An Act Of Selfishness
I'm convinced, having children is the ultimate act of selfishness. Why would you have a child when you know it's going to suffer. Wars, pollution, climate changes, violence, famines, floods, disease; let's face it our planet's going downhill fast. And that's without even going into the personal heartache that the child will have to face throughout it's life, bullying, cancer, being run over by a bus, old age, alzheimer's. You might say to me ah yes but as well as the struggle look at all the joys it will experience. So then how does that explain why a woman in a famine ridden country where the child mortality rate is sky high and where she has no food to feed herself let alone her child, has children?The irony is that one of the reasons people have children is so that they can experience the selfless love that is reserved only for one's offspring. People have children to love and be loved and because they're cute. It's the ultimate toy. They have children so that they will carry on the family name. Another baffling concept. What do you care if your family name is carried on? Once you're dead you're dead.
The need to procreate is a basic animal extinct and essential to the survival of every species. Everyone knows and acknowledges this when discussing the issue impartially. However as a society we have somehow managed to make outcasts of people who for one reason or another choose not to commit this act of selfishness.
posted by turtlebrain @ 11:08 am
18 comments
18 Comments:
I totally agree 100%. And I bet most of the people who disagree would never consider the more selfless and noble act of adoption.
lol@'act of selfishness'. some would say you arent in touch with your feelings..or 'nature'...or you arent a conformist..
hey, personal question and feel free to ignore(must remind myself this isnt my blog..)but have you ever 'longed' to have kids? ever? ysee, as im getting older, the feeling and need to have my own children, seems to be surprisingly disappearing, but i will admit that there was a point in time where i was desperate to have them(and 6). it got soppy and depressing at the worst of times. occasionally though, dont you ever wonder what yours would be like and how theyd change you, if you went for it? i would like to believe that kids could enrich you and give a new meaning/purpose to life..
overall..i agree when you write our planet is going downhill; the future looks bleak and i really dont 'want' to bring up children in this environment. having said that though..i feel its a wholly depressing outlook and i may just opt to live for the here and now, one day.
oh and a hi to all the almb readers..
i've laways loved kids sofia, i still do. absolutely adore them. i have strong maternal instincts and until recently would never have imagined life without kids. but at this age now i don't feel i want to take on the huge responsibility of a child. also i'm not brave enough to take on the reponsibility on my own, and i don't have the confidence of youth where i think i'm going to have a lifelong relationship with my knight in shining armour.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
>>confidence of youth where i think i'm going to have a lifelong relationship with my knight in shining armour.
and that confidence doesnt blimin well last long enough, if you ask me.
anyway, thanks for the reply..i do better understand now. i may just be in the same position afew yrs down the line. still..i have my blog..
lol maryam..ur presence must mean Turtlebrain's blog is an open minded one eh!
what do you mean you're sure there was more on my bloggs before maryam?? i only stated my blogg yesterday!
>>Why would you have a child when you know it's going to suffer.
not all children suffer- maybe i was one of the lucky ones who didn't. but some do, some don't- it's all in your lot- what family/circumstances you're born into. moreover, if parents empower their children to make the right decisions and think for themselves then they are less likely to suffer.
>>And that's without even going into the personal heartache that the child will have to face throughout it's life, bullying, cancer, being run over by a bus, old age, alzheimer's.
hmm, or maybe not? maybe they'll have a fulfilling life with loving parents. hardships are a part of life as you said yourself but you're only looking at one side of the coin.
>>So then how does that explain why a woman in a famine ridden country where the child mortality rate is sky high and where she has no food to feed herself let alone her child, has children?
she has hope- hope that one day her child will see a brighter future than her and live a better life. i mean the other option is for women like that to stop giving birth to children and let the entire population die out because it's too difficult. not really an ideal situation and a very defeatist attitude.
>>It's like getting the ultimate toy.
no- a child is not for xmas- it's for life- at least even the handful of teenage mums i've met realise that.
>> However as a society we have somehow managed to make outcasts of people who for one reason or another choose not to commit this act of selfishness.
and i believe you justified that in the very same paragraph- the need to procreate and carry on a species is an innate survival instinct. society finds it difficult to understand at a very intrinsic level why someone wouldn't want to further their species. i don't think it's such an unnatural reaction because procreation in itself is very unnatural and a lot of the things that men sub-consciously look for in a partner are related to child-birth. in some ways it's just a different view point- you casitgate them for ostracising you, they ostracise you for something they believe is not natural within you.
>>not all children suffer-
everyone experiences suffering in their life, it's simply a matter of degree
>>moreover, if parents empower their children to make the right decisions and think for themselves then they are less likely to suffer
some things are out of parents' control
>>maybe they'll have a fulfilling life with loving parents
and maybe they won't. it doesn't take just loving parents to have a happy life. what if they're born with some kind of physical disability or some kind of personality disorder or just plain hideously ugly? what if they're orphaned before their second birthday?
>>hardships are a part of life as you said yourself... she has hope- hope that one day her child will see a brighter future than her and live a better life
i think you might be missing my point. what i'm trying to say is that people don't create life from altruistic motives. the creation of life stems from selfishness. why bring a child into the world when the odds are stacked so against it? it's because you can't love something that doesn't exist. you create it so you can have an object for your love ...selflessness born out of selfishness
>>they ostracise you for something they believe is not natural within you
it's not enough to say that the mere fact of something being 'unnatural' is justification for it to be condemned. we're not naturists. we live in an unnatural envirnoment of our own making. we created plastic for christ's sake. it always astounds me when people use that argument in justifying their objection, for example to homosexuality, ie. that it's not natural. society's attitudes are shaped as much by conditioning as by natural instinct
>>everyone experiences suffering in their life, it's simply a matter of degree
I don't disagree with that and have spoken about hardships in my own comments
>>some things are out of parents' control
and conversely some things in are in their control. maybe they can create the "right" environment despite hardships? we're both talking possibilities so anything viable is a valid conjecture.
>>and maybe they won't. it doesn't take just loving parents to have a happy life. what if they're born with some kind of physical disability or some kind of personality disorder or just plain hideously ugly? what if they're orphaned before their second birthday?
once again, it depends on circumstances and your luck. just cos the odds are stacked against you, doesn't mean the human race shouldn't progress and procreate.
>>what i'm trying to say is that people don't create life from altruistic motives. the creation of life stems from selfishness.
err, they create children because it's a natural phenomenon (even if you disagree with naturalistic things) and because it's a fundamental instinct for the successful orchestration of sustaining and furthering the human race. if that's what you call selfish then well...i guess it is and i cannot argue against that. nevertheless, what it is, is just an instinct to create life- not really selfish as far as i can see because it's such a fundamental part of our existence.
>>why bring a child into the world when the odds are stacked so against it?
people bring in children in the "hope" of having a better life. if you don't have hope you wouldn't bring one in- seems fair to me. if there's a chance to create life then why not take it instead of being defeatist about it? it could be just as likely that instead of bad things happening to them good things will- circumstances change and so do the odds.
>>it's because you can't love something that doesn't exist. you create it so you can have an object for your love ...selflessness born out of selfishness
i'm not quite sure about that- seems a little bit unreasonable. my sister has two kids and she had them not to have objects of love- she has her husband, her in-laws and her original family for that, along with her friends- she had children to further her family, her genus, her species etc. once again, doing that is a perfectly natural and at worst a fundamental instinct. if love is a by-product of that particular interaction or function (parenthood in general) then i don't really see selfishness in that from a social viewpoint. it seems a mixture of human instinct and chemical reactions.
>>it's not enough to say that the mere fact of something being 'unnatural' is justification for it to be condemned.
ok, i guess we have now categorised things in black and white- acceptable and unacceptable, natural or unnatural. some things that are unnatural are accepted while others that do not appeal to the moral structure of society (that has evolved and changed from time to time) will likely seem unnatural even though they may stem through natural causes. it's a case of social dynamics. i'm not justifying whether it's right or wrong, just trying to shed light on how it works.
lol.
if i was turtlebrain i'd be flattered..
and then ofcourse, you might decide that this blog isnt quite as open minded as you initially thought..which'll leave TB HEARTBROKEN!
(this is a deliberate ploy to increase your readership, TB. hope it doesnt annoy you too much..)
lol bullseye. mwaaah.
now now maryam...
lol
hey...just a felow blogger passing by your blog...you really write well. this picture disturbed me like hell, but really go tme to think about why the hell do we wana bring mroe unwanted human beings into this world...it makes a lot of sense!....keep it up!!
hi jabber. i think you may have missed the point of my blog. i never said that the children are unwanted. in fact my point was contained in the last line:
"as a society we have somehow managed to make outcasts of people who for one reason or another choose not to commit this act of selfishness"
i'm not against people having children, i was merely pointing out that people who DO have children shouldn't sit in judgement of those who DON'T as after all it is "a selfish act"; so it's not as if they're taking a moral high ground by breeding
Post a Comment
<< Home