PDA

View Full Version : Children



Lallante
August 16 2012, 09:30:46 AM
Is it more narcissistic to have kids, or to not have kids?

Zeekar
August 16 2012, 12:37:12 PM
Neither is narcissistic.

Nicho Void
August 16 2012, 02:29:08 PM
Kids ruin lives.

NoirAvlaa
August 16 2012, 02:32:53 PM
My plan: Have 1 kid. If I want more, adopt. I may even just adopt. There's too many people in the world as it is without adding more.

Joshua Foiritain
August 16 2012, 03:44:30 PM
Kids ruin lives.
and bankaccounts.

Dark Flare
August 16 2012, 03:48:00 PM
Neither.


I don't know what to say about having kids to be honest. On the one hand, the other half wants them. On the other hand I don't think it's particularly ethical to bring more people into the world in the state it's in regarding overpopulation. On the other hand, stupid people aren't going to think about that, so smart people NEED to have kids. On the other hand :donotwant: to pass on my mental-condition laden genes.

Welp. Honestly I think most countries should be trying to run a 1 child per couple rule. There is no way we can sustain the current rate of births. And if we're not willing to do that, we should at least be only offering child benefit for first 1 or 2 kids. Maybe then unemployed fuckwits will stop turning their vaginas into money-printers.

Paradox
August 16 2012, 03:50:08 PM
I think under most circumstances having children is irresponsible. Can't say whether it's narcissistic or not, depends on the person/ couple I suppose. We need less people on this planet.

Edit: yeah, what Darkflare said.

Smuggo
August 16 2012, 03:51:40 PM
Honestly I think most countries should be trying to run a 1 child per couple rule.

And end up with a rapidly ageing population with not enough young working people to maintain it? Bad idea.

Dark Flare
August 16 2012, 03:58:51 PM
Honestly I think most countries should be trying to run a 1 child per couple rule.

And end up with a rapidly ageing population with not enough young working people to maintain it? Bad idea.

A better idea than a world without enough food, housing and resources. Sure, one working generation will have to work longer and harder than any has done before. But at least we won't end up all starving to death and killing each other over food. I know which I'd choose.

Smuggo
August 16 2012, 04:02:25 PM
Honestly I think most countries should be trying to run a 1 child per couple rule.

And end up with a rapidly ageing population with not enough young working people to maintain it? Bad idea.

A better idea than a world without enough food, housing and resources. Sure, one working generation will have to work longer and harder than any has done before. But at least we won't end up all starving to death and killing each other over food. I know which I'd choose.

IMO, shortening people's lifespans would be a better idea, though it's obviously not very politically palatable.

Dark Flare
August 16 2012, 04:03:59 PM
I'm not sure anyone would ever win an election with that policy... :D

Lallante
August 16 2012, 04:22:57 PM
The whole "too many people on the planet already" arguement seems a bit simplistic to me. The problem is not so much how many people there are but what kind of people. Most people born into a developed western country are going to be highly productive, higher than their marginal consumption of resources. The only people who should be saying "too many people" are those who cant financially support children without help from government, charity, or simply living in abject poverty.

Short of a major catastrophe (just short of an extinction event), wealthy people in western countries aren't going to be fighting for food. Africans, asian peasants etc. will be, while we invest in / buy solutions that cater for our needs.

If anything this puts a moral obligation on you to breed and instill good environmental, social and moral values in your kids to try and outweigh the retards and get a better grip of global politics

Zeekar
August 16 2012, 04:29:17 PM
Our food production is almost solely based on our energy production. Increase the latter you can increase the former.

indi
August 16 2012, 04:36:42 PM
Having kids can be narcissistic. Narcissists see children as an extension of themselves, after all. Mostly it's probably more the biological imperative which you make yourself feel good about with the warm fuzzy hormones your body produces when it thinks of family and love. Not much you can do about that except rationally decide not to have them, if you are so inclined.

I've seen a lot of women going from "yeh, kids would be nice one day" to "do want babby, now" within the space of weeks. It's a biological thing, as far as I can tell. I count myself lucky not to have it. Of course, itwon't really be an evolutionary success as I'm cutting this branch off the family tree. My reasoning is fairly simple. My mother in law once said it rather succinctly: " you have to (be prepared to) give up everything for your kids; of course if you want them, you'll do so happily" I'd probably end up resenting that poor kid that I didn't really want anyway, and that's just child abuse.


The whole "too many people on the planet already" arguement seems a bit simplistic to me. The problem is not so much how many people there are but what kind of people. Most people born into a developed western country are going to be highly productive, higher than their marginal consumption of resources.

We don't have a marginal consumption of resources. The amount of water (much more needed for cattle than for plants, for instance) needed is staggering. Don't even want to know how many rare metals go into our fancy machinery - of which I too have plenty, by the way - and so on and so forth.

In simple terms, the planet is being overused by the amount of people living on it and we continue to explode. Certainly smart people need to provide more of the kids, compared to the stupid people. But hey, you can't blame poor people much (think Africa) for producing 12+ kids. Risk of at least half of them dying before maturity are enormous and the parents need those kids in an economical sense. So what would probably help is eliminate/reduce poverty. How? Good fucking question. I'm 33 now and the pictures I see in order to entice me to donate money to the Horn of Africa now are exactly the same as when I was 4.

Irrelephant
August 16 2012, 05:05:46 PM
As already said, neither. Children per se have nothing to do with being narcissistic, it is up to each individual how they pursue their narcissim. For some that might be getting children, for others it is the opposite.

On overpopulation, i think the so called civilised word is doing it's best that the 3rd world stays the easily exploitable shithole that it is. Take the massive campaign against birth protection of our beloved christian church all over africa or all the corrupt puppets installed in charge in most of those countries for example. As long as profit > * i don't see that changing.

Lallante
August 16 2012, 05:09:07 PM
I think most people who by choice don't have children make that decision because they are fundamentally selfish and are not therefore willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

Zeekar
August 16 2012, 05:14:54 PM
I think most people who by choice don't have children make that decision because they are fundamentally selfish and are not therefore willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

So their wishes dont come in your limited view? Maybe some people simply dont WISH to have children?

Irrelephant
August 16 2012, 05:20:11 PM
I think most people who by choice don't have children make that decision because they are fundamentally selfish and are not therefore willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

You might also call it being sensible. A question of perspective really. If your goals in life don't leave you with enough time to raise children properly it is better to don't get any. You can call that selfish yes, but it's not like everyone needs to have children for the human race to survive, so i don't see anything wrong with that. On the opposite it can be quite selfish if you get children just because you want to knowing full well you either can't support them or are too busy working on your career in the first place.

Liare
August 16 2012, 05:41:51 PM
pretty much any shortage problem can be solved or worked around by tossing enough raw energy and :science!: at it at this stage, the whole "oh noes, no more rare earth" is largely hogwash, the real narrative is "oh noes, no more easily minable and rich areas of rare earth, because we haven't bothered to survey for more deposits all that well"

add the fact that most of the compounds are fairly easy to recycle and that there's plenty of the stuff around, but that much of it is not quite as easy to extract the "laws" of supply and demand come into effect, i mean for pete's sake something like Cerium is about as common as copper, and nobody is running about ranting about us running out of that specific metal despite the fact it's pretty much the foundation of our modern lifestyle. (pro tip, what's inside wires ? where dont you see wires today ?)

the future problem is largely in the "where fuck do we get all the power to do that ?" department along with growing social instability, the irony is of course we have the answers right in front of us, it's just that people think it's SO MUCH better to burn dead trees, solid or fluid rather than accepting the risks involved in splitting atoms apart, and later on fusing them together.

as for children, i dont see much point in it right now, i have no way to ensure i am able to care for them in the long term, so why take on such a commitment ?

Zeekar
August 16 2012, 05:47:33 PM
I'm even thinking the only real way to get massive interest in space exploration is to have a serious supply problem of specific resources. When there is a need there is a way.

TheManFromDelmonte
August 16 2012, 07:23:41 PM
I think most people who by choice don't have children make that decision because they are fundamentally selfish and are not therefore willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

If they were really selfish they'd have the children then use them as slaves without making the sacrifices.

Sacul
August 16 2012, 07:43:46 PM
I never wanted kids for a variety of reasons. The whole life stopping and completely revolving around the little one is in the top 3. I guess its all about how you handle it offcourse but i have seen couples just pressing the pause button on their lives to cater to the kid, pretty amazing to see people change in that fashion but i have also seen some of my more economically well off friends doing it right but you need money for babysitters big checks for the right car and again lots of money for holidays.

Reason number 2 is that i think that world is a pretty fucked up place and for most of my life i was of the firm opinion of putting a kid on this planet isnt a blessing but a curse for the new born. Kinda changed my mind on that.

Reason 3 is the aforementioned over population but again changed my mind since it isnt so much a problem of to many people as it is a distribution of wealth problem that could be solved with the right political agenda (yes i really believe that).

But hey what do i know? Im currently babysitting a 2,5 year old while her mum is doing kushido and i spend every weekend with them mostly doing kid focused things.

Pretty awesome seeing her growing up so far but that is mostly because she is of the age of truely learning if it would have been a shit machine of 12 months i would probably say something different.

ANd in answer to Lall's question: no its neither but it can be.

SAI Peregrinus
August 17 2012, 06:45:52 AM
I suffer from Severe Depression. My father also has dealt with it, as had my grandmother on his side. Thus it's likely genetic in origin.

I would not want my worst enemy to deal with how this makes one feel. To risk bringing a child into the world with this would be negligent.

Sacul
August 17 2012, 08:11:47 AM
I suffer from Severe Depression. My father also has dealt with it, as had my grandmother on his side. Thus it's likely genetic in origin.

I would not want my worst enemy to deal with how this makes one feel. To risk bringing a child into the world with this would be negligent.

Clinical depression is in the majority of cases not hereditary. In fact many a study has shown having kids will help against depression but for moral reasons its better to get a dog or cat :)

Rami
August 17 2012, 08:53:18 AM
As a former child free think-alike and converted father, let me try and give some perspective from the other side.


I never wanted kids for a variety of reasons. The whole life stopping and completely revolving around the little one is in the top 3. I guess its all about how you handle it offcourse but i have seen couples just pressing the pause button on their lives to cater to the kid, pretty amazing to see people change in that fashion but i have also seen some of my more economically well off friends doing it right but you need money for babysitters big checks for the right car and again lots of money for holidays.

There's no dodging around this, if you *are* going to have a child (or more than one) then be prepared for a big change. However, a lot can be prepared and informing yourself can save you a lot of worries and pains. There is a big financial cost as well, although in most western worlds there is an enormous amount of support. Innumerable amounts of poor families are still having kids, so it can be done (and not all are living off the benefits). If you spend any time with your kids though you'll quickly realise it's a very tiny price to pay for what you get to witness. From delivering my son (did not intend to) in my living room myself, to watching him try and crawl around, to walking, speaking and now, at age 4, reading, writing and reasoning it's not something I'd give up again, even if it meant we'd probably have much more money to waste.



Reason number 2 is that i think that world is a pretty fucked up place and for most of my life i was of the firm opinion of putting a kid on this planet isnt a blessing but a curse for the new born. Kinda changed my mind on that.

Nonsense, kids make it better if anything, and someone has to be around later on when things get better eh ;)



Reason 3 is the aforementioned over population but again changed my mind since it isnt so much a problem of to many people as it is a distribution of wealth problem that could be solved with the right political agenda (yes i really believe that).


Overpopulation is an issue when people have 5 to 15 kids instead of just a few. I'm not having more kids because a) we'd be ancient by the time we get the latest one raised, b) medical reasons on the wife's side, and c) it would mean a too large reduction in the quality of life I can give my family, due to costs.

I used to think that humans should be more than just procreating and that kids weren't anything I'd need or want. However at the end of the proverbial day, the only thing you ARE going to leave behind will be your kids (we wouldn't be here otherwise). I hope to be able to do that, as looking back now I'd hate to get to retirement and regret not having kids. The one thing you do risk with having kids, is losing them, as horrible as it is. Probably the single worst thing I fear these days is something happening to my kids :(

Lallante
August 17 2012, 09:57:37 AM
I think most people who by choice don't have children make that decision because they are fundamentally selfish and are not therefore willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

So their wishes dont come in your limited view? Maybe some people simply dont WISH to have children?

You are seeing "selfish" and reading "massive dicks" - Selfish means their focus is their own desires over other concerns. If they don't "wish" to have children so dont, they are selfish.

Lallante
August 17 2012, 09:58:33 AM
I think most people who by choice don't have children make that decision because they are fundamentally selfish and are not therefore willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

You might also call it being sensible. A question of perspective really. If your goals in life don't leave you with enough time to raise children properly it is better to don't get any. You can call that selfish yes, but it's not like everyone needs to have children for the human race to survive, so i don't see anything wrong with that. On the opposite it can be quite selfish if you get children just because you want to knowing full well you either can't support them or are too busy working on your career in the first place.

Agree on both those points - just because you act out of selfishness doesnt mean you are wrong.

Dark Flare
August 17 2012, 11:49:24 AM
I think most people who by choice don't have children make that decision because they are fundamentally selfish and are not therefore willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

So their wishes dont come in your limited view? Maybe some people simply dont WISH to have children?

You are seeing "selfish" and reading "massive dicks" - Selfish means their focus is their own desires over other concerns. If they don't "wish" to have children so dont, they are selfish.

And you're implying that the only reason not to have children is that you want to "focus on your own desires over other concerns". Which isn't true.

indi
August 17 2012, 11:53:40 AM
It could be me, but I don't really see how having children because you want them (for whatever reason) is non-selfish.

Aramendel
August 17 2012, 12:07:49 PM
And you're implying that the only reason not to have children is that you want to "focus on your own desires over other concerns". Which isn't true.

Agreed there. I.e. what if you are not very smart and are therefore stuck with a shit job and got simply not enough money to pay for a kid? Sometimes even the biggest sacrifices are not enough.

Also, "wish" is a bit relative here. I think more or less every adult has some "wish" for children. It is in our genes. I think a better word would be "could".

Smuggo
August 17 2012, 12:11:40 PM
I dunno why people think there is a debate to be had. At the end of the day, if you feel like you want the experience of bringing up children then you will try to have children or adopt them and if not then that's cool too. It's not really something where you should sit about weighing up the pros and cons of it. If you want a child and your partner wants a child then go for it.

Lallante
August 17 2012, 12:28:14 PM
It could be me, but I don't really see how having children because you want them (for whatever reason) is non-selfish.

I want kids AND I feel like its my duty as a member of society to have them. Its trivially obvious that a society with no children will die.


I dont think "yeah but other people will have kids so it doesnt matter if you dont" is an effective argument - by the same token "it doesnt matter if I never wash up the dishes because eventually my flatmate will do it for me".

Dark Flare
August 17 2012, 12:50:24 PM
I dont think "yeah but other people will have kids so it doesnt matter if you dont" is an effective argument - by the same token "it doesnt matter if I never wash up the dishes because eventually my flatmate will do it for me".

SRS subforum is supposed to be no trolling Lallante :lol:

indi
August 17 2012, 01:07:48 PM
It could be me, but I don't really see how having children because you want them (for whatever reason) is non-selfish.

I want kids AND I feel like its my duty as a member of society to have them. Its trivially obvious that a society with no children will die.

By your own words, doing something because you want it is selfish:

Selfish means their focus is their own desires over other concerns.

It just so happens that your own desire aligns with your perception of your duty. Yes, a society with no children will die. So far we don't have to worry about a society with no children, though ;) (and here I plusrep Dark Flare)

Shiodome
August 17 2012, 01:18:38 PM
On topic, but from another angle...

I have a close friend who's in a long term relationship with his GF. The relationship has been breaking down recently to the extent where they took a 'break' (which meant he got to live on my sofa, she stayed at home). Things being left as they were, they would absolutely have broken up and gone their seperate ways now moderatley amicably. Last month however it's been revealed that the lady involved is pregnant and is going to have the child, a decision in which the guy doesn't really get any say in.

There is now a situation where it looks to me like they will stay together 'for the kids sake'. Perhaps the kid will save the relationship (dubious), but if not that's a couple of decades of forced unhappiness. This is a real situation btw, and my mate has no intention of bailing on the kid regardless of strained rlations with the mother. But really it's had me thinking about 'kids', and wondered what FHC's opinions are on:

The say/input a father has in the options related to a pregnancy.
The obligation a father has to the mother where otherwise there'd be no contact.
Whether or not it is better for the kid that the parents to stay together if the only reason they do stay together is the kid.

As an aside, it's been really sad to see a close friend 'man up' knowing full well he's likely to spend the prime of his life unhappy. fingers crossed it's a magic wonder baby that changes everything, but those of us that know the couple aren't optemistic. :(

Zeekar
August 17 2012, 01:23:59 PM
The say/input a father has in the options related to a pregnancy.

Its up to the woman in question without debate.


The obligation a father has to the mother where otherwise there'd be no contact.

I haven't made up my mind here.


Whether or not it is better for the kid that the parents to stay together if the only reason they do stay together is the kid.

It is not better. Staying together just because of the child will result in unhappiness in the long term and an unhappy childhood for the kid. Children can understand divorce if they are treated as normal and not as retards.

Shiodome
August 17 2012, 01:27:11 PM
The say/input a father has in the options related to a pregnancy.

Its up to the woman in question without debate.



is it really reasonable for something to be 'beyond debate' when it majorly affects a person for the rest of their life?

Zeekar
August 17 2012, 01:28:17 PM
Her body her decision. No debate.

Dark Flare
August 17 2012, 01:32:36 PM
That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

Zeekar
August 17 2012, 01:35:13 PM
That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

This is the part where I haven't made my mind completely but I'm leaning towards your position.

Shiodome
August 17 2012, 01:40:43 PM
yeah, i guess my question was made under the assumption that the father is forced to support the kid (which afaik is the case in the UK?)

Smuggo
August 17 2012, 01:43:14 PM
That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

If he doesn't want a child there is contraception available to prevent it.

Like it or not, a human being exists that needs support and that is 50% of the father's DNA and since a woman can't make children on her own then the man should stump up some of the cash to pay for that kid.

Dark Flare
August 17 2012, 01:53:39 PM
That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

If he doesn't want a child there is contraception available to prevent it.

Like it or not, a human being exists that needs support and that is 50% of the father's DNA and since a woman can't make children on her own then the man should stump up some of the cash to pay for that kid.

And if they were using birth control? And it didn't work/she lied and didn't take it? Or if a condom broke, or any other multitude of things that can go wrong.
If the man doesn't want a kid, and tried to avoid having a kid, and the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, he should have no legal obligation to pay IMO. It's entirely her choice to keep the kid, and she has knowledge of his position.

Zeekar
August 17 2012, 01:54:30 PM
My opinion isnt exclusive with Darks. What I'm saying is that its woman decision if she wants to keep the child and her alone. Contraceptions can and do fail and accidents happen now is it fair for us to force the father to be involved with that child when he clearly doesn't want to be in any way? Now I would say if the child's well being is endangered then he should give the child some sort of financial support but when that is clearly not the case I don't think he should.

Smuggo
August 17 2012, 01:56:22 PM
That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

If he doesn't want a child there is contraception available to prevent it.

Like it or not, a human being exists that needs support and that is 50% of the father's DNA and since a woman can't make children on her own then the man should stump up some of the cash to pay for that kid.

And if they were using birth control? And it didn't work/she lied and didn't take it? Or if a condom broke, or any other multitude of things that can go wrong.
If the man doesn't want a kid, and tried to avoid having a kid, and the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, he should have no legal obligation to pay IMO. It's entirely her choice to keep the kid, and she has knowledge of his position.

The chance of contraception failure is small, so you pretty much have to accept there is a minute chance you will end up paying for it anyway.

If you're that concerned by it then keep your cock in your trousers.

Zeekar
August 17 2012, 02:09:32 PM
That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

If he doesn't want a child there is contraception available to prevent it.

Like it or not, a human being exists that needs support and that is 50% of the father's DNA and since a woman can't make children on her own then the man should stump up some of the cash to pay for that kid.

And if they were using birth control? And it didn't work/she lied and didn't take it? Or if a condom broke, or any other multitude of things that can go wrong.
If the man doesn't want a kid, and tried to avoid having a kid, and the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, he should have no legal obligation to pay IMO. It's entirely her choice to keep the kid, and she has knowledge of his position.

There is also one other thing to take in consideration, child isnt at fault for being born to a crazy mother. And the current laws are made with childs best well being in mind.

Lallante
August 17 2012, 02:10:51 PM
That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

If he doesn't want a child there is contraception available to prevent it.

Like it or not, a human being exists that needs support and that is 50% of the father's DNA and since a woman can't make children on her own then the man should stump up some of the cash to pay for that kid.

And if they were using birth control? And it didn't work/she lied and didn't take it? Or if a condom broke, or any other multitude of things that can go wrong.
If the man doesn't want a kid, and tried to avoid having a kid, and the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, he should have no legal obligation to pay IMO. It's entirely her choice to keep the kid, and she has knowledge of his position.

That's an incredibly selfish point of view. The reason the law works differently is for the kids sake, not the moms.

Dark Flare
August 17 2012, 02:39:15 PM
That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

If he doesn't want a child there is contraception available to prevent it.

Like it or not, a human being exists that needs support and that is 50% of the father's DNA and since a woman can't make children on her own then the man should stump up some of the cash to pay for that kid.

And if they were using birth control? And it didn't work/she lied and didn't take it? Or if a condom broke, or any other multitude of things that can go wrong.
If the man doesn't want a kid, and tried to avoid having a kid, and the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, he should have no legal obligation to pay IMO. It's entirely her choice to keep the kid, and she has knowledge of his position.

That's an incredibly selfish point of view. The reason the law works differently is for the kids sake, not the moms.

Keeping a kid your partner doesn't want is also an incredibly selfish thing to do.



The chance of contraception failure is small, so you pretty much have to accept there is a minute chance you will end up paying for it anyway.

If you're that concerned by it then keep your cock in your trousers.

You rather conveniently ignored the "she lies about taking contraception" scenario there.
I'm not that concerned, my gf would have an abortion if she got pregnant right now. It would be undoubtedly an accident if she became pregnant, and we're in no position to deal with kids.

Smuggo
August 17 2012, 02:51:31 PM
You rather conveniently ignored the "she lies about taking contraception" scenario there.


Again, if you want better certainty then you need to take that responsibility yourself and not leave it to someone else, especially if they are the sort of unhinged woman who would lie about using contraception.

Dark Flare
August 17 2012, 03:03:14 PM
Unfortunately a lot of people only find that out when it's too late. If a man says he'll wear a condom and doesn't it's rape. If a woman says she's taking the pill, then doesn't, it's the man's fault. Go figure.



(I'm not saying it should be classed as rape, but it sure as shit ain't cool)

KathDougans
August 17 2012, 03:19:22 PM
One of the things that annoys me is the idea, that for some reason a lot of women have, that you can neatly remove the child's father from that child's life. It is just not possible, and is actively dangerous to the child in some situations.

I think someone linked a thing a while back, about statistics for fatherless children, and it was disturbing. Drug abuse, sexual abuse, suicide rates etc, were all a lot higher.

Anyway, having a child with someone is intrinsically meaning you will be involved with that person for the rest of your/their life. Don't want that ? then don't have a child with that person.

There is the disturbing possibility, that if you exclude the father from your childs life, that your child may end up involved with a half-sibling, if the man has another child with a different woman. And that's just the tip of the drama iceberg. Saying to your child "you can't marry X, they're your half-sibling", is just going to alienate your child, make them resent you.

indi
August 17 2012, 03:34:01 PM
So many things :)

Look, I haven't been pregnant and I intend to avoid this. But there's a child growing in your body. I'm pretty sure that it's a huge decision to terminate that life, even if it's just a few weeks along. Factor in that your body is wired not to let you think that type of thought, and yes, in a way I feel it's a woman's decision. Neither a man nor a woman should go back ont heir word about contraception, but accidents happen. The law is there for the kid, not the parents.

Staying together for your child can be a very bad idea. My grandparents stayed together until the very bitter end, generation, blabla. All of their children have their own issues stemming from an unhappy home with a lot of fighting (never physical abuse, just tense atmosphere and fights at night when they thought the kids wouldn't hear/notice). I doubt that was the best decision they could have made, although they probably meant well. But - should you try? Probably.

I grew up without a father. That was nobody's fault except for shitty leukaemia (damn you and diaf). It does have its own problems, although I can happily report I am not a drug addict, have not experienced any type of abuse and so far avoided suicide successfully. You can't stay together for the kid's sake and mess up everyone's life; in that case I don't doubt that the kid would be better off with decent coparenting.

Dark Flare
August 17 2012, 03:39:59 PM
Very early term there isn't a child growing in your body. It's just a clump of cells. As is a virus, and we try to get rid of those.
(okay that wasn't a serious comment)

Though this is heading towards pro-life/pro-choice conversation and I think everyone here is pro-choice anyway.

indi
August 17 2012, 03:44:22 PM
Very early term there isn't a child growing in your body. It's just a clump of cells. As is a virus, and we try to get rid of those.
(okay that wasn't a serious comment)

Though this is heading towards pro-life/pro-choice conversation and I think everyone here is pro-choice anyway.

Yep. Pro-choice. Woman's choice.

Sorry, that's just the reality of it. I wish it was fairer, but the burden is on the woman as well. Life's not fair and we have to find a way to deal... Luckily I am not whelping.

KathDougans
August 17 2012, 04:00:25 PM
There's a difference between "staying together for kid's sake", and not attempting to remove the father from the childs life.

There's at least 4 different things:
Being in a relationship with the child's father,
Staying together for kid's sake, which has some associated problems,
keeping contact with the child's father, so they at least know how they're doing, what they look like, etc.
Trying to remove any influence of the child's father completely, child may not even know their father's name.

the last one, is the one that annoys me, and for some reason, a lot of people seem to think it's a Great Idea.

indi
August 17 2012, 04:11:20 PM
There's a difference between "staying together for kid's sake", and not attempting to remove the father from the childs life.

There's at least 4 different things:
Being in a relationship with the child's father,
Staying together for kid's sake, which has some associated problems,
keeping contact with the child's father, so they at least know how they're doing, what they look like, etc.
Trying to remove any influence of the child's father completely, child may not even know their father's name.

the last one, is the one that annoys me, and for some reason, a lot of people seem to think it's a Great Idea.

To make it absolutely clear, I agree with you!

Cue1*
August 19 2012, 07:09:15 AM
Very early term there isn't a child growing in your body. It's just a clump of cells. As is a virus, and we try to get rid of those.
(okay that wasn't a serious comment)

Though this is heading towards pro-life/pro-choice conversation and I think everyone here is pro-choice anyway.

Yep. Pro-choice. Woman's choice.

Sorry, that's just the reality of it. I wish it was fairer, but the burden is on the woman as well. Life's not fair and we have to find a way to deal... Luckily I am not whelping.

I figure I should start by saying I'm very heavily pro-choice, and that I'm just playing a bit of devils advocate here.

With that said, I feel as man that biology dealt me the shittiest hand ever for this. Seriously, "here's a dick, and a burning desire to stick it in every woman you can find. Oh you wanted the kid? Too bad, no matter what society says, she has physical possession of the child." What if I want the kid and she doesn't? No, I don't think it's right to ask her to carry it to term then give you the kid, but goddamn!

Additionally, what's wrong with being selfish? As a child I was taught sharing is right and what not, and just like everyone else, I caught on and ate it all up. But as an adult, I'm realizing less and less of the lessons I was taught as a child matter. It's my life, and as my life, I think it's important for me to do what makes me happy. If what makes me happy is having a life long relationship with someone and not having children, why am I wrong for being selfish and wanting to not share my theoretically amazing wife/girlfriend with a child? I'm already sharing my most intimate everything with said wife/girlfriend, so why am I wrong for wanting to keep that relationship intact and as is?

Rudolf Miller
August 20 2012, 04:01:23 PM
I had to be the friend to encourage a female to get an abortion because her economic/family/fathering male situation would have been an absolute disaster.

I am not proud of it, but she did the right thing, and I was the backstop to that decision. Believe me, she tried to recant repeatedly.

As for my personal situation, I feel by the rules of Idiocracy, I am bound to father some children for the good of the world. And as an answer to the OP, yes that makes it a narcissistic act.

Lallante
August 20 2012, 06:23:01 PM
Very early term there isn't a child growing in your body. It's just a clump of cells. As is a virus, and we try to get rid of those.
(okay that wasn't a serious comment)

Though this is heading towards pro-life/pro-choice conversation and I think everyone here is pro-choice anyway.

Yep. Pro-choice. Woman's choice.

Sorry, that's just the reality of it. I wish it was fairer, but the burden is on the woman as well. Life's not fair and we have to find a way to deal... Luckily I am not whelping.

I figure I should start by saying I'm very heavily pro-choice, and that I'm just playing a bit of devils advocate here.

With that said, I feel as man that biology dealt me the shittiest hand ever for this. Seriously, "here's a dick, and a burning desire to stick it in every woman you can find. Oh you wanted the kid? Too bad, no matter what society says, she has physical possession of the child." What if I want the kid and she doesn't? No, I don't think it's right to ask her to carry it to term then give you the kid, but goddamn!

Additionally, what's wrong with being selfish? As a child I was taught sharing is right and what not, and just like everyone else, I caught on and ate it all up. But as an adult, I'm realizing less and less of the lessons I was taught as a child matter. It's my life, and as my life, I think it's important for me to do what makes me happy. If what makes me happy is having a life long relationship with someone and not having children, why am I wrong for being selfish and wanting to not share my theoretically amazing wife/girlfriend with a child? I'm already sharing my most intimate everything with said wife/girlfriend, so why am I wrong for wanting to keep that relationship intact and as is?

This is a really good, nuanced post. (I am surprised!)

You are right its totally unfair (but also totally right) a man cant unilaterally decide to have a child. Nature is really unfair, that bitch.

You are also right that on major life decisions like this its almost dumb NOT to be a little selfish.

Lallante
August 20 2012, 07:09:37 PM
I had to be the friend to encourage a female to get an abortion because her economic/family/fathering male situation would have been an absolute disaster.

I am not proud of it, but she did the right thing, and I was the backstop to that decision. Believe me, she tried to recant repeatedly.

As for my personal situation, I feel by the rules of Idiocracy, I am bound to father some children for the good of the world. And as an answer to the OP, yes that makes it a narcissistic act.

This, only by "encourage" you mean "perform" and by "because of her economic/family situation" you mean "because I wanted to see what foetus tastes like".

Nordstern
August 22 2012, 03:00:56 AM
Is it more narcissistic to have kids, or to not have kids?

Is it narcissistic to have offspring? No. Is it narcissistic to outbreed your political opponents? Yes.

Personally, I am in no way ready to have kids. And I certainly don't want to have kids without some degree of gene therapy to fix some...issues.

Sponk
August 22 2012, 04:52:04 AM
Kids are awesome. They're like pet humans with no level cap like dogs do.

They do get exponentially harder to take care of the mor you have tho. One is easy mode, two is much harder, 3+ is fuck off your life is spent catering to them.

NoirAvlaa
August 23 2012, 11:50:11 AM
Kids are awesome. They're like pet humans with no level cap like dogs do.

They do get exponentially harder to take care of the mor you have tho. One is easy mode, two is much harder, 3+ is fuck off your life is spent catering to them.

Kid #6 chiming in. Have a twin also. My house was fun to grow up in.

Sponk
August 23 2012, 11:38:55 PM
Yeah it's probably an S curve rather than an exponential difficulty based on number of kids. After a while they start taking care of each other, which is a synergistic win-win blue ocean paradigm.

Sacul
August 25 2012, 05:58:45 PM
Yeah it's probably an S curve rather than an exponential difficulty based on number of kids. After a while they start taking care of each other, which is a synergistic win-win blue ocean paradigm.

Yeah because all them families are like in that tv series Shameless. Cant be that the whole family has downs or an IQ <80.

Shiodome
August 31 2012, 11:31:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to7uIG8KYhg&feature=player_embedded#!

i guess i can see the attraction of having kids :oops: made me go a bit soft inside ^^

Dark Flare
August 31 2012, 02:33:04 PM
Yeah, until they shit their pants and vomit on the table.

Badboy K
August 31 2012, 02:44:18 PM
kids are awesome, have 2, 3rd is coming in 6 months...lots of work with them, isk sink, sleepless nights...but then they make it up for it with little irrelevant stuff

Zeekar
August 31 2012, 02:46:10 PM
kids are awesome, have 2, 3rd is coming in 6 months...lots of work with them, isk sink, sleepless nights...but then they make it up for it with little irrelevant stuff

I'm still saying you're getting twins. :P