[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
I will second this one. My brother was told by some idiot that he is selfish for not wanting kids. …[/quote]
I’ll just take a brief moment to explain a possible rationale for this comment: we need a work force to fund our social spending, particularly to the extent the work force is supporting a retired population. In this view, people who benefit from stuff like social security, without taking on the cost of raising future productive citizens, are very selfish.
[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Make1tRa1n wrote:
In that case, why is “ego” not a good enough reason?
It’s a great reason for sheep. If you’re capable of independent thinking than you’ll realize that you don’t need a kid to fit in or to gain attention. Having a child because you must conform is pathetic.
I’m interpreting his argument as I see it.
You are sorely underestimating how much of what any person does is influenced by society. However, I don’t think that’s the argument you’re making simply because if you actually knew anything about the topic you wouldn’t make that assertion.
What you’re saying is that peer pressure isn’t a good enough reason to have children? Nobody has argued against that to my knowledge.[/quote]
You’re making the same emotional argument against me as was made against lixy. Feel free to not take what I say out of context.
You’re petty attempt to corner me in the specifics of a much broader argument does your position no good.
[quote]Make1tRa1n wrote:
Good argument, but what I am getting at is that the parent’s primary concern is with their self-worth. This situation is a two way street.
Basically the parent has formed a cathexis in the notion of having a child, not the actual being.[/quote]
Even if that be true, the continuing drive to protect the child and the subsequent investments in the child’s well-being and future make the idea of the child and the child him or herself virtually indistinguishable in real terms. So while that may be true at a particular moment (before having a child), it doesn’t seem to hold after the child is realized. Of course, there is always some sort of readjustment of expectations and preconceived notions with regard to the person the child becomes versus the person the parents may like the child to be. These may be minor or major.
One thought: if all parents are always motivated in the way that you suggest, we should find no instances of parents caring for severely disabled children when they have the means to avoid the responsibility in a socially approved manner.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
ouroboro_s wrote:
I will second this one. My brother was told by some idiot that he is selfish for not wanting kids. …
I’ll just take a brief moment to explain a possible rationale for this comment: we need a work force to fund our social spending, particularly to the extent the work force is supporting a retired population. In this view, people who benefit from stuff like social security, without taking on the cost of raising future productive citizens, are very selfish. [/quote]
Raising kids is not the issue. Look at the number of abandoned kids. Look at the overcrowded orphanages around the world. I don’t think anyone will try and make a case against raising kids.
I distinguish between the drive to pass on one’s gene (perpetuate one’s family name, etc)and the less ego-centered task of raising kids.
[quote]Make1tRa1n wrote:
You’re making the same emotional argument against me as was made against lixy. Feel free to not take what I say out of context.
[/quote]
explain.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I distinguish between the drive to pass on one’s gene (perpetuate one’s family name, etc)and the less ego-centered task of raising kids.[/quote]
How exactly is it less ego-centered?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Make1tRa1n wrote:
Good argument, but what I am getting at is that the parent’s primary concern is with their self-worth. This situation is a two way street.
Basically the parent has formed a cathexis in the notion of having a child, not the actual being.
Even if that be true, the continuing drive to protect the child and the subsequent investments in the child’s well-being and future make the idea of the child and the child him or herself virtually indistinguishable in real terms. So while that may be true at a particular moment (before having a child), it doesn’t seem to hold after the child is realized. Of course, there is always some sort of readjustment of expectations and preconceived notions with regard to the person the child becomes versus the person the parents may like the child to be. These may be minor or major.
One thought: if all parents are always motivated in the way that you suggest, we should find no instances of parents caring for severely disabled children when they have the means to avoid the responsibility in a socially approved manner.[/quote]
I see shades of gray, Neph. I was attempting to examine Lixy’s argument specific to the ego. I believe parents have more than one motivation for having a child, as I stated earlier in the thread. However, you make excellent points and you do make me think, so I will bite.
We’ve come down to something that is very situation and person specific. This all depends on the ethics of the parents and probably the hormones. I guess what we’re getting at is that if the burden far outweighs what was expected, the parent bails.
Have you seen Chernobyl Heart? There’s an entire hospital full of children with birth defects that were abandoned. There is a similar problem in Calcutta. Of course this is not apples to apples, since socio-economic factors and other cultures come into play. I also cannot provide figures which would shed a better light on the distribution of abandoned disabled children but it would certainly polarize how I feel about this topic. We are also not taking into consideration abortions which would create an even more hostile atmosphere, so let us remain abstract.
You argue that although a parent may have formed their initial investment with the notion of having a child, that inevitably that energy will be invested in the child. You could be right. Unfortunately, at that point a parent has ‘bought the farm’ so to speak. Whether or not they planned for it, they don’t have a lot of choices in the matter - they either adapt or bail. Given the amount that do bail, I would much rather pick up the slack and adopt than procreate.
That’s my opinion on the topic, specific to the ego factor in determining whether or not to have children.
[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
lixy wrote:
I distinguish between the drive to pass on one’s gene (perpetuate one’s family name, etc)and the less ego-centered task of raising kids.
How exactly is it less ego-centered?[/quote]
How is it not?
See, I can argue like you.
[quote]Make1tRa1n wrote:
Whether or not they planned for it, they don’t have a lot of choices in the matter - they either adapt or bail. Given the amount that do bail, I would much rather pick up the slack and adopt than procreate.
That’s my opinion on the topic, specific to the ego factor in determining whether or not to have children.[/quote]
Some of your other comments should be addressed, but I am pressed for time at the moment.
This is interesting… do you see adoption as being exempt from ego? That is, whether I adopt a child or have one of my own, would I not still wish to achieve self-worth through having a child - regardless of how I “have” that child? You can argue that adopting a child is practically better for society, etc, or you could argue that people who adopt a child due to circumstance (friends or relatives die, and they adopt their children, for example) are free from this, because they never cathected the idea of having a child in the first place. But how is an individual or couple deciding to adopt rather than genetically procreate exempt from the ego factor?
[quote]Make1tRa1n wrote:
FlavaDave wrote:
lixy wrote:
I distinguish between the drive to pass on one’s gene (perpetuate one’s family name, etc)and the less ego-centered task of raising kids.
How exactly is it less ego-centered?
How is it not?
See, I can argue like you.[/quote]
I didn’t say it wasn’t. I was asking for clarification. You’re being childish.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Some of your other comments should be addressed, but I am pressed for time at the moment.
This is interesting… do you see adoption as being exempt from ego? That is, whether I adopt a child or have one of my own, would I not still wish to achieve self-worth through having a child - regardless of how I “have” that child? You can argue that adopting a child is practically better for society, etc, or you could argue that people who adopt a child due to circumstance (friends or relatives die, and they adopt their children, for example) are free from this, because they never cathected the idea of having a child in the first place. But how is an individual or couple deciding to adopt rather than genetically procreate exempt from the ego factor?[/quote]
Good point. Not “exempt”, but much less influenced by it.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Make1tRa1n wrote:
Whether or not they planned for it, they don’t have a lot of choices in the matter - they either adapt or bail. Given the amount that do bail, I would much rather pick up the slack and adopt than procreate.
That’s my opinion on the topic, specific to the ego factor in determining whether or not to have children.
Some of your other comments should be addressed, but I am pressed for time at the moment.
This is interesting… do you see adoption as being exempt from ego? That is, whether I adopt a child or have one of my own, would I not still wish to achieve self-worth through having a child - regardless of how I “have” that child? You can argue that adopting a child is practically better for society, etc, or you could argue that people who adopt a child due to circumstance (friends or relatives die, and they adopt their children, for example) are free from this, because they never cathected the idea of having a child in the first place. But how is an individual or couple deciding to adopt rather than genetically procreate exempt from the ego factor?[/quote]
Address them, I stand by what I said (party yacht and all).
You must have read the Road Less Traveled.
Why bring another life into the world when there are already so many in need. And no, I did not say adoption is exempt. Same deal - just a more pragmatic/less consumer-like approach to fulfilling one’s desire to have children.
[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Make1tRa1n wrote:
FlavaDave wrote:
lixy wrote:
I distinguish between the drive to pass on one’s gene (perpetuate one’s family name, etc)and the less ego-centered task of raising kids.
How exactly is it less ego-centered?
How is it not?
See, I can argue like you.
I didn’t say it wasn’t. I was asking for clarification. You’re being childish.[/quote]
Pleased to meet you Mr. Kettle. I am sure you would get some ‘clarification’ amongst your other demands if you contributed valid points to the argument.
[quote]Make1tRa1n wrote:
I didn’t say it wasn’t. I was asking for clarification. You’re being childish.
Pleased to meet you Mr. Kettle. I am sure you would get some ‘clarification’ amongst your other demands if you contributed valid points to the argument.
[/quote]
All I see as of now is a few people arguing different things. There’s no baseline which is why people need to clarify.
[quote]Make1tRa1n wrote:
You must have read the Road Less Traveled.
[/quote]
No, I haven’t.
Fair enough.
Slightly deviating from the discussion, but why the hell is liking kids such an admired trait? Most people(especially women) are taken aback when I say I flat-out dislike them and their behavior. It’s as if it’s morally reprehensible to dislike children.(personally, I sympathize more with dogs and furry creatures than babies for some reason)
I hate the little shits. They’re generally loud, obnoxious and stupid. Every parent feels their piece of shit is so “special” and “unique” and entitled to so much. I don’t think an over-inflated sense of self or self-esteem is really the best thing for someone to grow up believing. I know how manipulative and evil they can be as well. And as they grow, they just turn into stupid teenage shits.(I know, I was one)
I’ll be the first to admit I had a somewhat rough childhood(depressed mother → suicide, yada yada; no abuse or drugs though) and growing up in a less than ideal environment may skew my views on this issue.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Make1tRa1n wrote:
Whether or not they planned for it, they don’t have a lot of choices in the matter - they either adapt or bail. Given the amount that do bail, I would much rather pick up the slack and adopt than procreate.
That’s my opinion on the topic, specific to the ego factor in determining whether or not to have children.
Some of your other comments should be addressed, but I am pressed for time at the moment.
This is interesting… do you see adoption as being exempt from ego? That is, whether I adopt a child or have one of my own, would I not still wish to achieve self-worth through having a child - regardless of how I “have” that child? You can argue that adopting a child is practically better for society, etc, or you could argue that people who adopt a child due to circumstance (friends or relatives die, and they adopt their children, for example) are free from this, because they never cathected the idea of having a child in the first place. But how is an individual or couple deciding to adopt rather than genetically procreate exempt from the ego factor?[/quote]
If you adopt this argument(ego), then a biological child holds far more symbolic significance(by and large) than an adopted child. The fact that the biological child has some of your physical characteristics as well as a sense of lineage supports this notion, I believe. There also seems to be a sense of “I’m passing part of myself on” and “part of me will be here when I’m gone…”. Of course, I’m merely speculating; I can’t read minds!
Still, both scenarios(adoption and having a kid) confer possible benefits down the road to your ego. By taking pride in his/her possible accomplishments, you also hint that you were responsible for them through the methods you used to raise the child. Saying “My child is studying engineering at MIT” or “He/she’s just finishing up law school at Harvard” is definitely an ego boost for such parents. On the flip side, the child’s failures in adulthood often bring with them shame to parents, hurting their ego and sense of accomplishment in parenthood.
[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
Slightly deviating from the discussion, but why the hell is liking kids such an admired trait? Most people(especially women) are taken aback when I say I flat-out dislike them and their behavior. It’s as if it’s morally reprehensible to dislike children.(personally, I sympathize more with dogs and furry creatures than babies for some reason)
I hate the little shits. They’re generally loud, obnoxious and stupid. Every parent feels their piece of shit is so “special” and “unique” and entitled to so much. I don’t think an over-inflated sense of self or self-esteem is really the best thing for someone to grow up believing. I know how manipulative and evil they can be as well. And as they grow, they just turn into stupid teenage shits.(I know, I was one)
I’ll be the first to admit I had a somewhat rough childhood(depressed mother → suicide, yada yada; no abuse or drugs though) and growing up in a less than ideal environment may skew my views on this issue.
[/quote]
Ha! Ha!
Great post!
[quote]blitzkrg wrote:
While i understand her desire is hormonal based, it doesn’t appear that way to her.
she just “feels” it. and logic doesn’t go over well with many women.
[/quote]
Why is it that when foolish men engage with equally foolish women, they feel justified in bashing half the people on the planet? But why stop with only half? Logic surely doesn’t “go over” any better with men who’ll marry women they don’t respect. So I guess logic doesn’t go over well with many men?
To the OP.
No, it appears there’s no one who can actually answer your question.