the feminist movement.

I breed dogs & teach them to attack feminists.
A single bite & tug to the neck and their own for good.
My dogs know this.

I blame the British Empire for dismantling. You think we would of let all this shit happen if we still ruled the most important parts of the world?

Yeah but then we would all be snaggly tooth mutherfuckers and be worse off as a society.

you are snaggly tooth mutherfuckers

your mother are snaggly tooth motherfuckers

just think, you're missing out on the greatest opportunity one you colonialists could of had, the chance to step in front of an enemy arrow/bullet/spear/terradactyl for the glory of the BRITISH EMPIRE HERRRRRUPMPH!

Copypasta'd from El Chupanebrae:what makes you and your "mate" "superior" to the "average man" excactly "bryce"? Water polo skillz aren't transferable to many other fields last i checked....

I'm not posting a resume, suffice it to say I doubt anyone would disagree with my statement unless they were, like you, trying to pull me off a pedestal. I'm not on a pedestal. I'm just acknowledging reality.

Here's a better question Chups. Define average, and I'll tell you how I compare.

The thing is before the feminists movement, men and women are dependent on each other. That's why people married young and the man depended on the woman to cook food, take care of the house, and raise his child. The woman depended on the man to bring food to the home, and to protect, supply, and comfort her. It was a symbiotic relationship that was harmonious and balanced.

The problem with the feminist movement is that it has made people too independent. No longer is the relationship symbiotic, and its everyone do their own thing. Since people are so independent, they don't really need someone else, and therein is the problem with such high divorce rates and a plethora of other things.

So the feminist movement has done much more harm then good. They meant well, but didn't see the externality they created.

fuck feminists. i'm having like 12 wives and 34 kids.

Copypasta'd from ceo:

Copypasta'd from Vanilla Bryce:Just because their parents were wealthy, doesn't mean they will be.

um ya thats pretty much exactly what it means

Maybe in reality, but I was actually responding to this scenario and neglected to quote it. Still, rich kids don't always turn into rich adults. Though that is the trend.

Copypasta'd from shoshone: I would say a max of 3 for a wealthy family, 2 for a middle class family, and 1 for a poor family. There's little point in having so many children if their lives are gonna suck.

You'd have such a large percent of the generation coming from the wealthy, that a good portion would necessarily have to be redistributed towards the bottom of the economic ladder.

I don't think so bryce, there a lot more poor people then there are rich people. By exactly how much I don't know but I think its safe to say that for every rich person/couple there are 3,5, or even 9 poor people/couple.

Copypasta'd from shoshone:I don't think so bryce, there a lot more poor people then there are rich people. By exactly how much I don't know but I think its safe to say that for every rich person/couple there are 3,5, or even 9 poor people/couple.

It depends on the size of the disparity you're measuring. If you looked at actual "upper class" people in the world and compared them to most of the third world, it's probably more like 1:1000.