Is being unable to procreate an advantage or disadvantage?

Post Reply New Topic

Obviously it's the former due to the sheer fact that one can have limitless sex without running that risk, but now that I think of it... if two people had a baby at the beginning of their relationship wouldn't they then be bound to at least support each other to support their offspring? Maybe my first love wouldn't have left so hastily is that was the case...

This isn't guaranteed at any stage of the relationship. My mom and dad split up when I was very young, and were not being very supportive of each other before they did.

Sometimes parents split up when the child is still an infant -- or before the child is even born. Some parents leave their partner and their child.



Maybe so. But if they no longer wanted to be with you for you, would it be the same?

I am sorry that your relationship didn't work out. Children are NEVER an answer to relationship issues, no matter when or how they come. Communication and honesty are. Your last relationship didn't work out for whatever reason, you can and will bounce back and find someone who is better suited to be with you. Hopefully when they do you will be ready and not worried about what was.

No, no, NO, no, No, NO! It is generally bad news when a couple stays together for the children. As Dr. Phil says, a child should not be born with a job to keep a couple together. And not procreating is an advantage to the planet. Just think, you can eat steak all the time, drive a huge SUV everywhere, leave all the lights and TV on, and travel the world on an airplane and you still would not have the carbon footprint that having a child would create.

evolutionarily, it's the ultimate disadvantage.

It is an advantage for two reasons at least. 1. It means that there will be a few less children born into this world that is already far too overpopulated and 2. It spares another person(s) being brought into this world and condemned to 80+ years of pain and suffering in this hell hole called a world and life.

BAD IDEA!!

When two people don't get along, they split up.

When there is a kid, they either fight over the kid, or one parent abandons the kid, probably more than 90% of the time.

My parents were the ONLY divorce I have seen where there were no bitter custody battle or abandonment issues. THE ONLY ONE.

Having a kid to keep a relationship together is called A STUPID f*****g DECISION.

In a world that demands perfection and seems to want to exterminate us in particular, NOT PROCREATING IS THE SMARTEST POSSIBLE THING YOU CAN DO.

I only wish I'd known that before I had kids.

Yeah, that's not happening, though. It's because people in Europe aren't having children any more (in parts of Europe they're below replacement rates), that people from the third world islamic countries have to be brought in to fill that insatiable need for population growth. Also look at Japan. They're not allowing much immigration so in a few years they'll need robots just to take care of the aged population.

From a globalist mentality, yes the world is overpopulated. Maybe. But from a non-globalist prospective, yes, certain parts of the world are overpopulated hell-holes, but certain parts of the world are not, and will be massively depopulated in a hundred or so years (or they would be if not for mass-immigration).

Actually I kind of doubt Western Civilization will survive into the next few hundred years, given the low rates of reproduction in Western countries (in Greece the average couple has 1.1 children; in Morocco, the average couple probably has six or seven or eight children).

France I think is the only country in Europe where the native population is above the rate of replacement. But still only by the thinnest of margins (2.2 on average, so above by only 0.1).

It's kind of a moot question, these days, for several reasons.

It's an advantage if you don't want children.

It's a disadvantage if you do want children.

It's moot in the sense that surrogates and other options exist for gays to have their own biological children if they so choose - ie Neil Patrick Harris, for one example.

It's moot in the sense that a gay man or woman could choose to have heterosexual sex in order to procreate if they really wanted to.

Then, while it's not biological procreation, there's always the option of adoption - which is legal in civilized countries.

The only people who CAN'T procreate are those who are infertile for whatever reason, so it's really only them who can debate the pros & cons.

But there is another issue here: The time you spent raising children is time you do NOT have for anything else. I know of a saying: Your parents could not change the world, they were too busy changing your diapers.

People who have kids, just look at the parent discussion: Their life, especially when kids are young, is all about diapers, bills, schools, lessons, driving them everywhere, baths and showers, and teenage angst. No time for art or anything like that.

So for the world, not procreating is an advantage.

I find it an advantage. I can now have a much higher savings rate than if I were to have kids, and probably a higher standard of living.

I think it's a disadvantage to the couples who actually want children but have to go through a complicated process to have a biological child of their own, and to those who face judgment as homosexual parents.

My mom and dad had my sister pretty early on. It didn't take long for the relationship to collapse. My birth was the only reason they waited as long as they did to divorce, and it wasn't enough to prevent it.

Just because I am not able to have children is NOT going to help my relationship, whether I am in a relationship with a man or a womon

and I can have children with a womon, all she had to do was get inseminated and we were able to raise the kids she wanted, no big deal.