Being Childfree Is Not Being Selfish

Breeders often defame childfree people as selfish.   This is not justified, because it confuses healthy self-interest and inconsiderate selfhishness.

Healthy self-interest accepts the importance of one's own legitimate wellbeing under the one condition of responsibility and consideration, that no other person is taken advantage of, exploited, damaged, hurt or seriously desturbed and annoyed.  

Selfishness is putting one's own wellbeing first without any responsibility or consideration.  Taking advantage, exploiting, damaging, hurting or seriously desturbing and annoying others is accepted without any guilt as collateral damage.  

Childfree people follow their legitimate self-interest, their not-breeding does not damage or harm anybody.   Therefore childfree people are not selfish. 

copy from my ERCP-Blog

Views: 515

Replies to This Discussion

I especially get disgusted at those otherwise intelligent people - even fellow atheists - who talk with great concern about overpopulation, yet have kids themselves!  They clearly think that they, and their offspring are superior to others.  (I'll get jumped on for this)  I have a theory that, as in other species, homosexuality increases with population density. I think it's a species survival method when natural resources are limited.  I get mad at gay people who go to unnatural lengths , and use unnatural methods to have their own kids.  They may use artificial insemination, surrogates, or hold their noses while having sex with a person whose body  repels them.  Straight people who are infertile too, should adopt.  I'm all for adoption, including gay adoption.
I think I may steal that image and disseminate it...

Dogly, I've also gotten jumped for saying that homosexuality is an adaptation to overpopulation, or even just that it's a good thing because of overpopulation. (The person who objected to strongly was a straight guy of course.) Even though people do conceive children, it is carefully planned instead of just getting pregnant any old time. I'm against artificial insemination pretty much always. And I see what you are saying about the feelings of superiority.


I've recently seen two movies about the unintended/unexpected consequences of artificial insemination, a documentary called Bio-Dad, and a Québecois film called Starbuck.

They both raise the very serious concern of one sperm donor ending up being a dad 100s and 100s of times... in a given geographical region... creating oodles of progeny searching for their biological parents... as us adopted children tend to do... and the risk of all these people interbreeding unknowingly with each other... and it's happened more than we dare to imagine.

I am also completely against artificial insemination and womb rental. There are so many orphans on this planet, there is absolutely no need for infertile people to add to the human population.

Sperm for sale, ovules for sale, wombs for rent, it's all very inhuman to me, this part of the for-profit medical system is extremely profitable, and treats humans like cattle. This is not 'medicine for the benefit of humans'.

There is tons of money in fertility treatments, too.

I really think people need to realize that yeah, having their own kids is great, but if you can't have kids, there are so many who can be adopted.


But really, most of them don't want kids. They want an adoraaaable leeetle baby. Anyone over a few weeks, and they don't want it. There's tons of children in the system, but they're not "good enough" for these people who want children.

Ticks me off. Many of these people are often pro-life, and many of these people are convinced that putting a child up for adoption is a GOOD THING--and I often bring up--you know most children in the system don't get adopted, right? You know most of them end up growing up alone, unwanted by anyone, and then they'll probably go find that person later in their life and ask:

"Why....why didn't you want me? Why did you put me through such torture? Why did you do this to me? WHAT is wrong with me that you did not want me?!"

There are people who do get adopted, but most don't. People need to take into account the full consequences of what they're doing.

Yes, wanting your own kids is fine, but having your own kids isn't special or better than adopting. Adopting is the only thing I'm ever doing, if I ever get the mind to have children. I don't want my own, I will gladly go through all the paperwork to save one child from the system.

And I don't want a baby either. I want an older child to give a good home to--to give a good life to. That is so much more than just having my own kid--I KNOW I would be making a good difference in the world, I would be giving a child a chance at college, a chance at happiness and real friends and clothes that weren't donated to them.

Why do so few people adopt? Is it just considered 'too hard' while the other options are "easy" or what?

Adoption isn't always that easy though.  Many adoption agencies are run by the Catholic church or other Xtain group. Just being an atheist, gay or single can be  a show stopper - which is why so many people choose an overseas adoption.  I have known plenty of adoptive parents.  It can take years and is often a heartbreaking process. 


The kids that end up being for adoption often have serious problems - even if they are babies.  There are serious long term effects on children who were raised in an orphanage from birth or spent long years in the foster care system.  I'm not saying people should not adopt, but if they choose to, they better have good health insurance and a very big heart. 


That said,I know a xtain married couple with two sons.  They wanted to adopt two girls which they knew had been severely molested as babies and toddlers.  They were the best parents you could ever imagine and they had great sons.  But they got turned down, because the social worker said they were too involved with their children.  It didn't make sense then either. 


Everyone says adopt, adopt, but if you're not the ideal parent (ie married, upper class, xtain, under 35 with no other children), it can be very difficult.  Which seems stupid to me, but then again no one in the business is asking me.


There are reasons people choose to have their own biological children, maybe they didn't qualify for adoption, they got "caught", they wanted the family name to go on with a biological child, their partner would not accept a non biological child, they didn't want to deal with problems other people created in adoptive children, they wanted to be sure of the child's care from conception, etc. 


There is also the option of getting involved with someone who already has children.  There are lots of single parents out looking for love.  Children of divorce need love too. 


Back on topic, it is not selfish to choose not to have children - especially if you don't want them or detest them.  However, it's not selfish to have them either as long as you don't have twenty like the Duggers.  Good grief, trying to repopulate the planet by themselves?  IMO, having a huge family when you have the resources not to shows some sort of mental illness.  If you can't fill up the hole in your heart with one or two children, then more won't fill it either.  See a shrink.  Fix the problem.  Don't create a bigger one by having a huge family.

the more I read this, the more I think that selfish is not a very useful qualifier... it's so... relative... like beauty... in the eye of the beholder. Almost every single human thinks they're better, kinder, less selfish, more productive than most other humans... except those who are depressed and/or suicidal. So I think using the qualifier "selfish" is not very informative, since most humans act selfishly anyway.

(evil wink)

Let's make a list of all the negatives of breeders that are more objective in nature:


-problem compounders

-attention seekers

-fear of poverty in old age


Francois, I was going to ask the same thing.
I imagine some would consider the desire to share your love, your heart and your life with a little person selfish.  To feel that little life growing in your body and to know you and the one you love created this unique little person.  To re-experience and enjoy all the things of childhood again.  Because your heart aches without one.
When we ignore the problems that our physical desires cause to others, and the earth itself, we are acting selfishly.  No matter how sentimentally we express it.  That little life growing inside you is about to become another one of us.  The 7 billion plus of us!  The vanity of only wanting to care for someone with our own SUPERIOR genes is selfish.  All the other pleasures of having children can be enjoyed with adopted kids.  These children are already here and need loving parents.  The mantra of the dog rescue workers - not to breed while dogs are dying in pounds because of overpopulation - is true for humans, too.  Children do suffer, and sometimes die, in foster care.  Adopt - your genes aren't so great. (I don't mean your individual genes, Grace.  I mean all of us.)
Dogly, about the 7 billion, I think population is still in the 6.9 billions...still much too high of course.
that homosexuality is an adaptation to overpopulation

this is so logical, that I am amazed I have never read this before in any text on evolutionary biology.  


© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service