The Selfishness of Remaining Childless "For Your Career"

[Solly]

Professional couples

Their ancestors have spent millennia fighting disease, war and famine in order to produce an offspring who cares more about getting an extra 10k a year than to continue the family line.

This is also a main reason why crime is increasing. What would be good parents become parents less than bad parents, as that skill which makes them a good parent is also something making them more valuable in the workforce.

You'd think it was never possible for a family to live on a single income.

[MikeH]

It's not in the south east. Unless you have some incredibly high paying job.

Who cares? If people don't have kids there's more chance yours will be successful. Oh god... your kids. What a terrifying thought.

[Alexander's Horse]

We have a Bodington Crescent near here.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Fascism.

You impose a standard of living to people. You don't like to see people free ?

[MikeH]

He doesn't. He wants everyone to be forced to behave as he thinks it's acceptable.

[MOBIUS]

I think it's great - we have enough people in the World already!

Interesting point though, are we at risk of reversing our evolutionary gains?

It seems (generally speaking) that in the Western World anyway, our most able and intelligent members of society are reproducing far less than the less educated and/or less intelligent members...

Could it be that the stupid will inherit the Earth, or is it that there'll just be more slaves for the rich and powerful?

[Solly]

Freedom isn't everything. With rights come responsibilities.

[Dauphin]

The professionals have so many affairs that their "illegitimate" children outnumber the (poor) traditional family units number of children.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Freedom isn't everything. With rights come responsibilities.

Hummm, yes and so what ?

We're not robots obliged to produce other robots.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Freedom isn't everything. With rights come responsibilities.

You should tell that to your ancestors who spent millenia fighting for it.

[Flubber]

hmmm-- there seems to be a mixture of two separate ideas here. The title talks about the selfishness of childlessness while in the text he seems to berate two-income families. To this I say

1. I always thought it was more selfish to HAVE children when not willing or able to care for them properly. While it is possible that a person's motivation for remaining childless can be selfish ( wants a more luxurious lifestyle etc), the act of NOT having children hurts no one.

2. Double income households-- Its a reality that in most families now, both parents work. There is nothing in that fact alone that means that they cannot be excellent parents.

[rah]

I've seen quite a few delinquent children from two professional families. The parents were too busy to spend any time with their kids. The kids were raised by nannies, day care workers, etc. They would have been better off not having children.
But that is really irrelevant to this discussion. This is just stewie trying to force his morality on everyone else. Which is real funny considering that it in another thread, he brags about being a bad boy to double the amount of girls that he's ****ged. A real model of morality.

RAH

[ZoboZeWarrior]

I notice that all Boddington's propositions are about restricting women freedom.

Boddington is our local Taliban.

[Dauphin]

I await the day that Bods says something that he beleives rather than something that will get a response

[MikeH]

Rah, he didn't say he'd got his cheney wet, just that he got off with them, which in UK slang implies making out not making the beast with two backs.