3 ms·
I strongly oppose the notion that you're not a full member of society without kids. That's an unnecessary attack on a valid lifestyle choice. And even worse, a
by wasmitnetzen 4y ago
I strongly oppose the notion that you're not a full member of society without kids. That's an unnecessary attack on a valid lifestyle choice. And even worse, a lot of people don't even get to choose, which you're ignoring entirely.
- benj111 4y agoIt also raises question of whether the children are full members of society, and if you lose your membership when your kids reach 18/move out/have their own kids. Surely potential breeders should be more deserving of membership than those that are no longer capable? Further, surely rapists are more deserving that abortionees?
- unnouinceput 4y agoMy point is if you can choose, then choose the best for your kids. Also humanity exists solely because of reproduction and reproduction means kids. So yeah, you're not fully a member of society until you raise kids, yours or adopted it doesn't matter. The ultimate contribution to humanity is to be a parent.
- wasmitnetzen 4y agoOur societies are built on specializing on what you're good at. If you're not a good parent, you should let people who are good at it handle that part. Yes, a (developed) society needs about 2.1 children per woman (or have immigration from other societies) but people not having kids can easily be averaged out by other people having three or four kids. I would actually argue that in the face of climate change, a society having too many kids and thus a growing population and resource usage is disadvantageous for the society's survival.