Progressive procreators say they can breed children who can do "good" for the planet

I am curious about this. Many progressives here on A|N and in the world at large state that they have children in order to change the world, to teach their children what could be instead of what is. But is there anything solid behind that statement, are the stats pointing that way? In essence, the question is: do progeny follow in their parents footsteps or do they brake the mold.

 

This conservative Christian breeder bitches about his son's politics, that he does not contribute to "wealth creation" (vomit). He says that a university education creates socialists... I guess he's never met anyone on Wall Street... or in corporate law... or business administrators... or in nuclear science... sigh

 

Over on A|N's Atheist News and Black Freethought, we can read about Melissa Harris-Perry, a black religious scholar with enough clout to have a wikipedia page. Who was raised secular-humanist (UU) but who in her early teens "found god". I wonder what her parents think?

 

I invite you to use this discussion as a gather-all of articles on this topic, and use this in our conversations with progressive and/or atheist procreators.

Tags: offspring, parental influence on voting, politics, procreation, voting

Views: 43

Replies to This Discussion

While this is obviously the result of misunderstanding of the math of Chance (they ignore the many, many other variables), this completely ignores the glaring fact that these oh-so-generous people are NOT making copies of themselves, individuals who will do their bidding, but that they are imposing their values on imaginary beings who will eventually be supposedly deprived of choice: slaves to the parental opinion.

 

Children are INDIVIDUALS who invariably will NEVER be anything like what one expects.

 

So it's really besides the point, isn't it? Besides, if you want to contribute to your values, you perform actions towards those values. Having children isn't the action in that equation--actually doing something besides contributing towards the population, and the pollution of the planet is most likely not.

 

It seems to me if one's goal is to better the planet, then one should follow through with it by adopting children who don't have parents or fostering kids who had terrible parents, or kids "nobody wants," rather than make new ones. Reduce, reuse recycle, eh? And then do it the fuck yourself. Put up or shut up.

I broke the mold.  I was raised christian and later became an atheist.  So progeny do not follow in their parents footsteps. 

I would like more examples of others (like Harris-Perry) who broke the mold. 

There are actually groups on the Nexus for ex-christians and other ex-theists groups who are examples of progeny who broke the mold.

Nate Phelps is the son of Fred Phelps and now an atheist.    I know there is one other in the same vain, but can't remember who.  As for going from atheist to theist their is the som of Madelyn Murray-O'Hair.
Susan, those are good examples.  Thanks.  I knew about Madelyn's son.  I didn't know about Nate Phelps.

{following your edit :) }

Yes indeed the O'Hair story... how sad.  I didn't know her, I was too young. I've read/watched many a horrible story about her, but I wish she was alive today and going head to head with all the Humanist "old boys club" reigning over today's atheists. I'd take O'Hair any day over Dawkins. But on the flip side, I see that case as a consequence of lack of parenting, as can happen to any parent who doesn't have time to parent because they're too involved with their careers. I really do see parenting as a full time job, unless one shares the mothering duties with other mothers. Ah, if only she had not procreated :(

I didn't break my family's religious mold, we're third generation... but my schooling was Catholic. However, where I broke the mold was on lifestyle, politics, and society issues.

We know of plenty of conservatives and/or religious people who's progeny diversify... but I'm more interested in the progeny of progressive procreators diversifying to the conservative and/or religious side :)

I'll call'em defectors ;)

TNT666 -- you mean raised Atheist and later became christians. OK --  Susan gives a good example of O'Hair's son.

This is such a good topic. Lots of groups have the "have kids so white/Christian/fill in the blanks will keep being the main population" thing. I have gotten the "if you have a kid it could be a scientist and learn how to save the planet" schpiel too.

 

So far I've found examples of people who stayed the same or rebelled against parents...I would love to see statistics though.

 

The stupidest argument I had about this was someone telling me I was a hypocrite because I didn't want to have a baby for environmental reasons, but once in awhile at a party I smoke a cigarette if someone gives me one, because smoking is bad for the environment. (I soon discovered this person was a well-known internet psycho.) Cars are much worse for the environment. People can make choices that lessen their environmental impact but almost everyone will be involved in some way with gas-powered vehicles, whether driving or riding, and everyone also impacts the environment by existing. I didn't want to create another person who will do all the same things I do.

Of course, no one can be guaranteed that their child will grow up to be a great scientist or humanitarian,  however, raising children with a strong background in science and mathematics can't hurt.  Many xtains appear to have large families and have no intention of  allowing their children to learn any science at all or at best they teach their watered down xtain version that has no resremblance to actual science. This reduces the chances their child is going to be the magical person who solves everything.

 

I have huge problem with the almost hero worship the Duggins, Nadia Suleman and Kate Plus Eight.  Hopefully, we will soon be free Kate Gosslin and brood.  What have any of these people done other than have enormous families? I feel sorry for the older girls (and sometimes boys), because the bulk of the child rearing is probably falling on them which is hugely unfair to both the older and younger siblings.

 

In the case of Nadia Suleman, I believe all the children have varying degrees of disability.  It's difficult to raise one disabled child, let alone to intentionally have 14 disabled children.  One person cannot possibly hope to parent that many children all alone even if they were all ordinary and none had challenges. I know that no one plans to have children that are disabled, but hello, when the first couple are disabled, chances are the rest will be too.  It doesn't make you a saint to continue to bring   a lot disabled children into the world.  I believe disabled people have a lot to offer the world, but it just seems cruel to bring children into the world knowing their suffering level is going to be really high from the start.

 

Also,  these reality tv shows turning teen moms into instant celebrities just for having a baby in high school just disgust me.  It is so disgusting to me, I won't even go into it.  Too bad they can't have reality shows based on teens actually doing something positive.

 

It's not procreating that's the problem.  It's irresponsible procreating that's the problem.  Children are a huge investment in time and money and IMO, if you don't want  to or can't  make this investment or you're going to resent the children for life for taking your "youth" or "money" or "holding you back professionally", then don't have kids.  Because no kid deserves that.  It's so easy and cheap not to have kids.  It makes no sense to have unwanted children in this day and age.  However,  I have a strong suspicion the xtain right's  end goal is to end birth control and sex education for everyone. 

meh :)

I'd prefer a society with a fewer larger extended families over nearly all nuclear families procreating once or twice. I do see procreating for most being a problem.

However, a socio-political thought came to me when I was watched the TV series Big Love. When people chose to have large families, if they weren't already really well off financially, it creates tremendous pressure to create huge family income. On the comment page a while back I posted a video by VHEM, in it one of the mantras that's repeated is procreate-buy-consume-be happy. This is integral to our neo-liberal political system. Our corporate dominated governments require it of us in order to ensure their own perpetual wealth.

I saw a video on youtube where there was a family with six children each with worse autism than the one before until the youngest were tied up in chairs, non verbal and unable to communicate at all or even move around much.    

 

I know plenty of large families and they are always whining about not having enough money.  It's all I can do not to say "then why did you have six kids when you knew you didn't have enough money after the first two!"  I know these women who have 6+ kids and they want a baby shower everytime.   Then they don't have enough money for birthdays and Xmas so it's bug the crap out friends, relatives and everyone else to buy their kids presents.  I ended up not hanging out with these people anymore, because they were a money pit. 

 


RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service