WOUD OUR SPECIES BE BETTER OFF IF BREEDING WERE INTENTIONAL?

If all of u want that and like it,
then that is a good thing.

It is not a question of want or like. It is a matter of someone has to do it. It is not what is good for us, it is what is good for the children.

Richard wrote:
Your post shows confused thinking.
Whether thay want u and like u and vice versa
is extremely important to the viability of your relationship.

If u chose NOT to raise them, if u did not want to do it,
u coud freely walk away from doing so, mind your own business
and let the chips fall where thay may. If u DO it, that shows that
u like to do it, otherwise u woud not do it.






Richard wrote:
It CAN be u, but it need not be u.
Depending on the circumstances and their ages,
thay might attend to their own needs, or use an orphanage, etc.
If u had never been born, presumably something else woud happen
(unless, of course, u r one of their ancestors,
in which case thay 'd not exist).






Richard wrote:
When I said:
"If all of u want that and like it,
then that is a good thing" I meant ALL of U, including the children.





David

David, you are a self serving ignorant ass. I wonder if you parents used intentional breeding.
Also, you will kindly stick to user names on this forum.

Explains a lot

I think it's amusing that, besides the OP, the only people who are playing the game of "Davids at it again" "David advocates abortion" "Raising children is just what one HAS to do" "David is trying for form a master race" etc. are the men.

I note the women so far responding have at least been open about this concept, and are perhaps optomistic about it.

Intrepid, if the mother and father of your 3 children had had to make a conscious decision to have a child, and both do something to allow this to happen, in all likelihood you wouldn't have them now. I have no idea what point you're trying to make, except to just take the contary opinion, because of who suggested it. At least open your mind enough to play with the idea, instead of bashing it automatically.

I'm not going to address any further comments made with the intent of just being another ebrown, spendius, hawkeye, etc. who find it necessary to just be some annoyance, and make themselves look stupid in the process. I've got those 3 on ignore, among others, and I intend to put anyone else on ignore who don't bring anything new or worthwhile to the table. Not saying that as a "nah nah I have you on ignore" but rather as cutting out people who are just wasting my time. Feel free to do the same if you feel that way about me.

I too think it's an interesting question.

It doesn't matter if it's technically possible, it's still an interesting question.
It's like playing "what would you do if you won the lottery?" Really not a chance of that happening, but it's fun to play.

No accidental pregnancies.
No having a baby because someone else wants you to.
Giving a woman true control over whether to reproduce, or not.
Count me in.

The abortion rate could not but dramatically drop, but there would of course still be abortions.
Child abuse would decline (obviously not disappear), as the accidently, unwanted children wouldn't be there.

I can't see how there still wouldn't be coersion on the part of one of the potential parents to force the other, in a variety of ways, to take whatever steps are necessary to become able to concieve.

What are some ways that could be lessened?

However, David, early in this thread, admitted to be an admirer of eugenics. Thas my point.

Well, let's just focus on that, to the exclusion of all else then.

What was I thinking?

It's very important to latch onto some minor aspect of what a person was trying to communicate, and turn a conversation into a totally dreary, predictable, "let's not think about anything else said" fest, isn't it?

Outside of his nasty habits regarding certain ethnic groups, Der Feuhrer was a really nice guy!!

chai2 wrote:



You are making an assumption. And, an incorrect one at that. I really don't care who suggested it. All of my comments still stand,

I don't automatically bash David, or anyone else. If I disagree I will not change my approach.

Funny that you should accuse me of doing this with David when you find something to bash or belittle my posts. Is it because you disagree or is it because it is me? Maybe you would look at me differenly if I agreed with everything you wrote. But, I don't hmmm.

I'm inclined to bash Intrepid, David and chai2 pretty much every time they post. In fact I stalk them relentlessly for that purpose.

I try to be explanatory.

I will begin another thread devoted to the merits n shortcomings of eugenics.





David

Absolutely. Children don't ask to be born, but once they are, they deserve to be loved, cared for, and provided for. Not all children have people in their lives like you, Intrepid, who recognize this principle. Congratulations.

I'm not for the intentionally changing the species part, i.e., eugenics, but I am for giving human beings (perhaps through some new discovery) the absolute power to decide whether and when to reproduce and not reproduce because of condom or other birth-control method failure.

In addition to being responsible and bringing children into the world only when children are truly wanted, intentional reproduction would also allow women more control over their own fates. No longer would they be at the vagaries of unplanned pregnancies; instead, they could focus on their contributions to society or on whatever they feel the need to do.

For too many years, some men have used childbearing and child rearing as a way to control "their" women. I can't help but imagine all of the things human beings as a whole could have done if they had not had to worry about raising or supporting a child they never planned to have.

I'm not thinking anything about it right now. But hang in there, because we've already started to explore your question empirically. When women select sperm donors because they have no partners who can father children, they rationally select from a menu of candidates. So whatever your question is specifically, you will eventually get an answer by comparing these womens' children with conventionally conceived children.

This could even be interesting.

Wouldn't matter. People make children as much out of the wrong reasons as just as a side-efect of good times.

our species would benefit if breeding was abolished

now that's the most self destructive statement i've heard all day