This is representative of what I have said on the topic:
To:kholt who wrote (71593)
From: Neocon
Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003 9:13 AM
View Replies (2) | Respond to of 74599
I think it is better to have children. That does not mean that I think it is immoral to not have children, although, as it is, most developed countries are below replacement level for native births, so I would say it is a good thing to promote. If I would not penalize or interfere with your choice, what possible objection could you have to my thinking that having children is generally a better way to live?
To:X the Unknown who wrote (71597)
From: Neocon
Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003 9:25 AM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 74599
In itself, it is inferior to be childless, yes, which is why, for example, among those with a religious vocation, it is taken to be a sacrifice.
Obviously, in the world we live in, it is no big deal if someone is homosexual or childless. In determining what is normal, though, the thought experiment is unassailable. In respect of the choice to have children, it is, indeed, in society's interest to encourage procreation, although there is no particular reason to stigmatize childlessness.
To:kholt who wrote (71631)
From: Neocon
Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003 10:37 AM
View Replies (2) | Respond to of 74600
In many areas of life, there is the rule and then there is the exception. Which should be the rule, and which the exception, is often not so hard to discern, one need only consider the opposite case: what if the exception were the rule, and vice versa? If the consequences are better one way or the other, you know which should be the rule, which the exception. But if the rule is to remain the rule, and the exception the exception, there have to be criteria for making the exception. In some instances, they may not be very rigorous: having a strong personal motive might suffice. In others, the criteria should be stricter, like using deadly force only to stop a threat to life or limb. Regardless, there have to be some criteria.
To make the distinction between the rule and the exception is not necessarily to say that the exception is wrong. It may be merely that the rule is better. However, obviously it is irrational to choose the lesser option without adequate reason.
An adequate reason does not especially dignify the choice of the lesser option, it permits it. Religious commitment dignifies the choice to go childless, however, at least among those sympathetic to religious practice. I don't think I was oozing contempt at all,I was just being blunt.
I use PC to mean having kneejerk reactions that preclude real dialogue and distort the content of my posts......
To:kholt who wrote (71660)
From: Neocon
Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003 1:30 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 74601
If we met socially, it is doubtful you would ever know that I had a rule about childbearing, or would be made to feel uncomfortable. I do not know your situation, and it is none of my business. But I do think that society would be better off if more families were formed, having children, but limiting family size. But I am not forcing a rule on anyone, it is not a matter of law, nor am I preaching it. It happened to come up. How, then, is it suffocating?
I concede exceptions to the rule, but I still cannot understand why on earth someone who was conscious of having done wrong would not apologize. It is elementary. But heck, I am certainly not going to propose legislation on the matter, though I may be offended on some occasions. If I think it is appropriate, and little to ask, I do not see how that is avoidable....... |
