Is it safe to have a child? Americans rethink family planning ahead of Trump’s return
Some in the US are reconsidering children, with fears over reproductive healthcare and the climate crisis front of mind
You're viewing a single thread.
If you're seriously asking yourself this, let me refer you to Mr. Darwin.
I get that people have myriad reasons for not having kids, and I truly respect those reasons, whatever they may be.
But if you throw your hands in the air and say, "Gosh! This is horrible! How irresponsible to bring children into this world!", fine. I'm OK with that. I really am. You're kind of a pussy, but I'm fine with that.
OTOH, my genes will outlive yours, because they're tougher, selfish. This is Biology 101. Maybe check out Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, because that's how the world works. It's simple science, evolution.
tl;dr: I've never given two fucks if my line continues, none, never a thought. But give up a billion years of perfect heritage if you wish. I will not. My children will inherit the Earth, while your line dies. I'm ambivalent on the question, done my part. Roll the dice!
Lol buddy you're kids aren't going to inherit the Earth. We're in a mass extinction event and humans aren't coming out the other side.
You haven't really studied biology have you?
No, please enlighten me with your big brain and perfect genes
Surely you mean *you're big brain
what if I don't care about your genes outliving mine?
My friend (not american) had 3 miscarriages and then a baby at 40. Even in a country with a year of mat leave and a month of pat leave they are fucking exhausted.
Add to that I am in America, in a Southern RTW/AWE state so get 0 pat leave, my wife gets 0 mat leave, and if she miscarriages she could be executed by doctor inaction or prosecuted for daring to not carry a baby to term.
Considering I could get as much longevity in my legacy by being part of several group Guiness world records, have had my work written about in the NYT, am mentioned in passing in a book with an ISBN and am mentioned (again, minorly in passing) on 3 Wikipedia pages - why risk my partners life, health, freedom and endure the hardships to actually raise a child well when there are other ways to ensure you are remembered for roughly 60-80 years?
You don't have to care. In fact, caring doesn't make too much of a difference, some, but not defining.
The better adapted pass on their genes, the less so, well, don't tend to. Was there some part of evolutionary biology you misunderstood?
No, everyone who breeds passes on their genes. The "better adapted" (to what?) could be killed in a fire before they reach puberty, and people with hereditary diseases have kids.
It only has to be good enough to survive to puberty and birth, puberty and birth. Whatever it is you're thinking of as some kind of superior gene would only affect humanity if it were passed on by millions of people who had it, and it proved to be such a boon it meant they could have kids while others can't.
There is currently no natural pressure on humans to not have kids. There is nothing, technically speaking, preventing me from having a baby with a supermodel, an athlete, a wheelchair user...
You claimed not to care if your line continues and then proceed to brag that it will. No one believes you respect reasons to not have kids. Since you told us you don't.
I don't consider it important or necessary to "continue my line". Even if I did, practically everyone in my family has had kids. And I honestly feel sorry for what those kids will endure. Making a living is harder than ever and the election of trump is a horrendous sign of things to come. So yeah, good luck to your kids and your whole weird lineage fascination which you totally "don't have".
Not bragging, simply stating a fact. Didn't plan it that way. Anyway, y'all end your DNA. The better adapted will, as always, continue. Whether that's me, you or the other guy, don't care. I don't make the rules.
I honestly feel sorry for what those kids will endure
Coward. How about the people having kids in:
Without whose toughness, you would likely not exist to make wimpy online comments.
"buT TrumMP!!!"
Grow a fucking pair. Or don't. Don't care.
Since the industrial age, being strong or smart has nothing to do with surviving. Your toxic masculinity is extremely validating. Especially after seeing you in two different threads defending adults having sex with underage girls.
We talking about me saying 17-yo's aren't sexual children?
40 of 50 US states disagree.
As of April 2021, of the total fifty U.S. states, approximately thirty have an age of consent of 16 (with this being the most common age of consent in the country), a handful set the age of consent at 17, and in about eleven states the age is 18.
But let's see what our European friends have to say!
The majority of countries set their ages in the range of 14 to 16; only four countries, Cyprus (17), Ireland (17), Turkey (18), and the Vatican City (18), set an age of consent higher than 16.
Oh god. I hope you did not read that last bit. I am so sorry.
tl;dr: Just because you were an incel at 17 doesn't mean the rest of the world was. Keep white knighting! Someone, someday, will throw you a pity fuck.
Lol what a mental toddler. This is who is having children. Kinda makes sense when you look at the sprint toward Idiocracy we've been on.
This is such a weird take. It sounds like looking for a reason to be happy with your decision to have kids.
Here's the thing about your genes "outliving" others': by definition, it cannot affect you at all.
I don't have to make a justification for having my kids. I simply wanted to.
And yes, so far so good on my genes outliving the people who won't have kids. Genes are kinda selfish, ya know? Have you actually read any books on this subject?
I have, actually. A lot, with all the extra time from not having kids.
Have you ever read Sex At Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá? If we're doing early humanity sociological book recs.
I really don't get the weird attachment to having your generic lineage continue. I guess it's just as arbitrary as hoping that anything in particular will outlive you, but it's not going to do you in particular any good, and it seems to me there's less reason to think it'll help people as a whole than doing something productive with your money rather than spending it all in diapers, clothes, college, and so on.
I don't care so much either, but I guess that didn't come across. My point was, I've passed my genes so I'm better adapted that those who refuse. My kids will go on, or not. The other path is a dead end.
My point is that you're ascribing some kind of value to passing genes along and that seems super weird.
I've read The Selfish Gene and also studied Biology, earning a BS in the process. One thing you fail to consider is your genes are diluted with each generation. Your children will have 50% of your genes, your grandchildren 25%, and their children will each have 12.5% of your precious genes. And lest you think your genes are somehow unique and valuable, most likely 100% of them already exist in other people.
You also fail to mention that Dawkins, rightfully concerned about those using his work to justify selfishness, explicitly discusses how, now that we know of these selfish-replicators, we can cultivate pure altruism - going against our biological programming and doing the right thing. That's what people who choose not to have children are doing - they are acting in the best interests of humanity.
This is one nice thing about getting older, I've met younger people I didn't even share an ethnicity with that had traits that I thought were uniquely particular to me. They're rare but they're out there. Good to know whatever makes me special is perennial. As far as carrying on family traditions I'm okay with it being a lost cause (some cousins had kids so not a complete loss) but no doubt similar enough eyes will look out on this blasted world in a dozen and a thousand generations.
This feels like the influence of some drug or other but I couldn't say which one.
Copium. Nobody argues this hard, with such flimsy and poorly understood reasoning, to defend their decision.. if they actually think it was a good decision..
Could also be racism. White Supremacists have this fear that ‘their superior genes’ will disappear, and that they’ll be ‘replaced’ by ‘inferior peoples’.
So they put a lot of emphasis on having lots of kids with white women—and the younger the better, because they think younger women are ‘prime breeders’, despite that being very not true.
