is it every man and woman's responsibility to have children?

Question

genetically we're predisposed to having kids, everything in our bodies is geared towards that end- is it right to say it's our responsibility as living creatures to do this? you don't know where your lineage may go, you don't know what you're depriving the world of by not passing on your genes-- wouldn't it be incredibly selfish to deny future generations the opportunity to live just because it didn't suit you personally?
just a thought.

Answer 1

You are partially correct when you state that everything in our bodies is predisposed to procreation. Physically and instinctively we are all about the sex. Nature tells us that is our nature to mate and create. However, we are not merely animals. There is something that we possess that the humping bunnies do not: the ability to rationalize, analyze, and predict (imagine) the future. Along with our abilities comes a responsibility to do what is best for the universe in which we live. If you are a healthy, mentally competent human being, with the resources to raise a child, then the chances of creating a healthy, mentally competent fraction of you are good, but not guaranteed. And, we all know there are some gene-pools that should never be replicated, yet those seem to be the ones that are most fertile. Somehow, rational thinking and fertility have not always gone hand in hand. It seems to me that the number of infertile couples has increased over the last fifteen years-- it would be interesting to see studies and numbers on this. I think that nature is trying to eradicate certain lines on its own. Nevertheless, it is SELFISH to create a human being that cannot thrive-- who will suffer; who will ultimately find him or herself fighting against a polluted (as in both pollution and corruption) and hostile environment. It is selfish not to use our good sense to avoid bringing a human being into this world, knowing he or she has a predisposition to disease, mental disability, or mental illness. While you can make wonderful cases in opposition of that statement from citing that people have overcome all of those things to the betterment of our world, such as Vincent Van Gogh or Helen Keller or Stephen Hawking, these are not the norm. There are hundreds of thousands of others with the same impairments who do NOT improve the quality of human life, overall—they drain resources from the community in which they live. Nature would tell us that these people should not survive. But, again, REASON, compassion, conscience, and our responsibility to mankind overrides what nature intends. Therefore, just because nature gives us the urge and the equipment to reproduce does not mean that we have to. It is far more responsible to use our logic and foresight.

Answer 2

Consider it on this level, If everyone is even based on income, as soon as one person spends even a penny they are no longer equal. Regardless if everyone gets a piece of the pie as you state, things are never equal because of human nature. If on the other hand, those who can fend for themselves are allowed to prosper, they will tend to assist those who cannot without governmental interference. So when able bodied individuals fend for themselves it allows everyone to eventually prosper if they are so inclined. An example, if everyone was required to share their grades, would those who always work harder still continue to, and those who seldom put forth any work try harder? Each person does what they are expected to do, so by attempting to make things equal you have basically dumbed down the overall population.

Answer 3

Shifting points of view from that of being a physical being, to one of being Soul with a body, I'd say that it's both a personal choice and agreement with other Souls. If we have a pre-existing agreement to provide the means for another Soul to incarnate, then we should honor that agreement, if no pre-existing agreement exists, then it's certainly a personal decision that one could make out of love, but not a responsibility.

Answer 4

One might argue that there is no purpose to marriage except to procreate and raise children. Cheerful cohabitation would serve nicely, otherwise. Of course, not everyone can have children naturally but there might be considered a responsibility to try.

If you believe you have values that are more right than some randomly selected, you would want to propagate them through your posterity.

Answer 5

no not really. Not everyone can have children, but they do try or either adopt a son/daughter. I'm 24...and I don't want kids yet, because I want a stable life...before i have children i want to get the money to raise one. But it also depends on where i'm at in life. I'm not being selfish just because I don't want to have kids right now, i'm just waiting for the right time in life to actually do the deed. :D

Answer 6

No way. If you aren't ready to be a parent and a good one, then DO NOT have children. There are enough little ones in the world who need loving homes with responsible parents. Your responsibility would be to have children when you are ready to care for them and raise them to be loving, caring members of society.