I see this in movies and real life. I know that i shouldn't be offended, but when i hear it now, i am offended. When someone says "don't kill me, i have kids", all i hear is "kill him, he doesn't have kids". I realize that it may be selfish to think about it this way, but i can't help it. When it comes down to it, the potential victims are saying that my life is less valuable. The potential victim just wants to bring the kids into it so the killers can save the daddy/mother; the provider. If I were next to someone with children, waiting to be executed, i guess my argument would be "kill him so he will stop making babies." Am i going overboard?:)  This is just a pre breakfast, just waking up rant.

Views: 103

Replies to This Discussion

Such values are entirely relative, within a society hell bent on increasing its numbers to conquer worlds/economies/cultures, favouring breeding members of society is logical and to be expected. I aim for a the opposite society, a society that grows in quality not quantity, a society which no longer uses women's wombs as means of production.



You might be overboard in the fact that the killers will most likely kill both of you, and saying "kill him so he will stop making babies" is just really a selfish excuse. But who am I to judge on what people say to try to extend their lives.

Though now that you mention it, it is rather offensive that they think they are worth so much more for having kids. 

You remind me of a story a friend of mine told me from 9/11.  She was somewhat close to the towers when a co-worker said, "I HAVE to get out of the city.  I'm a mom."
Ususally, when I hear that I just roll my eyes.  Like a killer is going to really care that you have kids or not.
I would care.  I would kill someone who said that first.  You have kids, and you are using that as a way to not get killed?  Step to the front of the line, jackass.

Somehow I'm seeing a similarity between this and "give me a lesser sentence because I believe in God". Because it's pleading based on something that should have no bearing on the subject at hand.

But again, there's no such thing as an "absolute" value. Those who presently rule our world (and those who adore-adulate-emulate them) need extra humans and therefore their caretakers ARE more valuable to that majority holding such a world view. It's not that it "should" or "should not" have any bearing, it has to do with do we push to change society to make it better reflect our own values. It's all about the social fight. Something I've been doing for a great portion of my life, fighting for social and environmental change. The only way to make a parent worth the same as a non parent is to have a society which does not value breeding, and we're a far ways away from that...

I'm not sure I'd view "Don't kill me I have kids!" as overtly declaring themselves more valueable than the childless per se. I'd imagine that a parent who cares about their children would be very distressed (understatement) at the idea of them having to suffer the loss of one or both parents, particularly if it might result in their being thrust into the gentle and loving arms of the foster care system. On the practical level, when children become orphans (or screwed up from losing a parent) I believe society expects to pay for it one way or the other. If they grow up maladapted for lack of the parent that was brutally murdered and land in prison, say, it costs us money as a society. If one of us dies our families would be traumatized, but theoretically they aren't reliant on us to survive whereas children would be, and they aren't in the middle of important mental development that might be seriously impacted by our death. At any rate I doubt they're actually thinking about any of this in the heat of the moment, and I don't think I'd hold anyone responsible for what they say at the wrong end of a gun.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service