Why people have so many children?

[Jack21222]

just because a parent abuses their child doesn't mean they don't also love them.

Can you explain this to me slowly? Because apparently I'm an idiot and can't comprehend this. I'm not claiming you're wrong, I'm just saying that statement makes no sense at all to me the way it's currently phrased.

 

[leroyjenkens]

They regret being unprepared for children, not ever having them in the first place. This regret doesn't support your argument.

That implies they had the children on accident. If they wish they waited to have children, that implies the child wasn't an accident and they regret having the child.
Now, the way I say it sounds bad, but that's basically all it is. It's taboo to say you regret having your child, so people get around saying that by saying something else, which basically says the same thing.

It's not quantifiable because you cannot assign numbers to it.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Quantify Ghandi's worth versus Hitler's. Give me numbers (even if you make them up) that meaningfully show specifically how much more Ghandi is worth to the world than Hitler.

This would be new territory. Like if I was the first one to put numbers to volumes of liquids. If I just gave it a number; 42, it means nothing.
How do they assign numbers to something like your credibility? If it's never been done before, someone could say you can't assign a number to someone's credibility. But they did. It's called your credit score. And just like credit score, I could invent a new way of quantifying someone's worth.

Alternately, quantify the emotional or spiritual effect of children on parents.

I could quantify the chemical effects, which is what it is. I don't believe there's anything spiritual about it.

 

[Huckleberry]

Can you explain this to me slowly? Because apparently I'm an idiot and can't comprehend this. I'm not claiming you're wrong, I'm just saying that statement makes no sense at all to me the way it's currently phrased.

I remember my father screaming and shaking my infant brother until my brother stopped crying. Then he would throw my brother in the crib. My brother couldn't even speak yet, but he learned exactly when to stop crying before he would be thrashed. I assume my father thought the problem was solved with no further damage done.

I remember, many years later after I had left home, my brother told me how our father punched our mother in the face. She is schitzophrenic and supposedly he had to stop her from hurting herself or burning down the house.

I remember visiting home and going down to the basement to smoke and I heard a noise from a sealed 5 gallon bucket. There was a live squirrel in there suffocating. My father said he thought it was already dead, and he kills the squirrels because they dump the birdseed on the ground.

I also remember going out riding bikes with my sister and father. I went racing down a hill and around a corner and crashed into my sister. We both fell to the pavement hard. Our father was running between us frantically trying to see if we were alright. He wasn't pretending concern.

I remember we would go camping and I'd jump off his shoulders when we were swimming. We'd go fishing for bass, and the two of us would go canoeing on the lake for hours. He was enjoying himself as much as I was.

I remember when I left home because I couldn't stand the arguments and the anger, and watching my 10 year old brother and my father both crying on the steps as I drove away. They were real tears. He still calls me regularly and always tells me I should call my mother more often, but it is always him who I end up talking to. He has regrets he can't admit to himself, but I highly doubt that I or my siblings are one of them.

It's easy to view an abuser as a despicable, vile pig, incapable of love. I think that's rarely the truth, that a person is entirely one thing or another. My father is not a kind man by any estimation, but he's not completely devoid of kindness either. He is sometimes compelled beyond reason to create the illusion of self-control and self-esteem by controlling his environment and the people in it. To this day he still seems unaware of what he has done, but I don't doubt that he loves his children as best as he is able. For the moments when he was a genuine father I love him too.

I hope that at least makes my opinion of the matter understandable.

 

[Huckleberry]

That implies they had the children on accident. If they wish they waited to have children, that implies the child wasn't an accident and they regret having the child.
Now, the way I say it sounds bad, but that's basically all it is. It's taboo to say you regret having your child, so people get around saying that by saying something else, which basically says the same thing.

I'm assuming you mean that the child was an accident, and saying it wasn't is an error.

Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to say that all parents who have unplanned pregnancies regret having their children. I know that I won't convince you otherwise, so I'm just going to go scribble the word serendipity out of my dictionary.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to say that all parents who have unplanned pregnancies regret having their children.

I didn't say all do. But I was responding to someone who said none do. Some definitely do.

 

[Jack21222]

I hope that at least makes my opinion of the matter understandable.

None of your examples, except possibly the first one, are instances of child abuse. The original statement was about "abuse and neglect" of children. From the examples you provided, you were neither abused nor neglected as a child.

My belief is that a bona fide child abuser does not love his or her child. My parents, and I'm sure almost everybody's parents, have made stupid parenting mistakes from time to time. That's not what we're talking about here.

 

[DaveC426913]

This would be new territory. ...I could invent a new way of quantifying someone's worth.

Thank you. Twice you have agreed that there currently is no quantifiable way to measure these things.

I don't believe there's anything spiritual about it.

That is not your call. It is entirely a matter of the parents feeling that they are spiritually-enhanced by their children.

 

[DaveC426913]

My belief is that a bona fide child abuser does not love his or her child. My parents, and I'm sure almost everybody's parents, have made stupid parenting mistakes from time to time. That's not what we're talking about here.

No. Your viewpoint is far too black and white.

Just because a parent regrets what they did to their child, does not mean it was not abusive.

Examples:
- a parent might use excessive corporal punishment, such as using a strap or belt, for a particularly bad transgression. The parent may feel this is necessary, may even dislike it, but that does not mean they are not being abusive. Nor does it mean they don't love them (flawed as it may be).
- a parent may lash out at a child with a slap in anger or weakness (say, they were lacking sleep or had been drinking). It is abuse, but it does not mean they don't love their child (again, no argiung that these people need help to deal with their issues).

Nor are these simply "mistakes". This behaviour may be institutionalized, meaning, within the family, it is considered "normal".


Whether you disagree the above (or think it should be stopped or think the authorities should step in) is irrelevent; it is de facto. It is what it is. Some parents do love and abuse their children.

 

[Kerrie]

Kids are fun. They're fun to make and fun to watch and fun to see become real people.

I have to say, my only regret about fatherhood is that I only had one.

I have heard this regret from my own mother too-she had just me in her youthful energetic life. At age 40, she had my half brother who has Downs Syndrome as well as Autism. While this is an incredible responsibility, she does not regret the decision to raise him because it is humanistic to raise, care, and love another.

It is also humanistic to be afraid of or repulsed by the responsibilities to raise a child. To those who do fear this, I don't think any less of them because they are aware of what sacrifice it takes to raise a child who has the morals and decision making skills to be a productive member of society. At the same time, I don't need others questioning my decision to raise a child with my dedication and commitment to their well being in society-for one day they will be caretakers of those who question their existence.

 

[Huckleberry]

None of your examples, except possibly the first one, are instances of child abuse. The original statement was about "abuse and neglect" of children. From the examples you provided, you were neither abused nor neglected as a child.

My belief is that a bona fide child abuser does not love his or her child. My parents, and I'm sure almost everybody's parents, have made stupid parenting mistakes from time to time. That's not what we're talking about here.

Neglected, no, but it sure felt like abuse much of the time. A pattern of violent behaviour isn't a parenting mistake, and having to occassionally suffer it for no reason at all and constantly live under the threat of it is a kind of abuse. Whether that is bona-fide or not I'll leave to you. Though I'm sure some abusers do suffer from a form of antisocial personality disorder that renders them incapable of empathy, my point was to show that not all abusers (children,women,animals) have that extreme limitation. If only the most psychopathic forms of abuse are considered bona-fide, then maybe you are right, but rarely is the world so black and white.

I didn't say all do. But I was responding to someone who said none do. Some definitely do.

I suppose that is true, but I don't think it follows that because a parent says one thing they necessarily mean something different. It doesn't help your argument.

edit - I like this scene from Good Will Hunting about regret.
Warning: the clip is rife with bad language!

 

[leroyjenkens]

Thank you. Twice you have agreed that there currently is no quantifiable way to measure these things.

Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist.

That is not your call. It is entirely a matter of the parents feeling that they are spiritually-enhanced by their children.

Just because they feel that way, doesn't mean it's actually happening. Some may feel that god answers their prayers, but just because that's the way they feel, doesn't mean that he actually does.

I suppose that is true, but I don't think it follows that because a parent says one thing they necessarily mean something different.

I'm saying they're not different. I'm saying they're the same thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist.

The proof will have to be in the pudding.

I am claiming we cannot quantify personal worth or the benefits of children. As it stands, that is the way it is.

If you think it's possible. Theoretically. Some day in the future. If someone takes it on. And they succeed.

Well, one can say the same thing about teleporting to other planets. But the proof will be in the pudding.

Till then, there's nothing to debate. These things are not quantifiable.


I wonder, maybe you think what I'm saying is that they can never be quantifable, even in principle. I am not saying that.

Just because they feel that way, doesn't mean it's actually happening. Some may feel that god answers their prayers, but just because that's the way they feel, doesn't mean that he actually does.

God has nothing to do with it. You have a very narrow definition of spirituality. Spirituality does not necessarily have anything to do with the supernatural.

If it would help you, substitute the following words: identity, moral compass, emotional well-being, compassion, love of thy neighbour, philanthropy, philosophy, etc.

 

[Jack21222]

No. Your viewpoint is far too black and white.

Just because a parent regrets what they did to their child, does not mean it was not abusive.

Examples:
- a parent might use excessive corporal punishment, such as using a strap or belt, for a particularly bad transgression. The parent may feel this is necessary, may even dislike it, but that does not mean they are not being abusive. Nor does it mean they don't love them (flawed as it may be).
- a parent may lash out at a child with a slap in anger or weakness (say, they were lacking sleep or had been drinking). It is abuse, but it does not mean they don't love their child (again, no argiung that these people need help to deal with their issues).

Nor are these simply "mistakes". This behaviour may be institutionalized, meaning, within the family, it is considered "normal".


Whether you disagree the above (or think it should be stopped or think the authorities should step in) is irrelevent; it is de facto. It is what it is. Some parents do love and abuse their children.

I have been slapped for inadequate reasons on several occasions as a child, however, I do not feel that I was "abused." We're using different definitions of the word.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The proof will have to be in the pudding.

I am claiming we cannot quantify personal worth or the benefits of children. As it stands, that is the way it is.

If you think it's possible. Theoretically. Some day in the future. If someone takes it on. And they succeed.

Well, one can say the same thing about teleporting to other planets. But the proof will be in the pudding.

Teleporting to other planets isn't a comparable analogy. We haven't done anything close to that yet, yet we've done something close to putting human worth into numbers. For that to be a comparable analogy, you would have to accept that putting human worth into numbers is as far off as teleporting people to other planets.
Not only can we not do anything like that, we don't even know if it will ever be possible.
On the other hand, I could create a system right now for assigning numbers to human worth.

God has nothing to do with it. You have a very narrow definition of spirituality. Spirituality does not necessarily have anything to do with the supernatural.

If it would help you, substitute the following words: identity, moral compass, emotional well-being, compassion, love of thy neighbour, philanthropy, philosophy, etc.

Why are any of those intrinsically incapable of being quantified?
Credibility has been assigned a numerical quantity, proving that similar ideas can be quantified. Your argument is that because they haven't, no one knows if they could be.

 

[DaveC426913]

On the other hand, I could create a system right now for assigning numbers to human worth.

By the same argument I could assign a colour to human worth. But how does one judge if it has any meaning?

You claiming you could invent a system for assigning a number to human worth is an empty claim.

And, getting back to the initial argument, let's remember why we're talking about this. You are effectively criticizing parents for describing their joy of having children without giving quantitative values. Yet there is no such system. You are criticzing them for not using something that does not exist.

Why are any of those intrinsically incapable of being quantified?

I didn't say anything about that. I simply said you don't know what spirituality usually means.

If you have a specious concept of spirituality, who's to say you don't have a specious concept of the joys of parenthood?

 

[Zantra]

It's always amusing to hear people who are single comment on how becoming a parent is a mistake. Children are like ciggarrettes. If you haven't had one, you just don't get it. It's like a smoker being told by non-smokers how easy it is to quit smoking.

Ego

Having chidlren is all about ego. We are genetically predisposed to love our children through 10,000 years of evolution biased towards procreation. We are taught to always love ourselves, and children, by association, are an extension of ourselves. So to reject them is to reject ourselves. To hate them is to hate ourselves. Your child is a direct reflection of you, and in most cases, their development and growth is a direct reflections of your efforts (or lack thereof). The individual they will one day become is a direct result of your influence, and most parents come to realize this.

That said, not everyone should be a parent. Some people have children by mistake, and not every human being has the necessary nuturing skills, or capability of being a parent. Some people are just irresponsible and incapable of caring about someone more than they care about themselves. When those kinds of people have children, the result is bad parenting.

You should only have as many children as you can sustain without significantly reducing your lifestyle. When you do that you are affecting your whole family, not just yourselves. You have made a decision that having a 3rd child is more important than your first 2 children attending a private school, or being able to attend an ivy league school one day (insert your own ideals here). My point being that having more children than you can realistically support (19 children? really?) is a mistake that your whole family has to live with.

Philosophy of Parenting

First rule: there are not absolutes, correct?

I see all these examples of parents who are resentful, disciplinarian, abusive, irresponsible, etc. The bottom line is that AGAIN, not everyone should be a parent. if 99.999 % of parents are good parents who do a socially acceptable job parenting, I call that a statistical certainty, but we never deal in absolutes.

Parenting is a series of snapshots in time. Anger, joy, amusement, rage, love, resentment,contempt, stoicism, disgust, chaos.. you will experience all of those emotions within the first year of having a child. Once you do, you understand what it is to be a parent, and that while it may not be black and white, the pros DO outweigh the cons. YOu'll also realize that a parent regretting their choice one day may have a different outlook the next.

And love is not quantifiable. Especially the love for a child. When you put more value on your child's life than your own, how do you quantify a negative number? Maybe we start asking how many other innocent children you would kill to save your own child's life?

 

[DaveC426913]

I have been slapped for inadequate reasons on several occasions as a child, however, I do not feel that I was "abused."

I concur. That's not abuse.

But there is a wide grey area between that and parents who, say, deliberately lock their children in the basement for years, or burn them with cigarettes. I think that's the kind of thing you're thinking of.

Your black and white definition runs the risk of ignoring all the children who fall in that grey area.

 

[leroyjenkens]

By the same argument I could assign a colour to human worth. But how does one judge if it has any meaning?

You decide how it's judged. Numbers are used to make a quantification for something and you're able to read it as a scale from worst to best. You could use colors as well, but you'd have to define the meaning and make a legend people could refer to. If you create the system, you make all the rules.

You claiming you could invent a system for assigning a number to human worth is an empty claim.

I don't see why you have trouble believing I could do it. You could do it. A child could do it. It's as difficult as assigning numbers to every good and bad thing a person does, add them up, and you have a credit score for human worth.

And, getting back to the initial argument, let's remember why we're talking about this. You are effectively criticizing parents for describing their joy of having children without giving quantitative values. Yet there is no such system. You are criticzing them for not using something that does not exist.

Are these people in a debate about it or are they just at a dinner party and casually talking? I wouldn't ask them to invent a system that doesn't exist, I'd just need elaboration on pros they want to list in contrast to the cons, if they list pros like "a blessing" or "a miracle".
But I've already said that and you've responded by saying they don't need to elaborate on that because they're not in a debate. I'm saying that it needs elaboration if they're in a debate about it. I didn't say anyone here said that, I just used those fictional people as an example of what isn't acceptable in a debate.
Do I decide what is acceptable in a debate? No, but I think I have a good understanding of what should be allowed in a debate.
If you're listing pros and cons and you're allowed to list "a blessing" or "a miracle" as pros, then where does it end? I could just as easily make up words to use as cons; "an aloe", "a glove", "a fruit explosion". Those "cons" that I listed don't make any sense until elaborated on.

I didn't say anything about that. I simply said you don't know what spirituality usually means.

I presume that would vary from person to person. But as far as I know, spirituality usually refers to the supernatural, since the root word "spirit" is usually a supernatural concept.

If you have a specious concept of spirituality, who's to say you don't have a specious concept of the joys of parenthood?

As far as I know, we haven't concluded I do in fact have a specious concept of spirituality. Maybe you're the one who does.
I know there are joys of parenthood. I was just arguing that I think the sorrows offset the joys. It may not be true and it could vary from person to person, so I don't think either of us is necessarily wrong.

 

[Evo]

You should only have as many children as you can sustain without significantly reducing your lifestyle. When you do that you are affecting your whole family, not just yourselves. You have made a decision that having a 3rd child is more important than your first 2 children attending a private school, or being able to attend an ivy league school one day (insert your own ideals here). My point being that having more children than you can realistically support (19 children? really?) is a mistake that your whole family has to live with.

Not to mention that in very large families, the older children are often delegated to take over the care and parenting of their younger siblings, stripping them of their chance to be children themselves.

 

[rewebster]

I've known women that enjoy being pregnant to women that have a fear of it (and to intimacy) ---and that's just the woman's side.

 

[Zantra]

I concur. That's not abuse.

But there is a wide grey area between that and parents who, say, deliberately lock their children in the basement for years, or burn them with cigarettes. I think that's the kind of thing you're thinking of.

Your black and white definition runs the risk of ignoring all the children who fall in that grey area.

I think that's the whole point. There's this grey area that most parents live in, and society doesen't know how to handle it, so they create this rigid line that says on one side you're properly disciplining your child, and on the other half you're an abuser and you're going to jail. And that creates an atmosphere of reluctance from the parents afraid to discipline their children, and children who abuse the system by running to the authorities and exaggerating because they are mad at the parents for punishing them, not understanding the implications of tattling. And thiat creates this generation of kids who leverage an over reaching mandate to misbehave and act out.

At some point the line between abusive and parenting was moved in the conservative direction, and the atmosphere it creates leads to a generation of children who act without fear of reprisal, and who don't understand respect or sound judgement. When I was a kid if I talked to my my parents they way I see some kids these days talk to their parents, I'd have been knocked out cold, no questions asked. As a youth I once swore in front of my mom. After I picked myself up off the ground, I never did it again. There's an acceptable middle ground here, but I don't think we've found it yet.

That's my soapbox for the day

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see why you have trouble believing I could do it. You could do it. A child could do it. It's as difficult as assigning numbers to every good and bad thing a person does, add them up, and you have a credit score for human worth.

I could not do it. You could not do it. A child could not do it. None of us could even do it for our own lives, let alone someone elses.


That being said, you are experiencing tunnel vision. You are belabouring a tangential point and have lost track of the thread topic.

It was your claim that the parents are saying nothing about how great it is to have children because they are not quantifying it. Yet there exists no system for quantifying it.

Let's get back on track: provide a method by which parents can succeed at what you require (the quantification of the improvement of their lives).

 

[leroyjenkens]

I could not do it. You could not do it. A child could not do it. None of us could even do it for our own lives, let alone someone elses.

Why? I've explained how it could easily be done, but you haven't explained why you think it's impossible.

That being said, you are experiencing tunnel vision. You are belabouring a tangential point and have lost track of the thread topic.

That's because you keep asking me about it.

It was your claim that the parents are saying nothing about how great it is to have children because they are not quantifying it. Yet there exists no system for quantifying it.

Not for quantifying "blessing" and "miracle". But on a list of pros and cons, what you list can be quantified, if what you list has an explicit meaning. If this wasn't true, a list of pros and cons is always meaningless, since you can't quantify which one is greater.

Let's get back on track: provide a method by which parents can succeed at what you require (the quantification of the improvement of their lives).

Not using vague terms like "blessing" and "miracle", which is all that I required from the beginning. It's not a lot to ask that someone elaborate on what they consider a plus for having a child.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why? I've explained how it could easily be done, but you haven't explained why you think it's impossible.

You would have to be omniscient and/or omnipresent. It is not practically possible.

It's not a lot to ask that someone elaborate on what they consider a plus for having a child.

And did you ask?

cuz I still think you're confusing a lack of communication with a lack of a valid argument.

 

[DaveC426913]

If one can have the Ability to reproduce a child, then he/she must assure his life to be good. its not us or anyone else would share or tolaerate the sufferings
That means also I dn't favor policies over election of those who are married or unmarried for any partiular purposes or advantadges.
You know what, I am a jenitor in a hospital- birth delivering department now, I see it all every single day. Just every 5-10 minutes all day and night there will be a baby to be born. There are cases of abortion by young, very young couple. They cry on bed in pain to get rid of the baby but I wonder if they cry like that when they are on bed with their boyfriends.
in the US, scenes of pregnant teens coming to schools are normal,but to all/most of nations in Asian, it is clearly the morality is seriously deteriorating, degraded. To me its disgusting and TOOO TOOOO TOOOOO stupid, i certainly have no respect at all for them and their parents

Who exactly would you appoint to enforce free citizens not being allowed to have children? It is a basic human right. Who can take that away?

While our world may not be perfect, do you have an alternative?

 

[Char. Limit]

I think that's the whole point. There's this grey area that most parents live in, and society doesen't know how to handle it, so they create this rigid line that says on one side you're properly disciplining your child, and on the other half you're an abuser and you're going to jail. And that creates an atmosphere of reluctance from the parents afraid to discipline their children, and children who abuse the system by running to the authorities and exaggerating because they are mad at the parents for punishing them, not understanding the implications of tattling. And that creates this generation of kids who leverage an over reaching mandate to misbehave and act out.

At some point the line between abusive and parenting was moved in the conservative direction, and the atmosphere it creates leads to a generation of children who act without fear of reprisal, and who don't understand respect or sound judgment. When I was a kid if I talked to my my parents they way I see some kids these days talk to their parents, I'd have been knocked out cold, no questions asked. As a youth I once swore in front of my mom. After I picked myself up off the ground, I never did it again. There's an acceptable middle ground here, but I don't think we've found it yet.

That's my soapbox for the day

I wouldn't say that this holds true, at least not as much as you seem to say it does. I and many of the people I know (the generation of children who "don't understand respect or sound judgment") still respect our parents, and I've sworn in front of them less than you have. This also holds true for many of the people I know. Some people hear children not calling their father "sir" and assume that the child is disrespectful. Now, I'm not saying you're one of those people, but it is still a bad idea to just assume disrespect. It's also a bad idea to generalize about the generation that is going to come into power soon.

Especially me, because I'm planning to do a Napoleon. Just as a hobby.

 

[leroyjenkens]

You would have to be omniscient and/or omnipresent. It is not practically possible.

It would be based on how much they help and hurt society and all of that is pretty well documented.

And did you ask?

cuz I still think you're confusing a lack of communication with a lack of a valid argument.

Yes, I did. Someone here said "best" for a decision to have children, then I asked for elaboration and gave examples of what people normally say in reference to having children that also needs to be elaborated on.
For another example, people say children bring joy. Joy in what way? You just get a feeling of inexplicable joy from the child being in proximity to you? Children emit joy particles that bind to neurotransmitters in your brain and cause joy?

Who exactly would you appoint to enforce free citizens not being allowed to have children? It is a basic human right. Who can take that away?

There's lots of "rights" that we should have, but we don't. We should be allowed to walk around naked, but we can't. What do you define as a human right? A right bestowed by a higher power? The only "rights" we have are the rights that society allows us to have.

 

[DaveC426913]

It would be based on how much they help and hurt society and all of that is pretty well documented..

Please quantify "help". Please quantify "hurt".

Yes, I did. Someone here said "best" for a decision to have children,

No, did you ask these parents that you are holding up as your examples. You listed a scenario about people who say these things, and dismiss their claims because it is not quantifiable enough for you. Did you check that they had answers before you dismissed them?

The only "rights" we have are the rights that society allows us to have.

And society allows us the right to bear children, whether others think we're up to the task or not.

Lifesimbol makes a classic mistake of thinking the world should magically work the way he thinks it should, but does not consider what it would mean to actually implement, to wit: passing laws that disqualify certain couples from having children based on their fitness.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Those laws seem to be harmful when instituted as well, if China is a fair example. People will fight for few things as they will for food, sex, shelter, and procreation. We will find a technological solution or nature will sort us out, forgone conclusion I think.

 

[GeorginaS]

Who exactly would you appoint to enforce [snip] citizens not being allowed to have children? It is a basic human right. Who can take that away?

The Chinese government?