Burst leaderboard ad
  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Do you want to have children one day?

Poll: Kids (90 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you want to become a parent one day?

  1. Yes (51 votes [56.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 56.67%

  2. No (19 votes [21.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.11%

  3. I'm not really sure yet! (20 votes [22.22%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

Do you care about the gender?

  1. Boy (11 votes [12.22%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 12.22%

  2. Girl (13 votes [14.44%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.44%

  3. I'd just be happy to have a kid, screw gender. (39 votes [43.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.33%

  4. Not gonna be a parent, so irrelevant. (12 votes [13.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 13.33%

  5. Undecided, so irrelevant. (15 votes [16.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.67%

Vote Guests cannot vote

View PostStarwatcher, on 07 July 2011 - 05:18 AM, said:

That's the basis for eugenics. How far are we willing to go?


Pretty far. Mass genetic engineering is an awesome thing to look forward to; someday, we could make it so the dumbest human had the equivalent of a modern-day IQ of 145 or more via such methodology. Really, it would be immoral not to.

But if you have some sort of negative genetic trait that should have killed you bar modern medicine, you really shouldn't reproduce, as you should be dead. The fact that you are alive does not mean you should remain in the gene pool.

Quote

I'm not arguing with you, just saying that this raises another sticky issue for me. If I knew that my kid would have bad chances at living a healthy life, I think the responsible choice is to not reproduce, same as you.

You can also argue that it's an inalienable right for humans to reproduce.


There's really no such thing as an inalienable right, and I would strongly disagree that it would constitute one in any event. I think there is definitely a right to NOT have children, but there isn't a right to have them, as, after all, children are not THINGS but people in their own right.

Quote

I don't think we can take that right away without some bad moral side effects - who are we to tell people who can and can't have children?


Intelligent, responsible people who would like to reduce human suffering.
  • #51
  • 07 July 2011 - 05:22 AM
If I met the right person and was in a good situation then yes. I could very easily see myself putting it off for a lot of my life though "I am not ready yet", "I don't think I am financially stable enough". But that aside, it will be good to bring children into this world who could be just as great as myself, if not better 8-)

View PostChewySmokey, on 07 July 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

a daughter would love me more than her.

That isn't how it works is it? I mean isn't the stereotype for a lot of girls to have "daddy issues"?

This post has been edited by matty_batty0: 07 July 2011 - 05:27 AM

  • #52
  • 07 July 2011 - 05:23 AM
I'm alright with saying that people with genetic defects shouldn't reproduce, but how would you implement this? Forced sterilization? Cutting into a healthy body is mutilation.

How would you choose who can and can't have children? A mass inspection program, or going through the health records of everyone in the population?

In the end, who decides and how do we stop them from reproducing?
  • #53
  • 07 July 2011 - 05:30 AM
Oh yes....there is nothing I would look forward to more than a future Gattica world, complete with Essentialism and discrimination based on genetics...
  • #54
  • 07 July 2011 - 05:32 AM
One other thing, how do we figure out which defects are severe enough to stop people from having babies? A public vote could be dangerous, because eventually people could decide things like blue eyes are better than brown, or you would have to be above a certain IQ to qualify to reproduce.

I'm curious: do you also believe that a woman has the right to control her own body, in regards to abortion? It looks to me like this is the same kind of argument. On one hand, we have a position that advocates the freedom of the woman. On the other, the suffering (?) of the baby.
  • #55
  • 07 July 2011 - 05:36 AM

View PostStarwatcher, on 07 July 2011 - 05:30 AM, said:

I'm alright with saying that people with genetic defects shouldn't reproduce, but how would you implement this? Forced sterilization? Cutting into a healthy body is mutilation.

How would you choose who can and can't have children? A mass inspection program, or going through the health records of everyone in the population?

In the end, who decides and how do we stop them from reproducing?


Well, mass genetic manipulation would be the easiest method. Simply make it available to the public at large via government subsidized programs. Obviously this would be a ways off, but it would be the most effective means - most people simply lack the high genetic quality that manipulation would allow, meaning that rather rapidly everyone would be forced to do it, else their children would be unemployable or relegated to low-level jobs.

As for sterilization, it could be performed chemically. But I think the mass market GM is a more palatable solution to most folk.
  • #56
  • 07 July 2011 - 05:36 AM
Control how people reproduce, save the redheads!

Actually, a trait like that could be seen as inferior in many cases, think it would be forcibly bred out?

This post has been edited by matty_batty0: 07 July 2011 - 05:40 AM

  • #57
  • 07 July 2011 - 05:37 AM
Kids? No, Never! :nope:
  • #58
  • 07 July 2011 - 05:39 AM
  • Craft aids
  • That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
    Banned
There is no such thing as inferior genetics. Sure, some people might pass on cancer, heart deseis, kidny failure, strokes, late life blindness, or any of the other possabilitys but who is to say that we couldn't find it an advantage to all die at and average of thirdy years old like we did back when the infant death rate was around 6 out of 7 and being a king ment something?
  • #59
  • 07 July 2011 - 05:41 AM
Chemical or physical, it's still mutilation and if I don't want drugs put in my body, then I believe I have the right to say no. To do otherwise terrifies me.

Mass genetic engineering would be ok I think, as long as you could choose it or decline it.

An interesting conversation, you've given me a bit to think about. :)
  • #60
  • 07 July 2011 - 05:41 AM
  • SushiJaguar
  • Internet Tough Guy<br>P.S. I roleplay as a medieval furry
    Member
Fuck

Children
  • #61
  • 07 July 2011 - 06:10 AM
  • Borg Lord
  • Talk shit about furries and see how mad I get!
    Member

View PostStarwatcher, on 07 July 2011 - 05:41 AM, said:

Chemical or physical, it's still mutilation and if I don't want drugs put in my body, then I believe I have the right to say no. To do otherwise terrifies me.

Mass genetic engineering would be ok I think, as long as you could choose it or decline it.

An interesting conversation, you've given me a bit to think about. :)

The ability to choose, though, does not necessarily imply the advisability of doing so. For example, if one has a baby, one can choose to not have that baby get his or her vaccinations. Then, if one is lucky and slightly fictional, one can receive a lecture from Doctor House about cute little baby-sized coffins.

Although the cancer that started this discussion dos not necessarily imply any negative genetic legacy. Granted, the fact that it apparently occurred in childhood raises the odds that Bearkidney was born with poor genes, in regards to cancer prevention, but the mutations that were the proximate cause of the cancer are extremely unlikely to show up in his sperm unless he had testicular cancer, in which case I assume his ability to reproduce would be severely impaired.

And Craft Aids, living is one of the most basic biological imperatives and probably the imperative that is most encouraged by modern culture. The only reason people ever want to die is because they're either clinically depressed or already dying of something else which is slower and more unpleasant. I challenge you to find a single person who wishes he/she had cancer.
  • #62
  • 07 July 2011 - 07:49 AM

View PostStarwatcher, on 07 July 2011 - 04:45 AM, said:

I don't know, we'll see.

I was wondering something though... does anyone know why so many people want to have their own kids, rather than adopt them? To me, it seems that if you can give a child a loving home then you should, it's not like their DNA really matters, does it?

To me this is the same kind of situation I see every day at the dog rescue. People choose a pure-bread puppy over one of the hundreds that don't have a home.

Can someone help me to understand? Do many others share this sentiment?



I think the reason most people want to breed, Starwatcher, is instinct. We are programmed to want to have our own kids to pass on our own genes, so we decide that if we want kids, we'll make them ourselves. Not to mention the process by which they are made is a lot of fun. ;)

I guess I'd rather adopt simply because a lot of kids don't have homes, so I could help out by giving one a home instead of making another kid that needs a home, but it would depend on what my missus would want as well.
  • #63
  • 07 July 2011 - 11:00 AM
  • Ace
  • BCI Member

View PostStarwatcher, on 07 July 2011 - 05:20 AM, said:

There's also something else here that I think is missing. By having biological children, you pass on your genes. These are just sequences of chemicals, and I suppose that about 1/2 of them would be like your own.

Isn't it more meaningful, closer to the immortality that people seem to crave, to pass on your personality, values, morals and ideas? After all
is said and done, how much does the genetic hardware matter?


You know nothing of evolutionary biology do you.
  • #64
  • 07 July 2011 - 03:24 PM
My sister just had a baby girl about a half an hour ago. It definitely puts the thread's point of discussion on my mind now.
  • #65
  • 07 July 2011 - 03:26 PM
No kids here. I refuse. I have my hands full acting as a parent toward my... parent.

Side note; Why does the poll give you the option of not wanting kids, but forces you to choose a gender anyway?
  • #66
  • 07 July 2011 - 03:28 PM
  • SushiJaguar
  • Internet Tough Guy<br>P.S. I roleplay as a medieval furry
    Member
I know, right?
  • #67
  • 07 July 2011 - 03:30 PM
  • wacko
  • Knows more about BCB than Taeshi
    Member
SushiJaguar, you and I should have kids together~ :-*
  • #68
  • 07 July 2011 - 03:32 PM
I just wish the pole had an undecided since I have no idea yet.
  • #69
  • 07 July 2011 - 03:40 PM

View PostCarcharocles, on 07 July 2011 - 03:28 PM, said:

No kids here. I refuse. I have my hands full acting as a parent toward my... parent.Side note; Why does the poll give you the option of not wanting kids, but forces you to choose a gender anyway?



View PostJunior Boomer, on 07 July 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

I just wish the pole had an undecided since I have no idea yet.



I'll edit those in right away!
  • #70
  • 07 July 2011 - 03:48 PM
This is assuming any of you will ever have access to a vagina. :D
  • #71
  • 07 July 2011 - 04:10 PM

View PostAce, on 07 July 2011 - 03:24 PM, said:

View PostStarwatcher, on 07 July 2011 - 05:20 AM, said:

There's also something else here that I think is missing. By having biological children, you pass on your genes. These are just sequences of chemicals, and I suppose that about 1/2 of them would be like your own.

Isn't it more meaningful, closer to the immortality that people seem to crave, to pass on your personality, values, morals and ideas? After all
is said and done, how much does the genetic hardware matter?


You know nothing of evolutionary biology do you.


I took an entire class in it last year, and you missed the point of what I was saying. I'm talking about what we think and do on a high level, beyond basic instinct. Does it matter greatly to you that someone 30 years later has somewhat the same DNA as you?

Your instincts and millions of years of evolution compel you to mate. What I'm saying is "who cares"? You can satisfy that urge without having kids.

Do you care that your kids look like you? That's what it comes down to in the end.
  • #72
  • 07 July 2011 - 06:11 PM
  • wacko
  • Knows more about BCB than Taeshi
    Member

Starwatcher said:

Your instincts and millions of years of evolution compel you to mate.

Not only to mate. There is a strong evolutionary bias towards raising one's own kids and not someone else's. That bias is still there, even if we're now capable of acting beyond basic instincts.
  • #73
  • 07 July 2011 - 06:30 PM

View PostTitanium Dragon, on 07 July 2011 - 05:22 AM, said:

Mass genetic engineering is an awesome thing to look forward to; someday, we could make it so the dumbest human had the equivalent of a modern-day IQ of 145 or more via such methodology. Really, it would be immoral not to.

TD dreams of a genetically perfect world. :D

Posted Image
  • #74
  • 07 July 2011 - 06:48 PM
  • Ace
  • BCI Member

View PostStarwatcher, on 07 July 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

I took an entire class in it last year, and you missed the point of what I was saying. I'm talking about what we think and do on a high level, beyond basic instinct. Does it matter greatly to you that someone 30 years later has somewhat the same DNA as you?

Your instincts and millions of years of evolution compel you to mate. What I'm saying is "who cares"? You can satisfy that urge without having kids.

Do you care that your kids look like you? That's what it comes down to in the end.


I do see that you are saying something else here, but when it comes down to it passing on your genes is one of your highest priorities in the biological sense not some silly conceptions of culture, etc. which is far from immortal. In fact, the true immortality is the genes passed to your offspring, unless by some sick chance they die off or we have outrageous mutations. But I suppose that's what indirect fitness is for.

Oh and no, I don't really care that my kids look like me, but they damn well better be part me or the mother and I will have words.
  • #75
  • 07 July 2011 - 07:30 PM
I do want to have kids one day, Despite That I know what I'm getting myself into. What I really look forward to is showing my son the video games we have today and watch him laugh at the comparably shit-tastic graphic quality. That, and passing on the family history and my values and morals. I also want to give him the chance at a better life than I had when I was young.

And having kids is also a fall back on being remembered when you die. Should you fail at leaving a lasting mark on history, at least your offspring will remember you for what you did, and what you taught them.
  • #76
  • 08 July 2011 - 12:19 AM
I'm not totally sure. for one thing, it would give me purpose in my later years and most likely be an enriching experience, but then again, it's also a huge ordeal, it doesn't always turn out how you want, and I'm somewhat doubtful as to my ability to find a mate. Basically, if I have a wife, and she wants kids, I would probably be willing to go for it, but I would most likely not insist that we do it if she didn't want to.
  • #77
  • 08 July 2011 - 12:57 AM

View PostAce, on 07 July 2011 - 07:30 PM, said:

View PostStarwatcher, on 07 July 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

I took an entire class in it last year, and you missed the point of what I was saying. I'm talking about what we think and do on a high level, beyond basic instinct. Does it matter greatly to you that someone 30 years later has somewhat the same DNA as you?

Your instincts and millions of years of evolution compel you to mate. What I'm saying is "who cares"? You can satisfy that urge without having kids.

Do you care that your kids look like you? That's what it comes down to in the end.

... but when it comes down to it passing on your genes is one of your highest priorities in the biological sense not some silly conceptions of culture, etc. which is far from immortal. In fact, the true immortality is the genes passed to your offspring, unless by some sick chance they die off or we have outrageous mutations


Every time a generation occurs the number of genes, and the similarity to you, decreases. Eventually you'll blend in with the white noise that is the entire genetic pool of humanity. How is this immortality, in any sense of the word? I don't see it as being any better or worse than passing on your ideas and values.

I think that if I adopted a child and raised them with my morals, values and ideas they would have much more of "me" in them than if I had a biological kid and didn't.

I guess the question really is... how important to YOU is it that a kid has the same patterns of molecules as you do, for a few generations? Unlike the genes themselves, or more primitive animals that are bound ONLY by instinct and genetics, we have the complexity required to make that call.

I think that my instincts compel me to have sex, not to reproduce. Does a wild animal KNOW in it's mind that the act of mating will cause it's genes to carry on? I think it's just programmed with an urge and acts on it. How are we different? I don't think that wanting to reproduce is a fundamental instinct, because it needs an abstraction, a causal connection between events to work.

Having sex is definitely an instinct though. I'm just saying that with us it doesn't have to overlap with having kids. Since we can think for ourselves, we get to choose how important it is to us to have our genes carried on.

Just some thoughts, let me know what you think?
  • #78
  • 08 July 2011 - 01:55 AM
I'm going to be really honest here, and it's probably gonna make me look like a complete jackass, but it's how it is.

God forbid I raised a child, I don't think I could as good a parent to an adopted child as a biological child. I know it sounds really unfair, but there's something about caring and raising a child I produced that's more...fulfilling, to me. I honestly hate myself for thinking about it that way, but those are my feelings.
  • #79
  • 08 July 2011 - 02:00 AM
No, that makes a bit of sense, actually. For starters, ur biological children are more likely to share our strengths weaknesses, interests, and sometimes capabilities. Like, if you're naturally good at writing, you're likely to pass it during procreation. Plus - I'm told this is the case with women, men may have an equivalent - but having a child in your uterus for nine months gives you a sense of attachment, cause you know, you've had it in your body for nine months.
  • #80
  • 08 July 2011 - 02:05 AM
  • Ace
  • BCI Member
Yes, over time it halves and halves and we get less and less of our genes, but that is not to say that our concepts of culture, etc are immortal either. Many are forgotten in less than one generation! You can't forget your own genes! Yet. Yet...

Yes, we humans and our rational thinking allow us the ability to even comprehend and put these concepts into words, but that doesn't just happen. I'm not really sure what you are talking about with wanting to make the distinction between the act of sex and reproduction. The act of sex is performed by instinct in order to reproduce!

I think one of the largest distinctions between our arguments is that you take this to a level beyond evolutionary biology while I ground myself in it. Perhaps some people do make the distinction and some act as animals, but when all is said and done, to make babies you have sex. Unless you reproduce asexually. Then I suppose you probably don't have a choice most of the time.

I think I spent too long looking elsewhere and cobbling this together but eh, whatever.
  • #81
  • 08 July 2011 - 03:03 AM
  • Grass
  • Is fucking Panny up in heaven
    Member
I'm pregnant.
  • #82
  • 08 July 2011 - 03:06 AM
  • Ace
  • BCI Member

View PostGrass, on 08 July 2011 - 03:06 AM, said:

I'm pregnant.



God I hate you so much Grass.
  • #83
  • 08 July 2011 - 03:09 AM
What I'm saying is that genes disappear, ideas disappear (at least most of the less important ones), there isn't a true immortality for us. I don't think genes are much (if any) better than ideas in this regard.

One thing to think about - most people don't have sex to make babies, at least most of the time. To make babies you have sex, but you don't always want to make babies if you have sex. Humans are kinda complicated this way. :P :O

I understand where you're coming from, but I think that we need to look at both the evolutionary and social sides of this issue.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 08 July 2011 - 03:18 AM

  • #84
  • 08 July 2011 - 03:16 AM
  • Ace
  • BCI Member
It's funny because I was addressing that second point but I didn't post it for some reason. Well anyways of course I agree on that point, humans are weird.

Still I like the evolutionary side! Social side is meh.
  • #85
  • 08 July 2011 - 03:48 AM
Hell NO. my siblings have destroyed the dream of having kids. They are not worth the trouble and I cant wait to move out to be away from them. I know it seems kinda cruel, but after living with 6 selfish, lazy, disgust kids for 15 yrs, youd be tired of them as well. I could go on for days of story were they either embarressed the hell out of me or make me wish to be an only child.
  • #86
  • 08 July 2011 - 04:02 AM

View PostAce, on 08 July 2011 - 03:48 AM, said:

It's funny because I was addressing that second point but I didn't post it for some reason. Well anyways of course I agree on that point, humans are weird.

Still I like the evolutionary side! Social side is meh.


How's it meh? I'm not going to argue that the evolutionary side is unimportant, but that's clearly not all that has to be considered. Just look at birth control, there's obviously more to having sex than making babies.

There, I just said that. This is something that I think we ALL know without needing an argument for it. XD ;)

I think the evolutionary side of it is more interesting as well by the way. :D
  • #87
  • 08 July 2011 - 04:09 AM
  • Borg Lord
  • Talk shit about furries and see how mad I get!
    Member
I would like to look a little more at the idea of immortality through genes vs. immortality through memes. If we make the assumption that everybody has two kids, which is probably the best possible horrible over-simplification, then after n generations you will have 2^n descendants, each with 1/2^n of your genes (maybe if I think enough about statistics, I can figure out what percentage of your genes you can expect to find in at least one of your 2^n descendants). Memes, on the other hand, are considerably more complex; for one thing, a strong meme can be transmitted far more quickly than its carriers can reproduce, and a good transmitter of memes (take Shakespeare for example) can transmit to a ridiculously large number of people and continue transmitting for a very long time. But, on the other hand, a meme can be quickly discarded if it is weak. So if you rely on genes, unless your descendants die out in a couple of generations, it's a pretty safe bet that there will be a tiny bit of you in lots of people in the far future; if you rely on memes it is possible that you'll see them influence the entire world in your lifetime, or they might end up dying with you.

Or you could go with mitochondrial genes, in which case most of us might as well just kill ourselves now. But for those lucky enough to be female, just make sure to have at least one daughter (although obviously more is better) and you can know that, other than the occasional random mutation, anybody who has an unbroken matrilineal descent from you will have precisely the same mitochondrial DNA.
  • #88
  • 08 July 2011 - 05:15 AM

View PostBorg Lord, on 07 July 2011 - 07:49 AM, said:

View PostStarwatcher, on 07 July 2011 - 05:41 AM, said:

Chemical or physical, it's still mutilation and if I don't want drugs put in my body, then I believe I have the right to say no. To do otherwise terrifies me.

Mass genetic engineering would be ok I think, as long as you could choose it or decline it.

An interesting conversation, you've given me a bit to think about. :)

The ability to choose, though, does not necessarily imply the advisability of doing so. For example, if one has a baby, one can choose to not have that baby get his or her vaccinations. Then, if one is lucky and slightly fictional, one can receive a lecture from Doctor House about cute little baby-sized coffins.

Although the cancer that started this discussion dos not necessarily imply any negative genetic legacy. Granted, the fact that it apparently occurred in childhood raises the odds that Bearkidney was born with poor genes, in regards to cancer prevention, but the mutations that were the proximate cause of the cancer are extremely unlikely to show up in his sperm unless he had testicular cancer, in which case I assume his ability to reproduce would be severely impaired.

And Craft Aids, living is one of the most basic biological imperatives and probably the imperative that is most encouraged by modern culture. The only reason people ever want to die is because they're either clinically depressed or already dying of something else which is slower and more unpleasant. I challenge you to find a single person who wishes he/she had cancer.

adam west. although on family guy he thought he was going to get super powers from radioactive waste
  • #89
  • 08 July 2011 - 07:30 AM
  • SushiJaguar
  • Internet Tough Guy<br>P.S. I roleplay as a medieval furry
    Member

View Postwacko, on 07 July 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

SushiJaguar, you and I should have kids together~ :-*


Go fuck yourself
  • #90
  • 08 July 2011 - 08:22 AM
Immortality via mind snapshots (Think EVE clones) would be awesome.
You would also never have to age if you always had a new clone made of yourself.
  • #91
  • 08 July 2011 - 11:07 AM
Heck, clones are unnecessary. Medical science is working on "curing" old age.
  • #92
  • 08 July 2011 - 05:22 PM

View PostSushiJaguar, on 08 July 2011 - 08:22 AM, said:

View Postwacko, on 07 July 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

SushiJaguar, you and I should have kids together~ :-*


Go fuck yourself


I support Wacko x Wacko as well. OTP :-*
  • #93
  • 08 July 2011 - 05:25 PM

View Postmatty_batty0, on 07 July 2011 - 05:23 AM, said:

View PostChewySmokey, on 07 July 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

a daughter would love me more than her.

That isn't how it works is it? I mean isn't the stereotype for a lot of girls to have "daddy issues"?

heh, she's worried that she'll be a "daddy's little princess" and get all Freudian and hate her.
  • #94
  • 08 July 2011 - 06:12 PM
And we wouldn't want you aiming for any younger there, Chewy~
  • #95
  • 08 July 2011 - 06:25 PM
If all of you don't have children who will my children have to pick on? DID YOU THINK OF THAT, YOU SELFISH PRICKS?!
  • #96
  • 08 July 2011 - 06:30 PM
yeah sure jerk you never know if YOUR children will be PICKED ON
:/
  • #97
  • 08 July 2011 - 06:57 PM
I doubt Jerk's children would be playing Arkham Horror. I think they'll be okay.
  • #98
  • 08 July 2011 - 07:06 PM
That's okay then good for jerk
  • #99
  • 08 July 2011 - 07:14 PM

View PostPurin, on 08 July 2011 - 06:25 PM, said:

And we wouldn't want you aiming for any younger there, Chewy~

you did not just play the incest card >:O
  • #100
  • 09 July 2011 - 03:39 AM
  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users