Is having a lot of kids morally wrong?

[Islam Imamate]

I have no doubt that his wife is awesome but 50 years is a very long time to spend it with one person . Instead of cheating or divorcing that person , you should be allowed to have another spouse .

If marriage is too much of a commitment for a person then that person should consider avoiding marriage.

 

[Banchan]

If marriage is too much of a commitment for a person then that person should consider avoiding marriage.

A lot of people believe they can keep the commitment but realize they struggle down the line . The only option is to either divorce or cheat . No one would get married if they didn't believe at the time that they could keep that commitment . But unless you try you don't know and it seems people are failing at it in a major way . So why not just let them have two spouses ?

 

[Lead]

Developed countries barely maintain their own population which means for whatever family of nine you see, they make up for a family or so that doesn't have kids or only has one. Developed countries aren't where you should complain about overpopulating either. Third world countries are where this occurs but it's for good reason. You usually lose 3/5 of the children you raise before adult hood. When a country starts to develop, there is a small gap of time where people continue to have five kids but they don't die off. After that brief time, the population adjusts accordingly to only have around two kids average. Great example of this would be India.


If you look at the data, the world isn't threatened for our population to continue skyrocketing the way it has. Most expect us to level off at 13 billion I believe. Now there may be an argument if our world is sustainable enough for 13 billion but it's far more of a reasonable debate than an irrational fear that we are just going to keep expanding. We just need to figure out how to be more efficient and develop economies that don't necessary thrive on growth though population and just through productivity.

 

[panamaican]

I wonder why the argument is always "less kids" and never "better resource management"?

But since these threads are usually started by people wasting resources to post on the internet, I'll assume my question answers itself.

 

[supra57]

Welfare ghetto moms dont have a problem popping out babies it increases their income

 

[Islam Imamate]

A lot of people believe they can keep the commitment but realize they struggle down the line . The only option is to either divorce or cheat . No one would get married if they didn't believe at the time that they could keep that commitment . But unless you try you don't know and it seems people are failing at it in a major way . So why not just let them have two spouses ?

A strained marriage isn't an excuse to cheat. There's marriage counseling to help with that. Besides, I don't see why one then more spouse is necessary. If you want variety in bed you can have that without marrying another person. If you want more companionship then make more friends.

Monogamy was enshrined because allowing people, usually men, to have more than one spouse leaves others with much worse chances for finding one themselves. Large numbers of unwed men are a societal concern. To be fair you seem to be talking about plural marriages more generally so it would be more difficult to predict the effects of allowing women the opportunity to have more than one husband and it could be beneficial in the context of China and India where the sex ratios tips in toward men but that's a specific context and plural marriages could lead to the age old negative effects in other contexts.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I wonder why the argument is always "less kids" and never "better resource management"?

But since these threads are usually started by people wasting resources to post on the internet, I'll assume my question answers itself.

Well I mentioned more sustainable consumption which is basically better resource management with the added implication that people should stop shoving their faces with food and buying useless shit and think of the environment.

 

[Banchan]

I wonder why the argument is always "less kids" and never "better resource management"?

But since these threads are usually started by people wasting resources to post on the internet, I'll assume my question answers itself.

I am good at resource management but i don't want a lot of kids . On one hand it would be nice to have many because every child is different but every child also carrys with them a lifetime of concern as a parent . Less children kind of means less worry and that's the boat I'm in .

 

[panamaican]

I am good at resource management but i don't want a lot of kids . On one hand it would be nice to have many because every child is different but every child also carrys with them a lifetime of concern as a parent . Less children kind of means less worry and that's the boat I'm in .

That's good for you...

But in the context of all humanity, not just individual preferences, it would seem that the step before chastising people for doing what people are designed to do would be to make smarter use of these "precious" resources.

 

[Banchan]

A strained marriage isn't an excuse to cheat. There's marriage counseling to help with that. Besides, I don't see why one then more spouse is necessary. If you want variety in bed you can have that without marrying another person. If you want more companionship then make more friends.

Because you can't control who and when you fall in love with someone . A person can marry with full intention to be monogamous to that person only to have their feelings change over the course of 50 or so years . And it doesn't have to be the result of strain . You could very much love your spouse but then love someone else . Do you love your father less because you love your mother ? People do not stop falling in love or having feelings for other people . The social construct of marriage says we should but the nature construct of humans says by and large we don't . Humans and that includes all aspects of our behaviour are constantly changing . We don't just stop doing things that are in our nature because social constructs tell us otherwise . The system you have now is many people being married but having other partners on the side . So plural is happening but like anything that has to be hidden it is rife with corruption . Lying , abandoning illegitimate children , fatherless kids , less household income and more divided families etc. and it is causing as much turmoil as having a population of unwed people who may be undesirable parents in the first place .

 

[milkmandanl]

No it's not.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

that's not really addressing anything other than hurling insults. it's a legitimate point that having 10+ children is a fucking environmental disaster.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712

yea, imagine if we were a nation of worthless fucks like the duggars all consuming at this pace. we'd be legitimate locusts.

there's a difference between a person having 3 kids (which is a lot) and the fucking duggars shitting out an entire clan of morons. you absolutely bet they are immoral fuckwits, even without their child molesting son. who i assume has been cured by now of his mental illness by asking jesus for forgiveness.

China and India are fucking environmental disasters.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

We need to have more children in Western societies. We are so dependent on immigration to keep our economies afloat that could easily be corrected if people had more kids.

I completely agree with this post.

 

[Bloodworth]

If you look around the world certain civilizations never evolved like others. Some are better then others. ..
For some culture who are poor or overpopulated and living beyond their means.
It's definitely morally wrong and sometimes directly hurts a economy.
In ny, if you have 3 or more kids and make under 70 grand , the government gives you 10,000 a year in tax returns. Mathematically that is a economic disaster.

 

[Brodels]

Only if they aint white lol.

Even if white to me.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Because you can't control who and when you fall in love with someone . A person can marry with full intention to be monogamous to that person only to have their feelings change over the course of 50 or so years . And it doesn't have to be the result of strain . You could very much love your spouse but then love someone else . Do you love your father less because you love your mother ? People do not stop falling in love or having feelings for other people . The social construct of marriage says we should but the nature construct of humans says by and large we don't . Humans and that includes all aspects of our behaviour are constantly changing . We don't just stop doing things that are in our nature because social constructs tell us otherwise . The system you have now is many people being married but having other partners on the side . So plural is happening but like anything that has to be hidden it is rife with corruption . Lying , abandoning illegitimate children , fatherless kids , less household income and more divided families etc. and it is causing as much turmoil as unwed people who may be undesirable parents in the first place .

Open relationships and marriages have poor stability long term so I'm not sure plural marriages will fare much better outside of instances where this is sanctioned and/or encouraged by culture as is he case with the Mormons and some Muslims. Those cases show how powerful social constructs can be in guiding behavior. In those cultures the needs of the self are subordinated to the needs of society and the community so if yu want more stable marriages perhaps we should move away from the myopic view of marriage as some ultimate vehicle for self fulfillment and emphasize the other functions of marriage(providing a context to raise a family) and its role in wider society.

Divorce rate is high now in recent decades because of the advent of no fault divorces which allows people to annul their marriages just because. I would think it simpler to end no fault divorce than to allow plural marriages.

Like I mentioned earlier, plural marriages can reduce the pool of potential mates and leave many more people without a spouse. This isn't necessarily the case in India and China so if they want to allow women to have more than one husband to balance out the negative effects of their wayward sex ratio I'm on board with that radical experiment but elsewhere I see little need for it and the potential to produce eternal bachelors.

 

[Bay Area]

This.

Are you saying the poor should not be able to experience the magic of childbirth?

 

[klimt]

The argument can be made that a lot of things are 'morally wrong'. But self-righteousness is not exempt, so I have more and more often found myself saying "f**k morals" so vaguely defined. If you aren't deliberately harming anyone, don't worry about the wines of the ultra-sensitive. They are almost certainly hypocrites or liars.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Are you saying the poor should not be able to experience the magic of childbirth?

if they cant afford it, then nope.

 

[NelmarksGhost]

I think everyone is missing the point. It's morally wrong because the children suffer in these families. The parental resources of time, and money have to be split between siblings. It's rarely equitable, and older siblings often abuse their rivals the younger children. Older siblings receive more attention, more guidance, more education. A kid who is born into a family of 8 kids is no more important to them than a pet. It sucks for them.