Women who hates babies...

babyblue123 · 11-27-2007, 06:34 AM

we all have our own beliefs and opinions
she obviously doesnt want 2 have kids because she thinks thats its making
the enviorment worse
im not agreeing with her but this is HER opinion and HER belief

dont try 2 twist the story around 2 make it sound like she hates babies
shes just fufillling her belief its HER choice.

l

jnifw3nloi · 11-28-2007, 06:26 AM

Hating children, that seems excessive. However, she does have a point. The overuse of terrestrial resources is a problem not simply for those who are already alive but also for those who are yet to be born. A general reduction in global fertility rates would do a great deal to ease the pressure on the earth's already limited and dwindling resources and it would be beneficial to the next generation. While I would not say hating children is appropriate, it is her opinion, but controlling the human population is becoming an increasingly important consideration.

FutureNavyMan08 · 11-29-2007, 07:02 AM

Thats a good proposal- population control. Normally I would agree with you.

However, I beleive that has already been attempted in China. The result was adverse, because people grew to value boys over girls. This lead to extreme problems with the female population, as well as numerous horrors involving rejected girls.

I honestly say I like the idea, but due to what happened in China, I find it far to risky. Perhaps you have come up with a solution? I'd honestly love the idea, and would greet it with open ears- er, eyes.

jnifw3nloi · 11-29-2007, 07:54 AM

China has had a long cultural tradition, as have most Asian countires, to value boys over girls. This has been going on for centuries, the population control may have thrust it into sharp relief, but it did not instigate it.
There is, secondly, nothing "risky", as you propose, about population control. Were there only 100 females in the entirerity of the globe, that would cause concern, but seeing as how the global ratio of men to women is balanced, China's tendencies are largely irrelevent. It is not a question of individual countries, but a question of the entire human race, by any means a little gender inequality ration is prefferable to depleted terrestrial resources and increased violence over what little is left, is it not?

FutureNavyMan08 · 11-30-2007, 03:53 AM

But I think gender inequalities would cause many problems. Here, I think, is where you and I disagree. Lets say the ratio of men to women was 5:1. Untimately, that means that the majority of men would not have wives. Companionship is such a huge part of happyness that I think depression and conditions such as depression would be even more common than they are now.

jnifw3nloi · 11-30-2007, 07:49 AM

You are basing your entire argument on some idle speculation? One does not need simply wives or husbands to have companionship. And furthermore, we are far from such a gender imbalance. Attention must be given to the problem at hand, not the theoretical aparition of a problem to come.

FutureNavyMan08 · 12-01-2007, 11:20 AM

But if one does not theorize about possible problems an act could bring, is it not irresponsible to impose that act with no clue as to the consequences?