Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Lori Mckenna Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer angrybirds angrybirds angrybirds  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro STEM
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Failure to breed; is it 'irresponsible and selfish' to not have kids?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 15, 2012 8:38:40 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
Clarissa recently made this claim, albeit in racial rather than strictly religious context ("the Muslims are invading us!")

I can see why religions would encourage procreation to generate more adherents to the faith community... but can they legitimately condemn those who do NOT reproduce?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 9:45:36 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 22, 2012 3:15:39 AM PST
I never used the words you put in quotes, so your post is dishonest.

The terminology "breed" is yours as well. I would NEVER say that.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 9:57:33 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2012 9:57:58 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
That's expressing a concept, e.g., a "live and let live" policy. Quotation marks have more than one use, if you're not familiar with English.

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 9:59:10 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Nov 17, 2012 10:54:04 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 10:21:51 AM PST
Thanks. Here in France, quotes must only be used around exact words.

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 10:30:12 AM PST
Art Franklin says:
With overpopulation running rampant, the only responsible goal is Zero-Population Growth.

I applaud people that choose not to breed, and don't begrudge a couple that has two or less children, unless they don't have the means to support them.

Here's a good rule of thumb: if you can't afford to allow one parent to stay with a child to raise him/her for the bulk of the day then you probably can't afford it.

This is why I laugh when people complain about the unemployment rate, by the way. It's a percentage, stupid! With a growing population and both genders in the workforce, there have never been this much competition for resources.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 11:17:51 AM PST
Astrocat says:
Art, I agree that zero-population growth is a responsible goal. I haven't done the math, but I imagine a couple of generations with no more than 2.2 (that .2 is interesting....) children per fertile woman, and when the births do not exceed the deaths will achieve ZPG. With over 7 billion people on the planet at this moment, we don't have any time to lose.

I think good old Mother Nature/Gaia, is going to let us know very quickly that we haven't done enough and we'd better get in gear. Just watch as the icecaps continue to melt and the sea levels rise. I wonder if we'll get the hint in time?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 11:27:10 AM PST
Ariex says:
Nancy Davison says: "Just watch as the icecaps continue to melt and the sea levels rise. I wonder if we'll get the hint in time?"

Ariex: Not if their ministers can help it. They are encouraged to believe that God is going to fix it, or that the end times will solve their personal problems if they stay faithful. Not a good incentive for making a sacrifice for the good of all.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 11:29:41 AM PST
Astrocat says:
Oh, that's right, and then there's Armageddon, and the Jews that have to convert to Christianity before that can happen. That's why they get so annoyed when our government doesn't help the Israelis annihilate the Palestinians...oh, but don't get me started.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 8:20:16 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2012 8:22:10 PM PST
Bubba says:
The birth rate for ZPG is dependent upon or influenced by mortality rates and the sex ratio at birth, it is not a fixed number, that is why it is not necessarily a whole number -- and it can change.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 8:33:56 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 15, 2016 3:25:28 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 8:53:15 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Nov 17, 2012 10:54:30 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 8:55:01 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 15, 2016 3:25:38 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 8:56:39 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2012 8:58:02 PM PST
NeoPaganBaby says:
Brian says: "I can see why religions would encourage procreation to generate more adherents to the faith community... but can they legitimately condemn those who do NOT reproduce?"
------------------------------------------
Typical of what religions do I suppose they could "legitimately" condemn non-reproduction as "legitimately" as everything else they condemn. It would seem though that, in order to remain self-serving, the condemnation would only fall on members of their own religion. Condemning others for it would be contrary to their goal.

Clarissa specifically was advocating racial, not religious dominance by pleading for more "white Europeans" to breed. Her goal was supposedly to promote cultural purity. I really can't get my head around how that's different from *racial* purity. I will say she hasn't yet advocated anything as radical as the Lebensborn Program from 1930s Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

BTW, thanks for starting this separate thread. Hopefully the "reproduction obligation" issue can move here and stop cluttering the Proposition 8 thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 9:27:40 PM PST
it is irresponsible for anyone to have kids

we have way too many people now
billions will starve to death
do you wnat your kid to suffer that way ?
billions more will die from disease.
and millions will die in the wars tha tfollow.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 9:28:32 PM PST
we need NPG
there are 7 billion people too many already

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 9:33:41 PM PST
Astrocat says:
Bubba, I know that. I tend to be a bit facetious from time to time.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 10:51:24 PM PST
Brian Curtis - "but can they legitimately condemn those who do NOT reproduce? "

Well, there's the "Quiverfull" movement - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

Some think that women should be having babies. That's partly a matter of their biblical role, but, from what I've read elsewhere, feeds into the "Joel's Army" dominionist idea of populating an Army by which [dominionist] Christians would take over society. I'm not sure how tenable that goal is--having as many kids as you physically can is expensive, and I suspect more women are given to talk about how great the lifestyle is than are willing to do it themselves.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 11:37:40 PM PST
Re OP: "can they legitimately condemn those who do NOT reproduce?" No. This is strictly a personal decision, which affects no one else. There is certainly enough reproduction going on to keep the race going -- but, ultimately, this too is irrelevant. The universe got on just fine for billions of years without H. sapiens, and will do so again if we ever die out -- which, eventually, we will. But we have potentially some billions of years to enjoy life -- so, let us do so in full measure.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 1:15:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 16, 2012 1:15:43 AM PST
A lot of white Europeans have (shortsightedly) given up on having children. That is having results on who comes into the continent. A changed Europe is not what Europeans want, culturally.

Note, NeoPagaNBaby, that I did not end my sentence with the word "racially."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 5:47:06 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
How do you know that Europeans "don't want" a changed Europe--especially if their actions show that they do?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 5:59:02 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 16, 2012 6:01:07 AM PST
"We welcome immigration" is not being shouted from the rooftops... Governments are blamed for the pro-immigration policies, an inevitable response to suffering demographics in their countries.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 6:05:49 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
That's not the actions I was referring to. I was referring to the decision to NOT try and out-breed the immigrants; that's an action of personal choice as well.

It's just one you disagree with. So why is your vision for Europe preferable to theirs?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 6:09:20 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 16, 2012 6:12:17 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 7:36:27 AM PST
quert says:
Re the OP: "Failure to breed; is it 'irresponsible and selfish' to not have kids?"

I think another important question to ask is what the demographics are in regard to who is contributing to the gene pool and who is not. If members of the undereducated and underprivileged population are the main contributors, what are the chances that the burgeoning population will be better informed, or even concerned at all, with the ecological and sociological effects of overpopulation? Just a thought.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 52 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  49
Total posts:  1294
Initial post:  Nov 15, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 18, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions