So as is appropriate, I am starting a discussion rather than posting comments. I was going to go back and look at the original comment that started all the controversy but it has mysteriously disappeared. I would be curious to know if the author is the one who deleted it. It seems to me that he was not treated with respect from the beginning.

Maybe it is unpopular, but I thought he made valid points. I believe the first was a question about why have biological children rather than adopt. The second was concerning respect for children and treating them like people rather than inferior people. I apologize if my summary is inaccurate as the original post disappeared.

My husband and I chose to have two children of our own rather than adopt. I admit that we made that decision for selfish reasons, but my justification is that we are just replacing ourselves. Which is weak, I admit. I would, however, be open to adoption should I want any more children or perhaps under the right unforeseen circumstances.

I think he made several other good points regarding parenting. I do agree that children can learn to control their emotional reactions. After all, how do adults learn it? Hopefully they begin learning it from their parents when they are toddlers.

Views: 23

Replies to This Discussion

that's a statement of faith, not an argument.

i parented myself just fine. i've done a pretty good job of parenting my father too, considering the condition he was in when i started.

in what universe is it bad parenting to teach self-discipline?

so you're saying you're having children in moderation? you're going to be reasonable about it and only have a fifth of a child?

there's no moderation here. we have a population crisis. having one child contributes to the population crisis. not raising the children who are already here to bi intelligent and not have children themselves contributes to the population crisis. this issue IS black and white, it's on a one dimensional plane with "more people= destruction" on one end and "less people = survival" on the other. there are no subtleties to this issue.

you just can't think outside the scope of one person's life, can you?

 

we need at least 5 billion people to stop reproducing NOW. if the people who are educated and aware of the problem and don't believe that jesus is going to save us in a few years anyway are not willing to get the ball rolling on this, who the hell will?

oh, yes, we could sustain forty billion people. they'd all have the standards of living of central africa, but it could be done. if you want everyone to have the standards of living of the united states, 2 billion would be pushing it.

it astonishes me that you're going with the "only a theory" argument.

this is where those numbers came from: http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html
 LoL!!  Im so superficial.
Change "Eco Depth Gauge" to "Ego Depth Gauge" and change any reference to humans or people to "me" or "my". See where you end up now :) Hahahaha

HAHAHAHA!!!!

OK I've been busy moving house and only just got internet back on.... albeit a dodgy connection... on a dodgy computer that i can't work the keyboard... but anyhow....

 

So have you all worked out the problems of the world now and made up again?

 

Alice :)

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service