It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Honestly, this question reminds me of the Chinese governments mentality in regards to only having one child.
Originally posted by Darkblade71
reply to post by Annee
No and yes.
I understand why they do this, however to me it is wrong to force it on someone.
At the same time, it is right, because they could not support a larger population.
of course it is and since when is having children (at a legal age) a question of morality ??
So the question is: is it moral to have children at that age?
while i can appreciate your opinion, thankfully it is ONLY an opinion.
I think it is categorically immoral and selfish to actually intend to have kids at an age where you couldn't be present in your child's life beyond 20-30 years at most.
when nature naturally eliminates the possibility, whatever age.
As for a cutoff, what age people should stop having children?
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Darkblade71
reply to post by Annee
No and yes.
I understand why they do this, however to me it is wrong to force it on someone.
At the same time, it is right, because they could not support a larger population.
Provide one unselfish reason for bringing another life into this world.
ummm, it's what we were born to do.
Provide one unselfish reason for bringing another life into this world.
My whole point originally that it is morally wrong to put your morals on someone else unless it is your own children and it is how you raise them.
You can say, well they are gonna die before the child is grown..etc...but so what?
Originally posted by Darkblade71
I think the body pretty much determines when it is time to no longer reproduce.
In my mind, that would be the age limit.
If it is meant to be, it will happen.
If not, then it won't.
No one has the moral right to tell someone otherwise.
question: if you're terminally ill and not expected to survive beyond age 18, is it immoral to procreate at the first available opportunity, regardless of age ??
Yes the aging parent may die, but that can happen anyways like it did with me. I lost a parent at age 9.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Darkblade71
Excuse my french, but that is a remarkably stupid way to live.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by violet
Yes the aging parent may die, but that can happen anyways like it did with me. I lost a parent at age 9.
People often bring up this example, despite it's irrationality.
A parent may die. So may you. But we don't act according to what may happen in rare circumstances. Rather, we base our decisions on what USUALLY happens. People don't usually die before 82 - hence the average life span. Thus, the question of having kids at 65 + really does force into the equation the question of whether you'll be alive to see him get married, have children etc.
in a perfect world, i would tend to agree but we certainly aren't living in a perfect world, are we ??
If you are not financially or mentally prepared for bringing a child in the world, you shouldn't do it.
ummm, pardon you but plenty of ppl in my generation were born in/of and amidst war zones.
Likewise, if you're living in a war zone, it would be immoral i.e. an irresponsible act, to have children, knowing you would be bringing them into such a dangerous environment.
as a grandparent and the 3rd generation of 5 living generations, i think you are far too young to make such foolish assumptions.
Yes, living is not easy. I'm sorry you lack the maturity to see that.
I don't believe my remarks were irrational at all, thank you
Grandparents are nice to have aren't they?