# Ethical Implications of Remaining Childless By Choice **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653 "2009-12-17T17:03:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/221 "2009-12-31T16:42:09Z")
> [@StoutHearted](#): > > This is an unjustified fear. People will still have kids, even if a minority of the population can’t or won’t. Again, this is reliance on others to take care of the issue _for_ you. Which reliance may or may not be justified. > [@](#): > > Populations have fluctuated throughout human history; we are not in a crisis for the survival of the human species right now. Agreed, _humanity as a species_ will survive. But our _particular cultures_ of humanity here in the first world are the ones under stress. > [@](#): > > Right now, there’s a lot of fearmongering that the _right_ kind of people are not breeding, which is extremely racist. (CNN, I’m looking at you.) But humans, on the whole, are still getting it on and still having kids. Personally, if one looks on having (and more importantly, _raising_) children as a task of labour, then _relying on folks in the third world to do it for you_ because you would rather not is simply another type of exploitation. There is nothing “racist” in noting that third world parents have less resources and the kids they produce are less likely than the kids we in the first world produce to have access to education, medical care, and job opportunities. It would be wonderful if instead of having kids everyone in the West devoted their surplus to supporting third-world parents to first-world standards, but it is very unlikely to happen. > [@](#): > > The idea that childless people aren’t doing their part for the world, and making parents do all the work, is terrible. Terrible, but true. In this respect at least. > [@](#): > > First of all, the childfree are scientists, teachers, doctors, and other vital occupations for the survival and development of our species. Second, you can turn that idea around to say “You’re not helping the homeless and letting charitable people do all the work” or “You’re not looking for a cure for cancer and letting the scientists do all the work.” Some people are meant to do certain things, while others are not. A false dichotomy. No-one is complaining that those without children make _no_ contribution. Indeed, their contribution could be every bit as vital or more. Similarly, noting that those who willingly choose to remain on social assistance are “free riders” is not to denigrate their accomplishments in other areas. They may be great parents, for all we know. I think though that most people who (more or less willingly) work for a living would not be heartened by the argument that they were simply _meant_ to work, while others (presumably those doing the arguing) were _meant_ to live on social assistance. ---
**Author:** ![StoutHearted](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@StoutHearted](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StoutHearted)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/222 "2009-12-31T16:42:58Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Pointing out that the educated and affluent are breeding less than the uneducated and poor is not racist. Education level and affluence are not racial characteristics. Classist maybe, but not racist. That, too, but I was calling out CNN specifically for their recent report that white people aren’t breeding enough to remain in the majority. I’m sorry I ddin’t make that clear. > [@](#): > > No one said anything like this. This is your own insecurity being projected outward. Did you miss this? Because this is what I was referring to: > [@](#): > > Whether or not there is an actual demographic crisis in first-world nations (evidence points to there being one in at least some nations, caused by people having children at less than the replacement rate and living longer - see, for example, Japan), isn’t your response simply that you can comfortably afford to allow others to take care of the issue _for_ you? > > That may well be true, at least if you live somewhere that people are on average reproducing at the replacement rate, but it is also the very definition of free-riding. I was addressing the concept of “free-riding.” ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/223 "2009-12-31T16:43:35Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Actually, the latest statistics available show a birth rate of about 14 per thousand people in the U.S. and a death rate of about 8 per thousand. The population continues to grow and we continue to have to deal with the effects of that increase. > > There are areas in the developed world where birth rates have significantly declined and population is shrinking. That’s not because those societies don’t sufficiently worship parenthood, it’s because their economy stinks. Maintain a healthy economy and your population grows. :rolleyes: Healthy economies like [Niger and the Gaza Strip](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2002rank.html?countryCode=al&rankAnchorRow=#al). > [@](#): > > In the end, most of what this silly debate involves is the need of some parents to feel morally superior, get lots of bonuses and pats on the back for having procreated for their own (almost entirely selfish) purposes and look down (with considerable, unwonted jealousy) at people who did not breed for their own (almost entirely selfish) purposes. No actually, this is a straw man. The only people who are really turning it into a superiority issue are the people who feel insecure about not having kids. I don’t see anyone in this thread looking jealously at people who didn’t have kids. I see a bunch of people projecting their own insecurities onto parents and claiming that they are saying things that they aren’t saying though. > [@](#): > > Sorry, but ethics just doesn’t come into it (with exceptions like if you’re bearing kids who are highly likely to have horrific, fatal genetically-determined illnesses). Parents who do a really good job of raising their kids deserve metaphorical pats on the back. The usual run of parents - meh. The usual run of parents produce fine people. The norm is to produce healthy well-adjusted adults. It’s not the exception. This just shows your own bias and feelings of superiority. > [@](#): > > Maybe that’s what we should be basing tax relief and discounts for parenting on - the quality of child-rearing. If we can define teacher pay on student performance, a parental equivalent shouldn’t be impossible. LOL. Sure. The government can start paying me a paycheck for raising my kids. And after they START paying me, then we can define how much they pay me based on the quality of my child-rearing. 😉 > [@](#): > > I’ll volunteer for grading based on child behavior in restaurants. 😃 Most people without kids have no clue about child behavior in restaurants. Sometimes the same kid will be an angel and other times they’ll be monstrous. Depends on their mood. In my experience based on these discussions on the SDMB at least. That it is far more likely that people who do not have kids will look down on parents than the other way around. Skewed cohort to be certain, but that’s my experience here. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/224 "2009-12-31T16:47:48Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Actually, the latest statistics available show a birth rate of about 14 per thousand people in the U.S. and a death rate of about 8 per thousand. The population continues to grow and we continue to have to deal with the effects of that increase. > > There are areas in the developed world where birth rates have significantly declined and population is shrinking. That’s not because those societies don’t sufficiently worship parenthood, it’s because their economy stinks. Maintain a healthy economy and your population grows.And we’ll want considerably fewer of them, to prevent resource depletion and potentially catastrophic environmental degradation. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. Worldwide, the birth-rate tends to fall with improvements in the economy. The US is a bit of an anomaly in this respect. > [@](#): > > So after rejecting it earlier, you’re reviving the “free-riding” label. How consistent. Please point out where I rejected the notion of “free rider”. What I rejected is the notion that an individual’s choice of whether or not to have children is an ethical one in the abstract. > [@](#): > > In the end, most of what this silly debate involves is the need of some parents to feel morally superior, get lots of bonuses and pats on the back for having procreated for their own (almost entirely selfish) purposes and look down (with considerable, unwonted jealousy) at people who did not breed for their own (almost entirely selfish) purposes. > > Sorry, but ethics just doesn’t come into it (with exceptions like if you’re bearing kids who are highly likely to have horrific, fatal genetically-determined illnesses). Parents who do a really good job of raising their kids deserve metaphorical pats on the back. The usual run of parents - meh. > > Maybe that’s what we should be basing tax relief and discounts for parenting on - the quality of child-rearing. If we can define teacher pay on student performance, a parental equivalent shouldn’t be impossible. > > I’ll volunteer for grading based on child behavior in restaurants. 😃 I’m sure I could frame an equally dismissive reply, but I won’t bother. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/225 "2009-12-31T16:57:48Z")
> [@StoutHearted](#): > > That, too, but I was calling out CNN specifically for their recent report that white people aren’t breeding enough to remain in the majority. I’m sorry I ddin’t make that clear. Got a cite? I’d be interested in reading it. I mean it’s true. It’s simply a fact. White people are not breeding enough to remain a majority in the United States. > [@](#): > > I was addressing the concept of “free-riding.” Right, but I think you are looking only for the emotional judgment and not the underlying issue. It is a free-rider issue. Whether or not that offends someone or not. We are all free-riders in some respects. That is the nature of the specialization of labor. I don’t have any problems with people who remain to be childless. I just don’t like the inherent contempt that the ‘childfree’ hold parents in. That the term, “Breeder”, is used perjoratively in our society disturbs me not because it’s inherently offensive, which it is, but because it shows a disrespect for the very function that brings human life into existence. It holds the birth of children as something that is worthy of contempt. I find it far more disturbing than I find it offensive. I don’t think that you or **Cat Whisperer** for instance have said anything disturbing or offensive. I think you should live your life freely. And that’s one of the strengths of our society. People who want children can raise the children. I personally think that you should have respect for parents and the job they do, because one day their children will support the economy that will help support your savings/pension/social security. They will be the workers that change your bedpan when you are a 90 year old invalid. They might even be your only friend once all of your friends have died. As such, I think you should have a respect for them, simply because I think you should have a reverence for human life and a general gratitude for the help that others provide you. But I don’t think you NEED to procreate if you do not want to. I also return the respect for your humanity and your life, and how you choose to live it and accept that you try to live it as honorably and as justly as you can, and I don’t think that your choice to not have children diminishes your value as a human being. ---
**Author:** ![StoutHearted](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@StoutHearted](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StoutHearted)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/226 "2009-12-31T17:02:31Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Similarly, noting that those who willingly choose to remain on social assistance are “free riders” is not to denigrate their accomplishments in other areas. They may be great parents, for all we know. Yikes, man. Just… yikes. > [@](#): > > I think though that most people who (more or less willingly) work for a living would not be heartened by the argument that they were simply _meant_ to work, while others (presumably those doing the arguing) were _meant_ to live on social assistance. No, they wouldn’t, which is why I didn’t say that – I never even brought up social assistance, and it wasn’t relevent to my argument. Some people are meant to be parents, and some people are not. So the one who do or cannot have kids can contribute to the human race in other ways. As you yourself said, this “could be every bit as vital or more.” Abstaining from giving birth does not make a person unethical in itself, and the decision not to have kids is not unethical. ---
**Author:** ![StoutHearted](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@StoutHearted](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StoutHearted)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/227 "2009-12-31T17:25:09Z")
I’m sorry, mwas, I couldn’t find the CNN article, even though I recall reading it recently. I did find a recent article in the _LA Times_, if that’ll do: [White Americans' majority to continue until 2050, report says](http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-white-minority17-2009dec17,0,5978884.story) > [@](#): > > I don’t have any problems with people who remain to be childless. I just don’t like the inherent contempt that the ‘childfree’ hold parents in. That the term, “Breeder”, is used perjoratively in our society disturbs me not because it’s inherently offensive, which it is, but because it shows a disrespect for the very function that brings human life into existence. It holds the birth of children as something that is worthy of contempt. I find it far more disturbing than I find it offensive. True, there is contempt out there, and it’s on both sides. Childfree people get put on the defensive about their choice to willingly remain childess, and parents sometimes have to defend why they chose to have children. People on both sides will claim the other is jealous of their lifestyle. But not everyone. You’re right, emotions are coming into play. Not all childfree people hold parents in contempt, just as not all parents let their kids run wild in restaurants and movie theaters. The loudest, angriest ones always get the most attention, though. Personally, I respect parents who work hard to raise good kids. It’s not the act of giving birth that impresses me, but the long, hard road that comes after. I can’t blame parents for being upset at the word “breeder;” it is derogatory, and intentionally so. But I worry that some people assume that “childfree” means “child hater,” which isn’t true. Some childfree people _do_ openly hate children, as so some parents, unfortunately. But you’ll find that most childfree people are OK with kids, they just don’t want them in their lives. > [@](#): > > I also return the respect for your humanity and your life, and how you choose to live it and accept that you try to live it as honorably and as justly as you can, and I don’t think that your choice to not have children diminishes your value as a human being. Well said. Thank you for this. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/228 "2009-12-31T17:25:22Z")
> [@StoutHearted](#): > > Yikes, man. Just… yikes. It’s an analogy. 😃 > [@](#): > > No, they wouldn’t, which is why I didn’t say that – I never even brought up social assistance, and it wasn’t relevent to my argument. You didn’t bring up social assistance - I did. It’s a very roughly analogous situation. > [@](#): > > Some people are meant to be parents, and some people are not. So the one who do or cannot have kids can contribute to the human race in other ways. As you yourself said, this “could be every bit as vital or more.” Abstaining from giving birth does not make a person unethical in itself, and the decision not to have kids is not unethical. Where did you get the impression I thought it was? I’ve been saying that the individual’s choice one way or the other isn’t an ethical one in the abstract this whole thread. The two arguments are unrelated: 1. In general and on average, non-parents rely on parents to produce children so that humanity in general and our society in particular has a future (either here in the first world or in the third world). Relying on others to do something necessary = free riding. 2. In specific and on an individual level, the choice of whether or not to have kids is not an ethical one in the abstract; individual circumstances govern. It is the same with work (that analogy again). Some people cannot work, for whatever reason, and so must rely on others to be productive _in that way_ on their behalf. They are “free riders” _in that respect_. However, they may well be equally (or more) valuable and valued for other reasons. The term “free rider” is intended descriptively only. Their choice of whether to work or not isn’t an ethical one, it is one for each individual given their individual circumstances to make. The analogy is not perfect obviously. One aspect of the choice to parent is that those who do not wish to do it may, for that very reason, not be suited to do it (this does not I think hold for work). ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/229 "2009-12-31T21:23:54Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. Worldwide, the birth-rate tends to fall with improvements in the economy. The US is a bit of an anomaly in this respect. Except that low birth rates (i.e. falling or threatening to fall below the death rate) in places like the Soviet Union and a few other countries have been tied to the poor economy. It does not follow that high birth rate = good economy, and I did not claim such. > [@Malthus](#): > > Please point out where I rejected the notion of “free rider”. Post #202. > [@Malthus](#): > > Given that pretty well no-one does anything for the express goal of “furthering society”, then there can be no such thing as a “free rider”. 🙂 Two posts before that you were claiming that certain financial benefits for parents went “some way” towards mitigating the idea that those without children are “free riders” - so you’ve really been back and forth on this subject. Better stick with “there can be no such thing as a free rider”; it’s foolish to use such labels, except for situations such as people deliberately having a large family that they know they will be unable to care for without major public support. > [@Malthus](#): > > I’m sure I could frame an equally dismissive reply, but I won’t bother. You’ve been dismissive enough by ignoring the environmental impact of excess childbearing, preferring instead to focus on the dread threat of the “extinction” of society. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/230 "2009-12-31T21:45:40Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Except that low birth rates (i.e. falling or threatening to fall below the death rate) in places like the Soviet Union and a few other countries have been tied to the poor economy. It does not follow that high birth rate = good economy, and I did not claim such. No, you claim poor economy = low birth rates. Worldwide, that just is not true. > [@](#): > > Post #202.🙂 > > Two posts before that you were claiming that certain financial benefits for parents went “some way” towards mitigating the idea that those without children are “free riders” - so you’ve really been back and forth on this subject. You are seriously misunderstanding my posts. 😃 When I say “Given that pretty well no-one does anything for the express goal of “furthering society”, then there can be no such thing as a “free rider”.”, I’m criticising the assumption you made - that _motivation_ is the key. What I’m saying is that ‘if we take your assumption seriously, the term ‘free rider’ is effectively useless’. Given that I do not think the term is useless, it is your assumption that should be discarded, rather than the term. > [@](#): > > Better stick with “there can be no such thing as a free rider”; it’s foolish to use such labels, except for situations such as people deliberately having a large family that they know they will be unable to care for without major public support. Why should I discard a perfectly good term? > [@](#): > > You’ve been dismissive enough by ignoring the environmental impact of excess childbearing, preferring instead to focus on the dread threat of the “extinction” of society. :rolleyes: Society will not become extinct _because people have kids_. Again, what you are saying is ‘the alleged threat is silly – because others will do what I will not, and we all know it’. Yes, that’s true. Society will not collapse either if I decide to not work and go on social assistance - we all know most people _will_ work, no matter what I choose to do. Why not make fun of _them_ for creating environmental degridation, as they surely do? Surely if no-one worked the environment would be better off, no? How inconsiderate of folks to work, creating the current enviroinmental disaster! How superior am I, who righteously refuses to work! 😃 As for the “environmental impact of excess childbearing”, please define “excess”. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/231 "2010-01-01T00:18:15Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The solution is that people who want to have children should have children, and people who don’t want to have children should not have children. It ain’t complicated. Would that it was that simple. What about the wife who wants a baby and the husband who would rather not. He knows he’ll get less attention, less freedom and his gorgeous wife 's body will never feel the same again. He goes along for her sake. . But then he holds onto that little helpless kid his wife just popped out and wilfully dedicates his life to that child. I’m sure that happens a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/232 "2010-01-01T17:51:09Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > No, you claim poor economy = low birth rates. Repeating this incorrect characterization does not make it true. > [@](#): > > You are seriously misunderstanding my posts. If you’d stick to one opinion, it’d be easier to “understand” them. > [@](#): > > Why should I discard a perfectly good term? Because it’s stupid and divisive? Hey, keep using it if you need it to reinforce the decisions you’ve made. > [@](#): > > Society will not become extinct _because people have kids_. Given that we’ve gotten uncomfortably close to the planet’s carrying capacity due to overpopulation (in the view of many knowledgeable observers), serious consequences (“extinction” is unlikely) are far more probable with uncontrolled breeding than “extinction” due to a sizable minority choosing not to have kids. Even with the worst Malthusian consequences avoided, we’re still going to add a hell of a lot of people worldwide over the next century or so, and a major array of problems including insufficient food and fresh water supplies will have to be dealt with (even while some choose to obsess over the downfall of society due to non-childbearing couples). A lot of people (myself included) would consider Octomom and her enablers to be irresponsible, and (using your term of choice) “free riders” on society. (She could be the poster child for “excess breeding”). I do not think it’s rational to view her in the same light as a couple that decides that children are not for them. I generally view the decision of a couple that can afford a family to have children as an ethically neutral decision, the same way I’d view a decision to not have children. If it strikes you as horribly unfair that many of us do not feel the need to genuflect in the direction of parenthood as an unalloyed good, too bad. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/233 "2010-01-01T20:24:07Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > \ > If it strikes you as horribly unfair that many of us do not feel the need to genuflect in the direction of parenthood as an unalloyed good, too bad. Can I genuflect a little in your direction for this sentence, or would that be over the top? ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2010, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/234 "2010-01-02T13:05:27Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Actually, the latest statistics available show a birth rate of about 14 per thousand people in the U.S. and a death rate of about 8 per thousand. The population continues to grow and we continue to have to deal with the effects of that increase. > > There are areas in the developed world where birth rates have significantly declined and population is shrinking. That’s not because those societies don’t sufficiently worship parenthood, it’s because their economy stinks. Maintain a healthy economy and your population grows.And we’ll want considerably fewer of them, to prevent resource depletion and potentially catastrophic environmental degradation.So after rejecting it earlier, you’re reviving the “free-riding” label. How consistent. I’m in the UK. The birthrate is not high (I think immigrations recently took it above replacement level for the first time in a couple of decades). The economy’s not wonderful right now, but was doing pretty well until very recently - and it’s certainly not worse than the US. The same goes for the rest of Western Europe. Maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows - hmm. I need a cite for that. I was under the impression that the richest countries in the world also had the lowest birthrates. Nobody needs to ‘worship parenthood.’ Where did you get that idea from? We don’t need fewer and fewer children in the future either, unless we’re all prepared to work till we drop and never draw any pensions or rely on any medical plans. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/235 "2010-01-02T22:32:52Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > Can I genuflect a little in your direction for this sentence, or would that be over the top? And this is my problem with childfree-ness. The cultish behavior. The ‘cult of the child’ ‘breeder’ derogation that is always brought up and thrown in the face of people, and even the less extreme like yourself give kudos to those who use such childish argumentation. There is no cult of the child, there is the species that can only survive through propagation. So it’s not a matter of whether or not parenthood is an ‘unalloyed good’. That’s childish nonsense. What parenthood is, is an ‘unalloyed necessity’. It’s more important than any other profession. No matter what it is you do for the human race, it’s a less important, less essential job than parenthood. Sure, the supply of parents is great, and as such that makes the value of an individual parent of less value than professions where demand exceeds supply like Doctors and Nurses. But, the fact of the matter is, if you do not have a recognition and deference to the position of parenthood in general, then your position isn’t merely that you do not want to have children. It is at its core, anti-natalist. This can be shown by the soft bigotry shown in derogatory terms like, “Cult of the child.”, or “Breeders”. **jackmanii** ’s position is merely bigotted. He’s taken it further than simply a freedom of choice argument. I guess it’s useful as this discussion wouldn’t have legs considering everyone who has posted here is in favor of freedom of choice. So there needs to be SOMEONE to argue the unreasonable position. But I think it’s important to point out that it’s a form of bigotry, and it shouldn’t be any more culturally acceptable to say, “Cult of the Child”, or “Breeder” than it is to call someone a nigger or a spic. Anti-Natalist positions deserve no respect whatsoever. However, the choice to remain childless isn’t anti-natalist. But scratch someone who refers to themselves as ‘childfree’ and 9 times out of 10 you find you’re talking to an anti-natalist bigot. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/236 "2010-01-02T23:01:26Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Repeating this incorrect characterization does not make it true. “Maintain a heathy economy and your population grows”. No, it doesn’t. That’s a direct quote of yours; it is incorrect. > [@](#): > > If you’d stick to one opinion, it’d be easier to “understand” them. I have stuck to one opinion. That you see nuance as contradiction isn’t my problem. > [@](#): > > Because it’s stupid and divisive? Hey, keep using it if you need it to reinforce the decisions you’ve made. Some truths are uncomfortable, but your lack of comfort does not make it “stupid” to point out an obvious fact: that you (and everyone else) relies on someone to produce children, since no children = no future. > [@](#): > > Given that we’ve gotten uncomfortably close to the planet’s carrying capacity due to overpopulation (in the view of many knowledgeable observers), serious consequences (“extinction” is unlikely) are far more probable with uncontrolled breeding than “extinction” due to a sizable minority choosing not to have kids. Even with the worst Malthusian consequences avoided, we’re still going to add a hell of a lot of people worldwide over the next century or so, and a major array of problems including insufficient food and fresh water supplies will have to be dealt with (even while some choose to obsess over the downfall of society due to non-childbearing couples). The issue of overpopulation is very real, but the question is one of location. Overpopulation is above all else a problem affecting poor countries, not wealthy ones. > [@](#): > > I generally view the decision of a couple that can afford a family to have children as an ethically neutral decision, the same way I’d view a decision to not have children. Yet you have somehow missed my multiple posts in this very thread where I say that an individual choice in this area is ethically neutral? > [@](#): > > If it strikes you as horribly unfair that many of us do not feel the need to genuflect in the direction of parenthood as an unalloyed good, too bad. It strikes me as “horribly unfair” that you should so badly misconstrue my argument; and yes, it is “too bad”. The fact you are unable to bring yourself to acknowledge the obvious truth - that the future of our species requires parents - strikes me as little short of bizzare. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/237 "2010-01-03T08:29:21Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > Maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows - hmm. I need a cite for that. I was under the impression that the richest countries in the world also had the lowest birthrates. Actually, just as a note, the person you’re responding to didn’t say “maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows”…they said, “maintain a healthy economy and the population grows.”, which does make sense. If a country has a thriving economy, there’s going to be an increase of economic migrants to that country. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/238 "2010-01-03T08:31:20Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Actually, just as a note, the person you’re responding to didn’t say “maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows”…they said, “maintain a healthy economy and the population grows.”, which does make sense. If a country has a thriving economy, there’s going to be an increase of economic migrants to that country. Which is irrelevant to the idea of global overpopulation and has nothing to do with breeding. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/239 "2010-01-03T09:48:21Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Actually, just as a note, the person you’re responding to didn’t say “maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows”…they said, “maintain a healthy economy and the population grows.”, which does make sense. If a country has a thriving economy, there’s going to be an increase of economic migrants to that country. If he was talking about immigration rather than birthrates, then he must have forgotten what thread he’s on, but, in any case, he’s wrong even including immigration. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/240 "2010-01-04T15:36:59Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Actually, just as a note, the person you’re responding to didn’t say “maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows”…they said, “maintain a healthy economy and the population grows.”, which does make sense. If a country has a thriving economy, there’s going to be an increase of economic migrants to that country. Context, context. Clearly we are not talking about immigration here. Even so, the notion is not necessarily correct - look at Germany and Japan: > **[Germany's Population Problems No Longer Taboo](https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-population-problems-no-longer-taboo/a-1836769)** > > The German government wants to combat the falling birth rate with better family policies. Tainted by controversial associations during the Nazi era, the issue was all but taboo until a few years ago. > **[BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Japan eyes demographic time bomb](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7084749.stm)** > > The BBC's Philippa Fogarty looks at what dramatic demographic changes could mean for Japan. While it is true that countries could in theory solve demographic problems by deliberately encouraging immigration if they have enough money, this raises other problems - namely, the notorious “brain drain” of the third world, further impoverishing the most impoverished, and in effect outsourcing the difficult task of raising future generations to those least able to afford it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653.md?page=13)