Procreation: Reasons for?

So, those of you that have answered so far (or others if interested, in fact), what were your actual reasons for procreating? Some previous posts have mentioned "propagation of the species", but I know that was pretty far from your minds at the time. "We must have children dear, otherwise the species will be in grave peril; there's only 7 billion of them left!" So, if anyone would oblige, let's hear your honest reasoning on the matter.

#1: Selfish. The very definition thereof, in fact.

It is awefully presumptuous to cry selfishness from a relative standpoint to another with a contrary relative view. It is also awefully presumptuous to throw out scare quotes on "faith". When you ask why someone has children you open the debate up to faith bases reasons, and faith based doctrinal explanations.

So, the doctrine is that the end of the world is near, self destruction of a species under this explanation is a non-issue. The doctrine of repentishing the earth is not about the number of people on earth it is about the number of God's Spirit children that get the opportunity to come to earth and pass through their mortal trial. The doctrine being, hey God wants his children down here on Earth and preferably in good families, makes contraception of any kind is selfish, and all your whining about environment, unhappyness, despair, etc... is pointless, because the doctrine is (you are on earth having a trial) trials are not fun.

So, people with said faith are taking responsibility to to their duty as they percieve it . People with said faith have a rational thought process to reach the decision to have kids. People with said faith are fully aware that sex leads to kids and are taking on the responsibility of those kids when they have sex. So it seems that people who are not having children are being selfish, they are denying God's will, they are taking opportunity away from their spirit brethren, and they are doing it in the guise of the most insideous of manners by claiming a non-faith based faith in the untestable dogma that all truth and all existence is material and empirical.

At least material things can be shown to exist, by way of their.... well, material. This attempt at justification of unselfishness has now taken us onto the road I specifically didn't want to go down, vis-a-vis the OP. I'm interested in people who use their own will to judge their actions, rather than that of an anachronistic mythical being. How can I take seriously the mind of someone who takes their own mind less seriously than that of something which cannot be shown to be real?

That places them in the category immune to reason, and in doing so

My reasoning is simple. I'd have sex to have a good time. And of course it would be pretty far from one's mind "at the time"; what a turn off that would be. Now explain to me why the act would be selfish, and if so, why that would be neccessarily a bad thing. No I'm not an ethical hedonist (how could philosophy-lovers be, that would be contradictory would it not?), I just don't see reason to spoil the fun.

Well I hope you can assert claims like these with more empirical grounds in the future.

It is not the very definition of selfish. Today, with such an overpopulated Earth, does the potential child-to-be have the ultimate status in what affects a couple's sex life?? Unless you consider birth control pills or abortion to be selfish. "Let's be humble unto our child that doesn't even exist yet". Geez, does that ever ring the ol church bell, eh.

Alright, let's for a minute go with it, and say this is selfish (though again, selfish isn't the right word), that to not think about the child-to-be is selfish. Does this make the 'selfishness' a bad thing? What's wrong with being 'selfish'?

Are frivolity and light-heartedness in two lovers always a bad thing?

Your flaw (at the moment) is considering selfishness in itself to be wrong.

I could just as easily assert selflessness in itself to be wrong (that'd probably play out easier on my conscience too), if we talk about pure abstracts of the concepts that is.

The issue is not one of faith or no faith, it is an issue of as you say, " people who use their own will to judge their actions". You are assuming that people of faith have never come to a rational personal and very real series of introspective and empirical decisions.

You are also assuming that people of faith do not, "use their own will to judge their actions". This doesn't even make sense.

People don't just have faith, the battle for it, they work at it, they waiver and in some cases suffer for it. This is the ultimate expression of free will, choosing something that isn't patently empirically obvious.

Third: You are also assuming here that people who are not religious somehow do not operate under the influence of things that cannot be shown to be real. Your very thought process, the mind which you prize so highly above the "Mythical God" and the sheeple who choose to follow it cannot be shown to be real, and yet somehow you take it seriously, as if somehow it has does not share "Mythical God" status in your operational reality. Have you ever thought that you might be happier, since this post is about happiness in mortality, jumping from one operational "Mythical God" (self) to another. It sure seems the the standard "Mythical Gods" all have plans to attain happiness, does your "Mythical God"?

First of all, I'm glad you agree with me about 'propagating the species' being far from your mind at the time; I was not trying to say it should be in your mind, I was merely debunking it as a valid argument as a non-selfish reason. Nobody in the world has children for that reason.

Can we assume that you do not go round impregnating women as soon as you meet them, and that you have a long term partner, whom you also did not impregnate the first time you met her? Assuming both of these are the case, this argument does not stand up, as you would have had plenty opportunity to make arrangements for ongoing contraception prior to conception of a child. Even if you had somehow failed in this endeavour, you could also have used the morning after pill.

No, but it should have the status of primary consideration.

Get the prevention out of the way, taken care of, and then do what thou wilt. I consider birth control to be unselfish and taking responsibility. It's not difficult or expensive either, so there really is no excuse, at least not for a free-thinking person.

You've lost me a bit here with church bells and whatnot, but you have contradicted yourself in the process. You state that the Earth is overpopulated, yet continue to argue that bringing yet more people into it is unselfish; perhaps you'd care to explain how you reconcile these two viewpoints?

Of course it does! :eek: That is exactly what I'm trying to get through with this thread.

Selfishness is fine when it ONLY affects the self in question. When it has an adverse effect on others, of course it is a bad thing. If you need that explained to you, you should really examine your ethics.

No, never, until such times as it will have an adverse impact on another. Make love, not war, but take precautions first.

Well, it's unethical for a start. What of equal consideration of interests?

Let's hear it, then.

Further, and this is a general question to everyone, if you want children, why not adopt one of the MILLIONS OF CHILDREN WORLDWIDE WHO ARE HERE NOW, SUFFERING, who need love and parents?

each person has to figure it out for themselves

Okay, let's try a different approach:

My thoughts here have been met with pretty much blanket resistance, same old same old, but as yet, nobody has actually put forth a convincing argument, as per the OP.

So, those of you that have answered so far (or others if interested, in fact), what were your actual reasons for procreating? Some previous posts have mentioned "propagation of the species", but I know that was pretty far from your minds at the time. "We must have children dear, otherwise the species will be in grave peril; there's only 7 billion of them left!" So, if anyone would oblige, let's hear your honest reasoning on the matter.

3) to choose to align your will with another's will is in no way a negation of will
"Yes it does. You stated that not having children was against god's will. To hell with your own will, what does the big man think of it.
My statement makes perfect sense"
It makes no sense, at all. If you never aligned yourself to another's will you would have been jailed, killed, ostracized or worse. Even aligning yourself to the ideology of a culture which has no empirical credibility other than people obey it and pass it down. Hmmmm much like religion.

I do not see how you could make such a claim when you say things like, "if it's God's will, it's not selfish..."

God wants his children down here on Earth and preferably in good families, makes contraception of any kind is selfish.

If and when my will has aligned with that of another, it is (a) another whom I know to exist and be real, and (b) simply a case of me thinking, "Hey, I agree with what you think about issue X, I hereby align my will to you with regards to said issue."

I do NOT and would NEVER make a statement like, "God (or anyone) wants his children down here on Earth and preferably in good families, makes contraception of any kind is selfish."...

OK then, if god wants that, why not, as I have previously enquired about and largely been ignored, adopt one of the millions of children who already exist but do NOT find themselves in such a fortuitous position? They need love and parents and "good families" a whole lot more than anyone who does not yet exist. Barring such things as criminal convictions, etc., there is only one answer to that, and it is a selfish one, and it begins thus;

"I want....."

OK then, if god wants that, why not, as I have previously enquired about and largely been ignored, adopt one of the millions of children who already exist but do NOT find themselves in such a fortuitous position? They need love and parents and "good families" a whole lot more than anyone who does not yet exist. Barring such things as criminal convictions, etc., there is only one answer to that, and it is a selfish one, and it begins thus;

"I want....."