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: 500

Replies to This Discussion

Calling people "breeders" is just so ugly.
in the context of this group, I consider breeders an appropriate and adequate expression.   I reserve self-censoring to where and when I feel obliged to consider not hurting people's feelings. I do not expect anybody feeling offended by the word breeder to feel comfortable in this group, no matter what word would be used instead.
Guess I shouldn't be in this group then.
'breeders' is accurate---they are breeding, choosing to breed, choosing to send on their genes. "Unbreeders" would be accurate and I wouldn't mind being called that, either. It's an easy way to categorize the two groups.
Breeder is a descriptive word, maybe one that has a bad connotation b/c it's been used as an insult (kind of like "retarded", which was a descriptive word too). It's the easiest way to describe "people who have children".
You always understand.

Hoowa! Pacino would say


Selfish--I usually get it from the religious, saying that I'm being selfish by not carrying on the family name(...I'm female or denying my "sole purpose in life" and I think a lot of them are like Mormons--they think somehow god had plans for souls or whatever, and I'm "denying' some range of future broods by choosing the SMART choice which is to not have children because I can't afford them.


It's not selfish--it's smart to choose to be childfree when you know a child would be unloved and possibly resented.

I don't see how it's selfish to elect not to give yourself additional, unnecessary responsibilities. It would be selfish to take on the responsibility (have a baby) and then neglect it--and unwilling parents don't make good parents.

Your defining of "selfish" is more appropriate for breeders than non-breeders. It's selfish to make as many babies as you want that take up more resources and more land from other species. It's selfish to have no limit to your own species' population while practicing "population control" on other species that aren't even overpopulated, just shoved into smaller spaces to accommodate you.

And about those people who go through fertility treatments instead of adopting because "I want my own baby"...unbelievably selfish. It's selfish to pressure your wife or your daughter to go through a pregnancy she doesn't want just so you can see another little version of you running around (which is by itself pretty selfish).

Often when someone calls someone else "selfish" it is because that person isn't giving them what THEY themselves want. In other words, they have their own selfishness.

Exactly. Selfish for whom? Selfish against the non-existent baby? Selfish against my eggs that die every month? I mean, I think it would be MORE selfish to have a child for attention, then constantly treat it like a horrible burden. I'm not being selfish if I'm taking into account how badly a child would have it raised by me.

I think about the toddler who was run over by two vans, while pedestrians, bike riders, and drivers glanced at her bloody injuries and went on by.  How many of those nightmarish, callous people, have a child themselves? Most? All?  Many of the Chinese, themselves, are suggesting that overpopulation led to this indifference to the little girl.  Of course traditional sexism, and a history of infanticide of female babies must be taken into account.  Still, if there were far fewer people, and not everyone was expected to reproduce, I think each child would be considered special.  The childfree could be like aunties and uncles to the children.  I hate that children are considered the property of their parents.  

Anyone who dared to call me selfish for having no children will surely get an earful from me, and maybe a kick in the ankle.  There is nothing wrong with me - I've been FIXED!




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service