Will you have biological children?

Biological kids?

  • Yes, I will or do have biological children

    Votes: 40 44.4%
  • No, I will never have biological children

    Votes: 22 24.4%
  • I have a biological urge to procreate (may or may not have kids)

    Votes: 20 22.2%
  • I have no biological urge to procreate (may or may not have kids)

    Votes: 13 14.4%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 10 11.1%

  • Total voters
    90

Not_Punny

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,464
Media
109
Likes
3,056
Points
258
Location
California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I love Lego. (except it hurts like a bitch when you step on it)

It's true as an Uncle or Aunt you don't have any of the disadvantages. But I don't agree you get all of the advantages.

I never would have got all wet nearly every night for four years giving her a bath.
Or been there the first day she took her first steps in the front garden and immediately ran out to buy a pair of shoes (Italian red patent leather!).
Or been there to teach her how to play first base.
Or re-learned trig.
Or had her tuck her head into my neck while we watched Star Trek and discussed who was nastier, Species 8472 or the Borg?
Or spent 6 months reading Lord of the Rings as a bedtime story when she was five.
and on and on....

I don't put anyone down for their choices regarding having kids. I just know it has been and continues to be, the best thing in my life.

Omg!!! My long long twin brother!!!!!! I feel the same way.
 

benjames

1st Like
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Posts
24
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
86
Age
48
Location
ashburton
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
no i don't plan to. i'm adopted and as my birth mother wants no contact with me and refuses to tell me who my birth father is i wouldn't feel right having kids cause i don't have any true geniology on myself...i know that may not matter to some people...and i love my adoptive famliy...but not knowing my biological history is a real problem for me.....
 

sneakyd

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Posts
182
Media
5
Likes
7
Points
163
Location
SEQ Australia
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If I had found the right girl , not just for a long term relationship , but a girl who I thought I would spend my life with , I would have liked to have had 1 child . Not only just for ourselves , but also for my parents , as I know they would have loved to have had some grand children & watch them grow up .
I'm with you CK , there are already too many people on this planet , so 1 would have been plenty .
No chance now for me anyway :)~
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
138
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I've avoided posting a serious answer to this question for days now. It's a bit of a touchy subject for a woman of my age.:redface:



Will you have biological children?
I always hoped to have 4-6 when I was younger, I would settle for one or two healthy ones now.

  • Why or Why not?
    Because I am an only child by default. I had a much older half sister who died at the age of 15, on my first birthday.
Since I was a little kid my mom drummed it into my head and those of my friends that you should have at least 3 children so that if one dies the other isn't left all alone. I have always gravitated towards people from large familys. The noise, and sometimes chaos of a house full of kids is like a sonata to my ears.
  • Have you always known/felt that you would
    I always just assumed I would, now I don't know . . . The pool of acceptable men to just date, let alone raise a family with is pathetic these days. I am convinced all the good men are either married, gay, or in Iraq. The latter of course means they won't be fit company for man nor beast, if and when they come home.
  • For those who will have or already have children, do/did you have a drive to procreate or is/was it social/religious or just the thing to do?
    Hmm, definetely not because of my religion; I'm United Methodist, I don't even know what their stand is on it. :redface:
I guess it was a social expectation of the time and place in which I was reared. There are many things that were the expected norm for girls during that time period with which I shun or vehemently disagree.
  • Have your attitudes about biological children changed over the years? If yes, why?
    Not really. I have always wanted to be a wife and mother. The only thing that has changed is that as I get older I reduce the number of children I want to have, which to me is just being practical.
I know this is a very personal question, almost as personal as penis size preference ;), but I am very curious about current views on procreation.
That said, I wish we could stop stupid & ugly people from procreating.

I'm done.
I have 4 children and 8 grandchildren.
That's it? :eek: Just 4? :confused: In some circles that's barely a good start. :wink:
 

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,692
Media
0
Likes
72
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
I've avoided posting a serious answer to this question for days now. It's a bit of a touchy subject for a woman of my age.:redface:
Thanks for taking a moment to answer, NJ. :hug:


I always hoped to have 4-6 when I was younger, I would settle for one or two healthy ones now.
<snippy>

  • Not really. I have always wanted to be a wife and mother. The only thing that has changed is that as I get older I reduce the number of children I want to have, which to me is just being practical.
  • You don't have to answer this, NJ.
    But since you do want kids, have you ever considered beginning your family now by adopting a baby?

That said, I wish we could stop stupid & ugly people from procreating.
Heehee, indeed. Sometimes I think I have watched 'Idiocracy' too many times.


If I had found the right girl , not just for a long term relationship , but a girl who I thought I would spend my life with , I would have liked to have had 1 child . Not only just for ourselves , but also for my parents , as I know they would have loved to have had some grand children & watch them grow up .
I'm with you CK , there are already too many people on this planet , so 1 would have been plenty .
No chance now for me anyway :)~
Thanks for agreeing with me, that is like the most important thing. :tongue:
I doubt it is too late for you, Sneaky. Men really have the luxury of time, so if the right woman comes along you may still have a little one. :smile:
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
138
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
No, adoption is out for me because of the immense cost. I seriously considered in-vitro fertilization (IVF) or artificial insemination (AI) during the summer of 2005. I had all the tests done and found out, I not only had plenty of viable eggs; but that they were very healthy for a woman my age. :smile: I was almost done paying off my credit card debt and I had a great paying job with even better benefits. The process of AI would not have cost me anything other than the gas to get to the appointments. :cool:

The reproductive endocrinologist told me that since I have a healthy womb IVF would be unneccessary. Actually he encouraged me to get pregnant the natural way. Unfortunately I was 3 years, into a 4 year dry spell, so that really wasn't an option.

So what stopped me? Two things, 1) there were talks of budget cuts and state worker layoffs. I had already had my position cut once before. 2) Fear of doing it alone, as my family had just moved 900+ miles away. The only adults I would easily trust my child with were no longer in my backyard. 3) I was afraid that choosing to become a single mom would scare off or negate my chance of ever getting married.

Hindsight is 20/20 - I should have done it when I had the chance.:redface::15:
 

D_Kay_Sarah_Sarah

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,331
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
193
The prospect of having babies scares the hell out of me. Not only the physical pain but being responsible for someone else's life. What happens if i suck at it? what happens if i screw up an innocent persons life?
 

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,692
Media
0
Likes
72
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
No, adoption is out for me because of the immense cost. I seriously considered in-vitro fertilization (IVF) or artificial insemination (AI) during the summer of 2005. I had all the tests done and found out, I not only had plenty of viable eggs; but that they were very healthy for a woman my age. :smile: I was almost done paying off my credit card debt and I had a great paying job with even better benefits. The process of AI would not have cost me anything other than the gas to get to the appointments. :cool:

The reproductive endocrinologist told me that since I have a healthy womb IVF would be unneccessary. Actually he encouraged me to get pregnant the natural way. Unfortunately I was 3 years, into a 4 year dry spell, so that really wasn't an option.

So what stopped me? Two things, 1) there were talks of budget cuts and state worker layoffs. I had already had my position cut once before. 2) Fear of doing it alone, as my family had just moved 900+ miles away. The only adults I would easily trust my child with were no longer in my backyard. 3) I was afraid that choosing to become a single mom would scare off or negate my chance of ever getting married.

Hindsight is 20/20 - I should have done it when I had the chance.:redface::15:
I think you should still do it the natural way, NJ. :smile:
If it is a deep desire why not fulfil it while you still can? I'm not pushing, and yes, I am sort of a 'just do it' kinda girl, but your decisions shouldn't be influenced by how some jackhole may judge your choice to have children. This isn't a case of a 13 yo mom, or a woman with 5 miscellaneous kids, it is the action of a grown woman choosing to begin her family. To which, he could be a welcome addition.

Plus, isn't it likely the right man would already have a kid or two as well? :shrug:

Sorry, I have an older friend in the same position. 38, divorced, BF doesn't want anymore kids, she doesn't want SBMS (single black mom stigma) - so she's afraid to make a choice. Yeah, I'm pushing her too. :cool:
 

Axcess

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Posts
1,611
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Hey were is pronatalist ? I'm looking forward to read his posts here trying to convince everyone to have atleast 100 kids .:biggrin1:
 

pronatalist

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Posts
916
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Hey were is pronatalist ? I'm looking forward to read his posts here trying to convince everyone to have atleast 100 kids .:biggrin1:

100 children? Don't you think that much be a bit much, for even me? Sure, children can share a bedroom, even younger children share beds or bunkbeds for a while, so that even a typical 3-bedroom house can actually hold 8 children or so, not even counting "overflow" bedrooms in garages, attics, and basements. But 100 children?

I would think more of 200 great-grandchildren, from the successive growing generations of the typical 5 or 6 children of more "unplanned" families in developing countries where they still haven't yet been duped into the modern anti-family fad of shoddy contraceptive abuse.
 

pronatalist

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Posts
916
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Does God give so many children to the poor, to help make the rich people who don't want them, "jealous?"

Too many smart people are not having children these days.

I feel one small part of my plan to save the world is passing on my genes through my children.

And perhaps, through my clone.

Queue maniacal laughter.

And why would your genes, or my genes, be all that much better than anybody else's, or any other group's genes?

I advocate large families worldwide, so that far more people may experience life.

Yeah, the "smart" people should have more children, but then the populous masses should relax and welcome their precious darling babies to push out naturally without awkward, unnatural "birth control." Welcome the natural flow of human life to flow naturally unhindered. Let everybody have the number of children that God would allow them to have.

I would like to maybe have a rather "large" family, but I expect other people may enjoy having many children as well. The idea isn't to "outbreed" the other group, but to simply altruistically welcome fellow human life, and allow for the beauty of the human race "blossoming" in size naturally, so that all the more people may experience life.
 

naughty

Sexy Member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Posts
11,232
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
258
Location
Workin' up a good pot of mad!
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Pronatalist,

WHat do you think about people who irresponsibly give birth to children and do not have the means to take care of them? I know someone who had 12 children and unfortunately it overshadowed his ability to make employment choices because the family's needs were prememinent. When your choice starts sliding over into the choices of others then it is way past time to reaccess.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
I'm sure somebody has tried this one on Pronatalist before - but I'm going to give it a shot - just because I think the response may be an interesting insight.

Pronatalist - are you aware that there has been a method of natural population control amongst human beings for millenia - it is called high* infant / child mortality.

Over human (recorded) history, and especially in the last 100-150 years, medical science has taken huge leaps and bounds. This has had a huge impact on infant mortality rates (in developed countries). Children who would have been lost during gestation, even 30 years ago, are now often saved. Children who would have been lost due to premature birth are now more often than not saved. Children who would have been lost due to extremely premature birth are now often saved. Children who would have died within the first year of life now often don't even get sick - same goes for children under the age of 5**.

I think this is wonderful - I wish it were the same the world over.

That has no bearing, however, on the fact that one of the reasons humans evolved to be able to reproduce as we can (pretty much continually with breaks in fertility only during pregnancy and, for many, nursing) is down to the fact that not all offspring survive. In fact, even as recently as 1900 an infant mortality rate of 15 - 20 % was pretty much common globally (one source). And I think we can safely say that the further back you go the higher that gets (to a point).

So, certainly in the developed world, human beings no longer need to have all the children we are able to and, in fact, further to that we would be ill advised to do so as it causes over-population - which in turn tends to bring about suffering. So in the (developed) world today we have the option of birth control. This means that instead of having babies and children dying (or the population rising uncontrolably, causing resource shortages, meaning worse living conditions for a greater number of people and therefore bringing us back to natural 'population control', i.e. child and infant mortality rising) we have the option of never conceiving these children in the first place, birth control***.

There is nothing at all unnatural about population control - it happens in all species, ours included. We have found a way around the suffering and pain part of it. That is not a bad thing.


* that's high relative to now
** a significant milestone in development that child mortality statistians use as a cut off point, not me being arbitrary.
*** or ideally, for me anyway, conception control

Further reading: WHO | Health Status Statistics: Mortality
 
Last edited:

pronatalist

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Posts
916
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Some of us who favor nature in human-beneficial ways, naturally oppose needless "earth control."

Part 1 of 2:

I'm sure somebody has tried this one on Pronatalist before - but I'm going to give it a shot - just because I think the response may be an interesting insight.

Pronatalist - are you aware that there has been a method of natural population control amongst human beings for millenia - it is called high* infant / child mortality.

And is that the way it is forever to be? We can't make proper natural improvements? Deut. 30:19 says to choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. Surely that could imply using medical technology for "death control" but not "birth control." Favoring human life. Welcoming the natural increase of the naturally-growing human race. The proper pro-life bias is even recorded in the traditional demographic terms. Having "issue" of children, as if God hands out or issues his blessings of children. "Natural increase," as in it's perfectly natural and to be expected.

Over human (recorded) history, and especially in the last 100-150 years, medical science has taken huge leaps and bounds. This has had a huge impact on infant mortality rates (in developed countries). Children who would have been lost during gestation, even 30 years ago, are now often saved. Children who would have been lost due to premature birth are now more often than not saved. Children who would have been lost due to extremely premature birth are now often saved. Children who would have died within the first year of life now often don't even get sick - same goes for children under the age of 5**.

And this is all good. Why should parents, or their children, suffer needlessly. We face a population "challenge" in that now most babies born, grow up to have still more babies. But then, humans need and thrive on challenges, and as challenges go, that's a rather "good" one to face.

I think this is wonderful - I wish it were the same the world over.

Even if that means the global population naturally rises more quickly? Of course you know my answer would be Yes. I don't at all support supposedly "natural" population "control" in the form of needless or preventable infant mortality.

That has no bearing, however, on the fact that one of the reasons humans evolved to be able to reproduce as we can (pretty much continually with breaks in fertility only during pregnancy and, for many, nursing) is down to the fact that not all offspring survive. In fact, even as recently as 1900 an infant mortality rate of 15 - 20 % was pretty much common globally (one source). And I think we can safely say that the further back you go the higher that gets (to a point).

So, certainly in the developed world, human beings no longer need to have all the children we are able to and, in fact, further to that we would be ill advised to do so as it causes over-population - which in turn tends to bring about suffering. So in the (developed) world today we have the option of birth control. This means that instead of having babies and children dying (or the population rising uncontrolably, causing resource shortages, meaning worse living conditions for a greater number of people and therefore bringing us back to natural 'population control', i.e. child and infant mortality rising) we have the option of never conceiving these children in the first place, birth control***.

But quite many people don't believe in imposing population "control," nor that it should be, or is practically capable or moral to control. Still many people believe in not using any means of "birth control" also. I am pro-life, also pro-population. We should "go along with nature" especially in what so benefits so many people, allowing the natural flow of human life to flow naturally unhindered. Much of the world population, for moral, religious or practical beliefs, is fine with human population rising "uncontrollably." Even claimed atheists I find discussing the matter on the various forums, are for naturally large families, as seemingly being healthier cultural function, good for the "progress" of the human race, or something.

While humans enjoy being strangely constantly "in heat," able to breed offspring year-round, we are among the slowest at reproducing of God's creatures. But we also tend to naturally reproduce though, steadily and relentlessly. Isn't that a large part of why humans are supposed to be intelligent? To allow us to readily ADAPT to our naturally rising numbers.

There is nothing at all unnatural about population control - it happens in all species, ours included. We have found a way around the suffering and pain part of it. That is not a bad thing.

When I say I prefer the natural, that's only the human-beneficial natural. Teeth green with rot, could be said to be natural. I don't believe in polluting the body directly, with ugly tattooing inks, nasty cancer stick cigarettes, bizarre body piercings, hair coloring, or nasty shoddy contraceptives. With any married couples, reproductive semen naturally belongs within the reproductive tract, ready to maybe make a baby at any moment.

I do not believe in "earth control." I define "earth control" as trying to "control" nature to such an extent as to be detrimental to man. Don't bother, if cost-benefit analysis doesn't work. That means that most forest fires out in remote unpopulated inaccessible wilderness, likely aren't worth the effort to fight, as nature can handle them so much cheaper. I first saw the term, in the stupid "environmental" book I think, "50 Ways to Save the Earth." It dared to intrude in the taboo God-given right/duty of procreation, by suggesting that having no more than 2 children per family, supposedly helps "stabilize" (stagnate) world population size. But I find 2 children per family, a pidly small family size, far smaller than what is biologically likely, and far smaller than many families can be expected to want or be capable somehow of managing. Statistically, it takes an average of 3 children per couple, just to get both a boy and a girl. Isn't it wrong how boys are favored over girls in places like China? Shouldn't girls get to be born and live too? At least keep on having more girls until a family gets their boy(s).

Anyway, I do not believe in setting any arbitrary cap on world population size. Such is needless "earth control." Nature was meant to be altered by man for human benefit, but not to be subject to such excessive "control." Some aspects of nature should remain "wild," such as allowing some wildfires to grow naturally during droughts, as intervention often isn't worth the effort, and welcoming human baby booms to persist and spread. We aren't "god," so how to we imagine we can tame or "control" all of nature? Subdue and alter, Yes, but not "earth control." Humans are under no obligation to somehow keep our numbers "reasonably" small compared to the seeming small size of the appliable land. Humans are so highly adaptable, that our populations could be or become potentially very large compared to the size of the land. Even sci-fi proposes that population "arcologies," or vertical cities packing lots of people into limited space, could someday perhaps prove useful.

* that's high relative to now
** a significant milestone in development that child mortality statistians use as a cut off point, not me being arbitrary.
*** or ideally, for me anyway, conception control

Further reading: WHO | Health Status Statistics: Mortality

Population size is such a profound matter, that it can only be morally decided by a "higher power." For pets, their human masters will do, so we are free to get our pets "fixed" if we so choose, as we "own" them and "know what's best for them." Mere animals or pets do not have "human rights." Getting them fixed helps them be better pets without needless reproductive urge distractions. But humans have a simple method for this, that pretty much removes their desire for sex as well. It works. But obviously it's not applicable to humans, as we are much different, and we have human rights. We are created in God's image, so we are expected to have some measure of self-control and to take responsibility for our actions. Thus, we have the right, even the obligation, to remain naturally fertile. Our "higher power" is God, who specifically commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Apparently God knew the issue would come up for discussion and has already given his answer. I don't see much any "disclaimer" to this commandment. What does it say to do, when the planet becomes hypothetically, if ever, "bursting full" of people? Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Go on marrying and having babies. My sister responded to my informal survey as to whether God's commandment still applies, saying that God has not rescinded his commandment. All my respondants indicated that God's commandment still applies. Some guy said something about world population being "huge," but it still applies.
 

pronatalist

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Posts
916
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Some of us who favor nature in human-beneficial ways, naturally oppose needless "earth control."

Part 2 of 2:

It's only humans that I advocate "unchecked" population growth for, as we are already evidently ADAPTING. Which is the far better alternative to needless "control." Humans are part of the population control mechanism for other animals such as deer and such that we still hunt. I seem to recall a Bible verse somewhere to that effect.

How can people enjoy having their precious darling babies, in a world with so many people alive already? Simple. Where much room to spread out may seemingly start to lack, we can also populate denser. Welcome cities to grow larger, swell with people, and grow closer together. That way, so many more people can be made to fit somehow upon the planet. There can simply come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. That's not "overpopulation" at all, but merely humans exercising "dominion" over nature and other creatures, which God clearly gave to man in Genesis, and that's probably largely why. Due to our "sheer numbers" that we would ultimately be made to reach, there would be no other option but to enjoy "dominion" over nature, as our numbers naturally grow, nature and humans increasingly become much the same thing, and so nature becomes all the more human-friendly.

Anyway, I have no desire to "control" the natural growth of my family when I finally get married. Like a lot of people, I object to "controlling" the size of my family. Why must I "decide" how many children to have, when how can I know ahead of time how many children I can love and provide for, and I can more wisely just leave it up to God to determine for us? I expect it to be much the same with many other people. Now sure, I can do the "don't litter" thing, and be frugal and simple and whatever "environmental" nonsense to some extent, but I consider myself no better than my children, so I have no desire to unnatural block their possible conception and birth into the world. Even a "good" environmentalist, like a "good" Catholic, is free to enjoy having a naturally possibly large family. I would think if "environmentalists" were for real, they would have serious misgivings about subjecting their bodies to the nasty shoddy side-effect-ridden experimental contraceptives of our "modern" day. "Artificial" contraceptives aren't even "natural." And like a lot of people, I enjoy powerful reproductive urges, that I would like for my possibly many children to inherit, and naturally grow their families as well. What's "a few more" children, in a world of "burgeoning billions" anyway? Not much to the populous masses, but everything to my children.
 

pronatalist

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Posts
916
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Some of us who favor nature in human-beneficial ways, naturally oppose needless "earth control."

Part 2 of 2:

It's only humans that I advocate "unchecked" population growth for, as we are already evidently ADAPTING. Which is the far better alternative to needless "control." Humans are part of the population control mechanism for other animals such as deer and such that we still hunt. I seem to recall a Bible verse somewhere to that effect.

How can people enjoy having their precious darling babies, in a world with so many people alive already? Simple. Where much room to spread out may seemingly start to lack, we can also populate denser. Welcome cities to grow larger, swell with people, and grow closer together. That way, so many more people can be made to fit somehow upon the planet. There can simply come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. That's not "overpopulation" at all, but merely humans exercising "dominion" over nature and other creatures, which God clearly gave to man in Genesis, and that's probably largely why. Due to our "sheer numbers" that we would ultimately be made to reach, there would be no other option but to enjoy "dominion" over nature, as our numbers naturally grow, nature and humans increasingly become much the same thing, and so nature becomes all the more human-friendly.

Anyway, I have no desire to "control" the natural growth of my family when I finally get married. Like a lot of people, I object to "controlling" the size of my family. Why must I "decide" how many children to have, when how can I know ahead of time how many children I can love and provide for, and I can more wisely just leave it up to God to determine for us? I expect it to be much the same with many other people. Now sure, I can do the "don't litter" thing, and be frugal and simple and whatever "environmental" nonsense to some extent, but I consider myself no better than my children, so I have no desire to unnatural block their possible conception and birth into the world. Even a "good" environmentalist, like a "good" Catholic, is free to enjoy having a naturally possibly large family. I would think if "environmentalists" were for real, they would have serious misgivings about subjecting their bodies to the nasty shoddy side-effect-ridden experimental contraceptives of our "modern" day. "Artificial" contraceptives aren't even "natural." And like a lot of people, I enjoy powerful reproductive urges, that I would like for my possibly many children to inherit, and naturally grow their families as well. What's "a few more" children, in a world of "burgeoning billions" anyway? Not much to the populous masses, but everything to my children.
 

pronatalist

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Posts
916
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Babies happen. There should be no "shame" in the beauty of "traditionally very large" families.

Pronatalist,

WHat do you think about people who irresponsibly give birth to children and do not have the means to take care of them? I know someone who had 12 children and unfortunately it overshadowed his ability to make employment choices because the family's needs were prememinent. When your choice starts sliding over into the choices of others then it is way past time to reaccess.

Until very recently, "irresponsibly giving birth to children," largely meant having children outside of wedlock, not at all naturally having supposedly "too many" children.

The trend of women getting fed up with the corporate ratrace workplace, or wanting to do the honorable thing and come home to be Stay-At-Home Moms, really does make it so much easier for human families to grow more naturally and relaxed. Children are much less likely to be seen as an "inconvenient" obstacle to career goals, under the more traditional and family-friendly way. If I ever had a wife who supposedly made "too much" money to come home, if she won't, I would then be a Stay-At-Home Dad. I have heard of women who do make far more money than their husbands, by faith deciding to stay home with their children regardless. I'm saying at least one of us would stay home. I don't like the workplace that much, for both to be working outside the home.

And yeah, doesn't most everybody already say, that "Family comes first?"

When I was younger, I wondered why people in poor countries, keep having all those babies that they can't afford. Until I learned more how corrupt the world is, and how economies so often cheat the working poor out of their due. Big Brother government and greedy corporations, seeking to depress people's wages below a reasonable amount, and often hoarding and "raping" people's resources, and not sharing the profits with the people. Now I believe that most everybody can really afford naturally possibly large families, were the ecomomy/nation to become more morally just.

There's even a conspiracy theory out there, that says the income tax was invented, to keep American families from growing "too large." If people started accumulating "too much" wealth, they might decide they can just relax and let it go natural, and let their families grow really big. But I see no shame in a nation naturally growing so incredibly populous as China. More and more people would be glad to live, and the world could potentially hold so many more people, than many people dare to think or imagine. The "everybody could live in Texas" illustration, barely scratches the surface of what possible ADAPTATIONS may eventually prove practical at some hypothetical point.

It's not merely "macho" to let families naturally grow really large, but it's a very pro-life and kind thing to do, for our children and for the healthy advancement of the naturally-growing human race.