Attacking Breeding in animals vs breeding in humans

[ABBY W.]

I'm a substandard specimen, and since the "learned" medical doctors in this country won't perform voluntary hysterectomies without medical reason, or for that matter even tie my darn tubes until I'm 35, I just have to shell out the money for 2-3 kinds of birth control while in a relationship and fight for the right *not* to reproduce every time I go to a family reunion, wedding, baby shower, or work.
.

I know your frustration. My husband and I explored a vasectomy. The doctors won't do it because "we're young, and could change our minds about wanting kids." I said we could have his sperm frozen and stored at a fertility clinic in case, but they still wouldn't do it. So, I am stuck with birth control. :impatient:

 

[3CsMommy]

Wow that's a tough choice. I know sadly people will look at you odly and still ask you when you're gonna have kids.

My reply is usually either "The 12th of NEVER" or "Why? Do you want to diaper, feed, clothe, bathe, educate, and worry about them for 20+ years? I don't." but that last answer usually gets me told I'm "selfish" for *not* wanting the responsibility for another human life. :hair: Isn't it more selfish to bring a life into the world that you *don't* want, *don't* need, and *don't* have the means to take proper care of just because some 3rd party thinks "you should"?

Sorry. Right now it's a concern whether I'll be able to keep my chinchilla when I move :cry3:; a baby would only make an already bad situation a million times worse.

 

[ABBY W.]

Yeah, my husband and I are raising his half-sister. She is 17 and has been with us for five years now. We have done an excellent job getting her form the place she was to the place she is now--a college bound, reasonably well-adjusted, responsible, and respectful young woman.

A lot of people, my parents included, keep saying "but you're so good at parenting, it would be a shame not to have kids of your own." But, while we have done well with her, we have not enjoyed our lives during this time (which we have, of course, not told her). Raising kids is simply too restrictive and time consuming for us to be happy. So, to me, the shame would be spending the next 20 years of my life feeling trapped and maybe resenting my child for that. I am very grateful that there are people who feel differently, and I admire them for their selflessness and dedication, but it's just not for me.

 

[saphire]

Humans have the reasoning and intellegence to decide on having kids or not with the knowledge they have of their background. (???)
Animals don't know any better, in the wild nature does that the weak sibbling is usually eliminated somehow. So we as humans are responsible to keep genetics up there because we are their god. (figure of speaking)

So that's why I ask if they have the peds and so on. ;0)

Makes you wonder who has the intelligence.:wink2:

 

[eroomlorac]

To those who don't want children and are called "selfish".

I commend you for knowing what is right for you. Like a previous poster, I have a very strong mothering instinct and would not have been happy or 'complete' without children.

But those of you who do not want children, you are not 'selfish'. You are making the right choice for you and it is a hard one since we live in a world where children are expected of couples. You will forever be asked when are you having children and in later years you will be asked 'why didn't you have children'. It is a very personal choice and no one else's business. I applaud you for knowing what you want out of life.

May each of us live happily ever after in the choices we make. There is no right or wrong here.

 

[EnslavedByNinjas]

I personally believe you should have to get a license to breed. Very similar to a driver's license. You show up, you take the test, you fail you have to leave some very specific parts at the front counter on the way out.

 

[FiaSpice]

My reply is usually either "The 12th of NEVER" or "Why? Do you want to diaper, feed, clothe, bathe, educate, and worry about them for 20+ years? I don't." but that last answer usually gets me told I'm "selfish" for *not* wanting the responsibility for another human life. :hair: Isn't it more selfish to bring a life into the world that you *don't* want, *don't* need, and *don't* have the means to take proper care of just because some 3rd party thinks "you should"?

Sorry. Right now it's a concern whether I'll be able to keep my chinchilla when I move :cry3:; a baby would only make an already bad situation a million times worse.

It's not selfish at all. In fact I aplaud people that assume this choice. Both mom's bother and sister didn't have kids. It's a mix of maybe they can't for medical reason and that they love to live their life without havving to worry about them. They both like to travel and in fact, my aunt lives in France now.

I know that Dr aren't keen on vasectomy or on binding. One of the cousin of my ex had 2 kids and didn't want more. Since she was 32 and if she ever divorce and get with another man, she might want kids.... Sometimes they don't understand...

 

[TillyChinchilla]

I personally believe you should have to get a license to breed. Very similar to a driver's license. You show up, you take the test, you fail you have to leave some very specific parts at the front counter on the way out.

This is a pretty big human rights violation. As much as living where I do now has shown me that there are a LOT of people who shouldn't have kids, it shouldn't be government controlled. That is how it is in China - what happens if birth control fails (or isn't used)? Should the woman be forced to have an abortion if they cannot pass a license test? It just goes too far.

Right now, I will do anything to avoid most kids. When I get into "motherly" mode, if I ever do, I will ensure I am healthy and stable enough to have children. My soon to be step-children were planned births, but they already knew they would have to rely on things like WIC - I don't ever want to plan to have kids and know that I need that kind of help off the bat.

 

[EnslavedByNinjas]

This is a pretty big human rights violation.

I know. It was a joke (mostly), I borrowed it from a Dilbert strip I read some years back. Seriously though, with the China situation... there's a reason they're doing that. They don't force abortion, they levy a fine. You can have as many kids as you want as long as you keep paying fines for adding onto the already dire overpopulation issue.

If we don't start controlling the population boom, the whole world will be like China soon enough. Overpopulated, not enough food/water... which is the greater evil? Encourage through fines and taxes a reduction in population, or watching literally millions more people suffer of starvation and malnutrition? Parents raising 12 kids in a one room hut? Is it really such a wrong thing if it's helping to avoid what could potentially lead to such great evil and suffering?

 

[ABBY W.]

Well, the problem in China is that their culture places a higher value on having sons. Traditionally, sons take care of their parents when they get old, daughters take care of their husband's family. So having a son is considered very important, sort of like opne's retirement account. The rsult of this, and China's population control policies is that roughly 95% of the abortions performed annually in China were of perfectly healthy female fetuses. Female babies were being abandoned in record numbers as well, overwhelming the orphanages. And now, decades after this policy went into effect, many young Chinese men are coming of age and finding they have no young Chinese women to marry. And it is still considered taboo to marry outside of their culture. It has created some HUGE social problems.

While I think overpopulation is a problem in some places (Shanghai, China; Bombay, India), it is actually not as much of a global problem as many people think. Many of the areas of the world where famine and disease are such a problem are problem areas for political reasons, not environmental. Globally we create enough food to feed everyone and enough medicine to treat everyone. The problem is getting those resources past the corrupt goverments and dictators to get them to the people who so desperately need them.

 

[TillyChinchilla]

While I think overpopulation is a problem in some places (Shanghai, China; Bombay, India), it is actually not as much of a global problem as many people think. Many of the areas of the world where famine and disease are such a problem are problem areas for political reasons, not environmental. Globally we create enough food to feed everyone and enough medicine to treat everyone. The problem is getting those resources past the corrupt goverments and dictators to get them to the people who so desperately need them.

Well said. I think before we'd even consider some kind of population control, we need better sex education. That is where it all starts.

EnslavedByNinjas, I was pretty sure you weren't 100% set on that but you never know with people!

 

[tunes]

I'm definitely not on board for China's solution to overpopulation, for the exact reasons Abby stated above. Female children discarded as though they were garbage, so the mom could keep breeding for that ever important son. Then, with the orphanages overflowing, they are trying to get every last penny out of potential adopters, making them jump through hoops and do backflips, while the little girls grow up in an environment with no love and no nurturing at all......waiting. I've seen a couple documentaries about it, about how some of the children don't even respond to human touch because they've just been dumped in a crib and left there. These kids get food, water, diaper change. You go to adopt, and they hand you a catalog so you can "shop" for the child you want. I find the whole situation totally contemptible.

I do believe there should be a cap on how many kids you can have though, especially here in the US. I know of many, many women who just keep pumping out the kids to up their TANF support and food stamps. They don't need to work, the government provides for them. One lady here in a local town has, I think, 7 kids now? And she's PROUD that the government is supporting them all. She won't marry the father, because that would mean giving up her free monies. So he is on Welfare in his house, she is on Welfare in her house, and they are one big happy family. It makes me want to puke. The Native Americans out here are like that too. I used to romantasize the "Indians", but no more. Not after living here amongst them. I absolutely believe they should put a cap on how many kids you can have, if you are going to choose to continue to have them while you are on Welfare. Then those kids turn around, see how easy it is to milk the system, and do the same thing. When will it end?

 

[EnslavedByNinjas]

Yes, better sex ed is a very important step forward. However I disagree that the population boom is not a worldwide problem.

Living here in Florida, I've seen first hand the other downside of population growth - suburban sprawl. We have systematically destroyed the ecosystem here, not because there's too many people to fit into the cities, but because everyone wants their acre for their nuclear family. This is not a humanitarian issue - yet. However, it will be. As the population grows, and more sprawl is built across the country and the world, we will lose precious wildlife and resources. Did you know that grass is the biggest irrigated crop in the US?

For the same way that the daughter/son problem has arisen in China, suburban sprawl has caused problems here. The reason for this is that it really is not fair to say that someone cannot have their house on the acre in a pleasantly named suburb. If you told one person no, you'd have to deny everyone. Unfortunately, most people do not prefer apartment living or sustainable development living. Therefore, they do what is best for them, not the general populace. Same with the preference of male children in China.

Anyhow, that got a bit off track, but my point is this: hunger, malnutrition, and sanitation are not the only downsides to poor family and population planning. The damage to the ecosystem, the current state of the welfare system, etc. are prime examples of how this will become a more dire situation with time. The situation is not irreversible, but it will require better planning for the future. Tell me this - do you think it's right that we're paying for welfare and medicaid for the octomom's children? Or do you believe that was horrible planning and an abuse of the system, as I do? If you believe that it's wrong of us to pay for the care of her 12 children, I ask you this - where do you draw the line? Is 12 too many? Or is 3?

ETA - Tunes, exactly my point in the last paragraph, and well said! We posted at the same time.

 

[RDZCRanch]

Octomom lives down the street from me. We had to deal with helicopters circling at all hours for the first couple weeks that people were excited about her. It was HORRIBLE!

I think people should be strongly educated on sex as I was. From an early age my mom explained sex and protection and diseases to my siblings and I. We even had numerous books on human anatomy and sexual reproduction. My parents never did the "this is how babies are made" they used a more scientific approach. We always called it "sex" and not "making whoopy" as I learned was popular in high school. I've seen all too many of the girls I grew up with get a baby on the hip but no dad in sight. One even tried to stay with the father of her child and went so far as going down to the county jail to take family pictures.

I wouldn't deny anyone the right to have a baby but as with most things...people need to make an INFORMED decision. This means checking for mental or physical diseases on both sides of the family and seeing whether those diseases are dominant or recessive. There's also the issue of how many kids is enough...I mean...how many kids do you REALLY need to pass on your genes? How intelligent are the parents, do either have a degree or are just intelligent(my mother never got a BS but she is VERY intelligent so a degree isn't everything)? Can they provide fully for a child or will they take our money we pay through taxes and make the raising of their child our responsibility?

I have a very strong mothering instinct, but that alone doesn't make me feel like I should have kids. I think I'd make a good mother and I'd be very happy with it, but I'm also very leary of bringing another life into this world. My boyfriend has a disc problem in his back that is genetic and my mother and her mother are both bi-polar as well as my boyfriend's mother. Having watched my mom struggle with bi-polar disease and seeing the discomfort my bf goes through from his back problems, it's hard for me to try and imagine dooming a child to either of those conditions. I wouldn't be able to sit by and see a child of mine suffer from a genetic disease that only occurred because of my personal choice.

On a sidenote: I thought this was a funny quote to tell people that REALLY want you to have kids and think you're selfish for NOT having kids. "I think having kids is so narcissistic! I mean...really...it's always 'oh, doesn't he look just like his father! He has his mother's nose!' It's like trying to bring little carbon copies of ourselves into the world!"

 

[Lmbswimmer]

While breeding in animals to make a "superior" one is what is done, many people have already covered some reasons why that won't work with people.

A few southern states have tried that - it failed, illegally performing hysterectomies on women, they are paying through the nose now for it.

Also, genetic diversity is really important for warding off all the different pathogens that want to wipe us out. Most people would think having sickle cell anemia would be bad, but if you live in a malaria prone area that is what is going to keep you alive longer - immunity to malaria. At least the carriers can live a fairly normal life, and not get malaria. The kids borne without sickle cell anemia are at risk of malaria, while the kids born with full fledge sickle cell anemia run a risk of a shorter life span. From a straight genetic standpoint it is a trade off.

You also have a very small sub group of western europeans that are resistant to HIV, they are direct descendants and have received 2 copies of the genes that make a mutation on their immune cells that the HIV virus cannot attach to. These descendants are the only ones that survived the black plague - same spot for infecting the cells.

Very interesting stuff. There are slews of genetic disorders that at one time were selected for in different areas of the world because they were useful at that time for something. Today they would not be, however, who knows what is coming down the pipeline.

Ebola - certain strains kill 99% of the infected people, they don't know why the 1% do live, you start doing eugenics then you might wipe off the part of the population that could/can survive something as horribly tragic as an Ebola pandemic.

I do think the system in the United States needs to be changed from welfare to workfare. I also think that all recipients should be drug tested. If they are not working, don't have a legitimate disability, and can't pass a piss test, if they die in a snow bank frankly I don't care. They are not supporting the country, their state, or their city. They are a waste of human genetic material consuming resources.

 

[ChinchillaSteve]

Phew what a subject.
Let me think.

People have the intelligence and reasonability to decide they want children or not.
Animals breed to keep their species intact, people have no need to do that (as there is overpopulation)
But about people with medical issues:
Some people with a disease KNOW they children are going to have it aswell
but still they decide to take kids.

And that is just wrong IMO

But it's everyones right to have children and you can't change that

 

[crazychin]

Because there is so many unwanted animals being put to sleep daily, but we're not putting hundreds of people to sleep daily because they're not wanted. IMO.

 

[ABBY W.]

Well, despite the fact that I am in full support of assisted suicide rights for people, I understand the arguments against it. We place a higher value on human life, and see its end as more serious and tragic than the end of an animal life. Personally, I believe that having a deep belief in the sanctity of life also means having enough respect for people to allow them to decide their own destiny, particularly when they are facing a long, torturous, and ultimately fatal illness. But the right to assisted suicide is not the same as the population control policies we are discussing.

 

[greychins]

I agree with Tunes, I think there should be a cap on how many kids you can have. Ok, some people say "well if they can support 40 kids, let them." No, see, the problem I have with that is that while they may be able to financially support 40 kids... how are those kids growing up mentally?

And even with less than 40, it seems sometimes (not always, but sometimes) the families that have the 7+ kids are the ones that cannot afford basic birth control - hence the 7 kids. My co-worker's brother is... 24(?) and he has 8 kids. 8!!! And apparently he only used birth control with the last girlfriend (they're all from different girls), and it failed. I don't know if he didn't know what BC was before that or what... but I think that's another problem... the lack of sex education. I say lack, because there really is none. If the sex education classes are anything like they were when I went to school, it was "don't have sex." Done. That's it. Um... let me share the problem with that--people are GOING to have sex, just saying "ok don't do it" doesn't quite cut it. If we could just tell people "oh don't steal, don't rape, don't murder" and that meant none of those things would be done, that'd be great... but it's NOT that way... Sex education needs to be revamped and teach the kids about birth control, reliable methods and such...

And another thing... with welfare and WIC and food stamps... if the people churn out more kids, then they end up with more free money from the govt to feed themselves and those kids. I really think there should be a cap on that. I don't think it should be that they have 2 more kids, they get an increase of $200 (or whatever it is). Yes, I know, that would potentially hurt the kids. BUT... if someone's already on welfare, receiving WIC, TANF, all of those benefits... maybe they should try to support the family they have without INCREASING the number of kids they have. I mean they already can't support the current number if they have to rely on those programs, right? I just find it ridiculous, because in effect, we're keeping the people in this vicious cycle. Think about it --why would anyone WANT to try to get a good job to get off welfare and those programs when they know if they have another kid they'll get more money... (and yes, I know, ideally they'd use that money for the kid, but still...). I mean they basically have no motivation to get a real job and get off welfare and get on their feet when they're getting free food, free baby formula, and so on (note: this does not apply to the few people that are on welfare and are actively trying to get a job and trying to get on their feet---but the majority of people that I know on welfare are lazy people that are mooching off the system).

I work in retail - I make $7.60 an hour... part of my job involves casheering and let me tell you, the people with foodstamps that are going through my lane with 10 kids a piece are eating WAAAAAY better than I can ever afford. I'm eating rice-a-roni and ramen, I go to friends' houses for dinner and I ask them if I can take home some leftovers.... the foodstamps people are having filet minon. AND, once you've rung up their groceries, and put that on their EBT card, guess what the rest of their order is? One of those motorized cars for their kids ($250+), blue-ray discs, nice flat screen tv.... which, of course, they need help loading into their Lexus SUV. But, wait, they're on foodstamps, how can they afford that stuff????? That's a problem with the system, in my mind. Sorry, I digress, but I'm not joking, this stuff HAPPENS and it just infuriates me...

On the subject of "maybe some people shouldn't breed" - I think if there is a class of people that shouldn't, I'm inclined to say that it might be the people on welfare. Again, not all of them... but so many of them are lazy, mooching off the system... while those may not be genetic traits, kids pick up things by example, and god knows we don't need any more people who are lazy moochers who rely on the system while the rest of us pay for them with our taxpayer dollars. /rant over.

On the subject of not wanting kids - I'm 24 and I don't want kids. I have absolutely no patience, and even my dog sometimes seems like too much responsibility for me. I love her to death, and I don't know how I'd live my life without her, but I can't even imagine a kid. There are days when I'm like "well darn, I have to go home and let the dog out, I can't come with you to the get-together." And don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trade my dog for the world, but there are days where I'd love it if I could just pick up and leave for a week without having to worry about any pets or anything.

That said... kids? Not for me. I don't have that mothering instinct, I don't typically think most kids are cute, and I don't care to bring anyone else into this *sarcasm* wonderful world. And it drives me insane that people berate me for that. It's my choice, I don't HAVE to have kids. As someone previously said, I don't want to change a diaper, make bottles, drive to school, help with homework, etc etc someone for the next 20 years. I just don't, and it doesn't bother me that I won't have a mini-replica of myself running around. I'll donate all of my money to the humane society or something when I die, or heck, I'll spend it, it won't bother me that my heirs aren't getting it... Like people have said.... everyone has the right to have kids (and I have no problem with that), well then I have the right to choose to not have kids.

 

[ABBY W.]

Actually, recent studies have concluded that welfare abuse is pretty low. Estimates are that people who abuse welfared or "game the system" account for only about 2% of all welfare money.

I think that absentee parents and childhood neglect are far larger problems. In the US roughly 75% of young black children are growing up in single parent homes with an absent father. On top of that, many of these single mothers are teenagers, or young women who dropped out of high school, and don't have the education or skills to get better than a minimum wage job. A person can't support themselves on one minimum wage job, let alone raise one or more children!