Why people have so many children?

[Jack21222]

The number of children per couple is a difficult number to work with because a significant percentage of the population forms more than one couple during their child bearing years. It is simpler to consider the number of children per female. It is obvious that an upper limit of 2 children per female for an extended length of time will cause a decline in the population because of the number of women who would have 0 or 1 child.

And this is bad because...?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And this is bad because...?

I place no moral value on it, it's just a fact. However, there is a downside to population decline and the details are well known. For instance, without enough young working people to pay into social security, your parents will have to move in with you. That's enough to scare most people into supporting the social security, liberal immigration policies, end-of-life counseling, and large families.

 

[pallidin]

For instance, without enough young working people to pay into social security, your parents will have to move it with you.

Hmmm... never thought of it that way. Good point!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Hmmm... never thought of it that way. Good point!

That should be "in with you". I edited my post accordingly.

 

[pallidin]

Right, I read it that way(move in with you). I'm used to spelling/grammar/context mistakes from others and myself.

 

[rootX]

I place no moral value on it, it's just a fact. However, there is a downside to population decline and the details are well known. For instance, without enough young working people to pay into social security, your parents will have to move in with you. That's enough to scare most people into supporting the social security, liberal immigration policies, end-of-life counseling, and large families.

1) Would you prefer brilliant immigrants or dumb locals? Quality matters as much as quantity.
2) Can people raise kids better if they can spend more time on the kid? If yes, less is better than more.
3)

because of the number of women who would have 0 or 1 child.

Educated/rich families tend to have less kids .. Are you saying that poor families should prefer more children so that can balance with less children in educated/rich families.

 

[DaveC426913]

People always say how children are a miracle and a blessing and how wonderful and glorious and whatever else it is. But that's not saying anything.

Clearly, it's not saying anything you understand.

Because you cannot empathize, does that mean it is to be dismisssed?

Or put another way: is the lack of understanding considered their inability? Or yours?

If someone wants to list the advantages of having a child, they'd have to use more quantifiable terms.

Why?

Even saying it's their "best" decision, isn't saying anything. "Best" is vague and almost always needs to be elaborated on.

And elaborating is bad how?


You are making a classic mistake: you see something that you do not understand, so you dismiss it as invalid (i.e.: "isn't saying anything", "have to be more quantifiable", etc.). Bzzt.


Having children often translates directly into joy, without intervening steps. Often, it simply fulfills the very thing that gives meaning to the lives of people. How do you quantify that?

Trying to quantify it is kind of like determining your personal worth simply by examining your salary or counting your material goods or determining the beauty of a painting by looking at its price tag.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Clearly, it's not saying anything you understand.

Because you cannot empathize, does that mean it is to be dismisssed?

Or put another way: is the lack of understanding considered their inability? Or yours?

Calm down. Don't get your feathers ruffled until you understand what I'm saying.
My point is it's just like saying something is "better". Saying something is better doesn't explain anything. If I said my bike is better than yours, you'd need me to elaborate in what way it's better.

Why?

Because just like my bike analogy, "better" needs to be elaborated on. If I said my bike is better and you asked for me to elaborate how it's better, "is the lack of understanding considered my inability? Or yours?"
By your reasoning, if you don't automatically understand what I mean by "better", when I say "my bike is better", then that's your problem.

And elaborating is bad how?

When did I imply elaborating was bad? That's the exact opposite of what I said. My entire post was advocating more elaboration.

You are making a classic mistake: you see something that you do not understand, so you dismiss it as invalid (i.e.: "isn't saying anything", "have to be more quantifiable", etc.). Bzzt.

I'm simply asking for further elaboration. If you ask someone why they did something, and they say "because", that should be good enough? You can't ask for further elaboration on anything lest you be the one who just doesn't understand?

Having children often translates directly into joy, without intervening steps. Often, it simply fulfills the very thing that gives meaning to the lives of people. How do you quantify that?

Things happen for a reason. Saying it's ineffable doesn't cut it for any other topic, so why is this one any different?

Trying to quantify it is kind of like determining your personal worth simply by examining your salary or counting your material goods or determining the beauty of a painting by looking at its price tag.

Personal worth can be quantified. Are you saying we can't say whether Gandhi had more personal worth than Hitler, since we can't put a price on a human being?

 

[DaveC426913]

My point is it's just like saying something is "better". Saying something is better doesn't explain anything. If I said my bike is better than yours, you'd need me to elaborate in what way it's better.

Not really, no.

A more apt analogy would be my "I prefer my bike to yours". You can ask for clarification, but not getting does not allow you to invalidate the claim. And your understanding or even acceptance is not required.

I refer you back to this:

... children are a miracle and a blessing and ... wonderful and glorious...

This statement (pretending that it is a legit person saying it, and not you putting words in a fictional person's mouth) requires neither defending nor quantifying.

But that's not saying anything.

This is an expectation on your part, because you did not get an answer you like.

By your reasoning, if you don't automatically understand what I mean by "better", when I say "my bike is better", then that's your problem.

If you prefer your bike to mine, and I don't understand why you feel that way, that's my problem, yes.

I'm simply asking for further elaboration. If you ask someone why they did something, and they say "because", that should be good enough? You can't ask for further elaboration on anything lest you be the one who just doesn't understand?

You weren't asking; you were dismissing the claim as inadequate for your purposes.

Things happen for a reason. Saying it's ineffable doesn't cut it for any other topic, so why is this one any different?

Because such things as what gives our life meaning do not require defending.

Personal worth can be quantified. Are you saying we can't say whether Gandhi had more personal worth than Hitler, since we can't put a price on a human being?

Really? So quantify it.

So far, the only comparison you used is "more"; that is not quantification, that is qualification.

 

[leroyjenkens]

A more apt analogy would be my "I prefer my bike to yours". You can ask for clarification, but not getting does not allow you to invalidate the claim. And your understanding or even acceptance is not required.

Well then this is about people's freedom to say whatever they want without having to explain themselves. But then that automatically excludes them from any discussion about it, which is what this was.
We were discussing the pros and cons of having children. The "pros" being that they're a blessing and a miracle. In a debate, that requires elaboration.
I could just as easily say it's a blessing NOT to have kids.

This statement (pretending that it is a legit person saying it, and not you putting words in a fictional person's mouth) requires neither defending nor quantifying.

Well it's not referring to someone specifically, but are you honestly going to tell me that you've never heard a child referred to as a "blessing"?

This is an expectation on your part, because you did not get an answer you like.

It's not about an answer that I like, it's about an answer that says something. If you ask me how old I am and I answer with "Cheetah", I'm sure that's an answer you're not going to like. It's a nonsensical answer, yet by your reasoning, it should be acceptable. The problem doesn't lie with my nonsensical answer, it lies with your expectation of an answer that at least includes numbers.

If you prefer your bike to mine, and I don't understand why you feel that way, that's my problem, yes.

First of all, why do you keep changing "better" to "prefer"?

But regardless of that, if we're trying to resolve whose bike is better in a legitimate discussion, "I prefer mine" doesn't automatically win. There has to be a reason why I prefer mine, it's not ineffable. Just because it's my preference doesn't exclude it from needing elaboration, IF you're in a debate about it. That's the key. In every day life, I don't need to explain anything I say or do, but that won't fly in a debate.

You weren't asking; you were dismissing the claim as inadequate for your purposes.

I was asking. I was asking for further elaboration. If you want to call that dismissing the claim as inadequate, then I guess that's what I did. If I ask for elaboration, then it obviously follows that the claim must be inadequate for me to need elaboration.

Because such things as what gives our life meaning do not require defending.

Theists say the same thing about religion yet that topic is debated frequently.

Really? So quantify it.

So far, the only comparison you used is "more"; that is not quantification, that is qualification.

So you're saying Hitler and Gandhi are equal in worth until someone can prove otherwise? Or that it's impossible to prove it?

And "more" is a quantity.

 

[Huckleberry]

So one of the advantages of having children is that it makes you a better person. A better person in what ways?

I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way. The cons of having the child for them is that their entire lives are rearranged. The pros are they may or may not become "better" sometime in the distant future.

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do? If they tell you they don't regret it you wouldn't believe it anyway, so the only testimony that matters are your own and those of people who agree with you. You defend the surety of an infallible position by demanding quantifiable love.

This is one of the ways that having children can make people better. It forces parents to care about someone other than themselves. They rearrange their lives around the needs of their children and come to find that their children have personalities and opinions separate from themselves. The idea is frightening for some people, some parents included, that the opinions of others may make a difference in their lives; that they are responsible and accountable for the well-being of another person.

Sometimes things are better after they are rearranged. From your perspective it may not appear so, but your perspective, and mine, are inconsequential to how parents love their children.

This reminds me, Mother's Day is coming up soon.

 

[MarCn]

I think because not all people can give more time for them.

 

[Kerrie]

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do? If they tell you they don't regret it you wouldn't believe it anyway, so the only testimony that matters are your own and those of people who agree with you. You defend the surety of an infallible position by demanding quantifiable love.

This is one of the ways that having children can make people better. It forces parents to care about someone other than themselves. They rearrange their lives around the needs of their children and come to find that their children have personalities and opinions separate from themselves. The idea is frightening for some people, some parents included, that the opinions of others may make a difference in their lives; that they are responsible and accountable for the well-being of another person.

Sometimes things are better after they are rearranged. From your perspective it may not appear so, but your perspective, and mine, are inconsequential to how parents love their children.

This reminds me, Mother's Day is coming up soon.

Perfectly stated :)

 

[DaveC426913]

Well then this is about people's freedom to say whatever they want without having to explain themselves. But then that automatically excludes them from any discussion about it, which is what this was.

They are excluded because they are not here. We only have your paraphrasing of what "some people" are saying, and it's extremely vague and biased. You are setting up your own target, doomed to fail, then shooting it down.

We were discussing the pros and cons of having children. The "pros" being that they're a blessing and a miracle. In a debate, that requires elaboration.

Again, they are not here. You are acting as both sides of the debate.

This is analagous to trying to have a discussion with a Creationist wherein the Creationist gives you Evolutionist arguments in his own words, then shoots them down.

Well it's not referring to someone specifically, but are you honestly going to tell me that you've never heard a child referred to as a "blessing"?

See above. You present your own case for your opponent, then shoot it down.

It's not about an answer that I like, it's about an answer that says something. If you ask me how old I am and I answer with "Cheetah", I'm sure that's an answer you're not going to like. It's a nonsensical answer, yet by your reasoning, it should be acceptable.

No. I think you will find that most people intuitively understand "blessing" and "miracle" and such. I believe you are the exception.

First of all, why do you keep changing "better" to "prefer"?

Because "prefer" is subjective. Like parents thinking that having children is a blessing.
I don't need to defned my preference for a bike, just like I don't need ot defend my beleief that children are a blessing.
"Better" is less subjective; it contains a comparison.

IF you're in a debate about it.

Which these hypothetical people you refer to are not.
The argument you are presenting to us is not from any real entity; it is from some people you have interacted with and whose mouths you have put words in. That doesn't mean it's not true, it simply means you holding up a pupper stuffed with rags and telling us to treat that as a real debating opponent. it's not; it's just a few statements.

That's the key. In every day life, I don't need to explain anything I say or do, but that won't fly in a debate.

One does not debate with statements; one debates with opponents.

So you're saying Hitler and Gandhi are equal in worth until someone can prove otherwise? Or that it's impossible to prove it?

No, I am saying their worth is not quantifiable, though it is qualifiable.

And "more" is a quantity.

And what quantity is it? Give me a number please.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do? If they tell you they don't regret it you wouldn't believe it anyway, so the only testimony that matters are your own and those of people who agree with you. You defend the surety of an infallible position by demanding quantifiable love.

I've had plenty of people tell me they wish they waited to have children. That's a regret.

They are excluded because they are not here. We only have your paraphrasing of what "some people" are saying, and it's extremely vague and biased. You are setting up your own target, doomed to fail, then shooting it down.

I'm setting up a target that I've seen before and shooting it down. What's the problem? I never claimed anyone here had that position, so it's not a straw man.

Again, they are not here. You are acting as both sides of the debate.

That's not the point. You were defending the phantom when you came in here, and now you're just saying that my debate with the phantom doesn't matter.

This is analagous to trying to have a discussion with a Creationist wherein the Creationist gives you Evolutionist arguments in his own words, then shoots them down.

So you're saying that a creationist wouldn't describe evolution accurately? Then that means you're saying it's not accurate when I say people call children blessings. Is that what you're saying?

See above. You present your own case for your opponent, then shoot it down.

I didn't attribute that argument to anyone here, so I don't see why you have a problem with it. Unless you think that's what I did, which I didn't.

No. I think you will find that most people intuitively understand "blessing" and "miracle" and such. I believe you are the exception.

And they understand that it means what? Could you explain what they mean? And remember that repeating the word itself isn't an explanation as to the meaning of the word.

Because "prefer" is subjective. Like parents thinking that having children is a blessing.
I don't need to defned my preference for a bike, just like I don't need ot defend my beleief that children are a blessing.
"Better" is less subjective; it contains a comparison.

Given the context of a debate, you would need to explain why your preference is the way it is. Otherwise there's nothing to debate.

Which these hypothetical people you refer to are not.

They may be. I never said they weren't, and since I made them up, I can say that they're in a debate.

The argument you are presenting to us is not from any real entity; it is from some people you have interacted with and whose mouths you have put words in. That doesn't mean it's not true, it simply means you holding up a pupper stuffed with rags and telling us to treat that as a real debating opponent. it's not; it's just a few statements.

I'm using them as an example of what's acceptable in a debate and what's not. Their explanation isn't acceptable. I don't see a problem with doing that.

No, I am saying their worth is not quantifiable, though it is qualifiable.

Why isn't it quantifiable?

And what quantity is it? Give me a number please.

It's not an exact number, just like "few". But they can both be used to indicate a quantity.

 

[Huckleberry]

I've had plenty of people tell me they wish they waited to have children. That's a regret.

That is a far cry from...

I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way.

They regret being unprepared for children, not ever having them in the first place. This regret doesn't support your argument.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why isn't it quantifiable?

It's not quantifiable because you cannot assign numbers to it.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Quantify Ghandi's worth versus Hitler's. Give me numbers (even if you make them up) that meaningfully show specifically how much more Ghandi is worth to the world than Hitler.

Alternately, quantify the emotional or spiritual effect of children on parents.

 

[GeorginaS]

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do?

No, I've not heard many parents calmly claim that they regret having children. Have you seen the stats on child abuse and neglect by their own parents? Have you lived with a parent who could barely tolerate the sight of you while telling anyone who would listen how much they "loved" being a parent? There are far, far too many damaged grown-ups who were harmed by their parents and far too many children currently being harmed by their parents to say there exists any universal test or standard for parents having little to not regrets about having procreated.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Kids are fun. They're fun to make and fun to watch and fun to see become real people.

I have to say, my only regret about fatherhood is that I only had one.

 

[Huckleberry]

No, I've not heard many parents calmly claim that they regret having children. Have you seen the stats on child abuse and neglect by their own parents? Have you lived with a parent who could barely tolerate the sight of you while telling anyone who would listen how much they "loved" being a parent? There are far, far too many damaged grown-ups who were harmed by their parents and far too many children currently being harmed by their parents to say there exists any universal test or standard for parents having little to not regrets about having procreated.

I have lived with a parent like that. Have you?

I never implied that parents "love" being parents or that there is a universal standard for testing whether parents regret having children or not. I implied that the overwhelming majority of parents love their children, and that basing an opinion the testimony of parents is better than basing it on an infallible, unsubstantiated and ultimately inconsequential opinion.

Where does the idea that because some parents are unhappy that they regret having children come from? Raising children isn't easy, and some people are dreadfully unprepared for the task. Just because circumstances are difficult and some parents don't cope well doesn't mean they regret their children, and just because a parent abuses their child doesn't mean they don't also love them.

 

[Jack21222]

just because a parent abuses their child doesn't mean they don't also love them.

Can you explain this to me slowly? Because apparently I'm an idiot and can't comprehend this. I'm not claiming you're wrong, I'm just saying that statement makes no sense at all to me the way it's currently phrased.

 

[leroyjenkens]

They regret being unprepared for children, not ever having them in the first place. This regret doesn't support your argument.

That implies they had the children on accident. If they wish they waited to have children, that implies the child wasn't an accident and they regret having the child.
Now, the way I say it sounds bad, but that's basically all it is. It's taboo to say you regret having your child, so people get around saying that by saying something else, which basically says the same thing.

It's not quantifiable because you cannot assign numbers to it.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Quantify Ghandi's worth versus Hitler's. Give me numbers (even if you make them up) that meaningfully show specifically how much more Ghandi is worth to the world than Hitler.

This would be new territory. Like if I was the first one to put numbers to volumes of liquids. If I just gave it a number; 42, it means nothing.
How do they assign numbers to something like your credibility? If it's never been done before, someone could say you can't assign a number to someone's credibility. But they did. It's called your credit score. And just like credit score, I could invent a new way of quantifying someone's worth.

Alternately, quantify the emotional or spiritual effect of children on parents.

I could quantify the chemical effects, which is what it is. I don't believe there's anything spiritual about it.

 

[Huckleberry]

Can you explain this to me slowly? Because apparently I'm an idiot and can't comprehend this. I'm not claiming you're wrong, I'm just saying that statement makes no sense at all to me the way it's currently phrased.

I remember my father screaming and shaking my infant brother until my brother stopped crying. Then he would throw my brother in the crib. My brother couldn't even speak yet, but he learned exactly when to stop crying before he would be thrashed. I assume my father thought the problem was solved with no further damage done.

I remember, many years later after I had left home, my brother told me how our father punched our mother in the face. She is schitzophrenic and supposedly he had to stop her from hurting herself or burning down the house.

I remember visiting home and going down to the basement to smoke and I heard a noise from a sealed 5 gallon bucket. There was a live squirrel in there suffocating. My father said he thought it was already dead, and he kills the squirrels because they dump the birdseed on the ground.

I also remember going out riding bikes with my sister and father. I went racing down a hill and around a corner and crashed into my sister. We both fell to the pavement hard. Our father was running between us frantically trying to see if we were alright. He wasn't pretending concern.

I remember we would go camping and I'd jump off his shoulders when we were swimming. We'd go fishing for bass, and the two of us would go canoeing on the lake for hours. He was enjoying himself as much as I was.

I remember when I left home because I couldn't stand the arguments and the anger, and watching my 10 year old brother and my father both crying on the steps as I drove away. They were real tears. He still calls me regularly and always tells me I should call my mother more often, but it is always him who I end up talking to. He has regrets he can't admit to himself, but I highly doubt that I or my siblings are one of them.

It's easy to view an abuser as a despicable, vile pig, incapable of love. I think that's rarely the truth, that a person is entirely one thing or another. My father is not a kind man by any estimation, but he's not completely devoid of kindness either. He is sometimes compelled beyond reason to create the illusion of self-control and self-esteem by controlling his environment and the people in it. To this day he still seems unaware of what he has done, but I don't doubt that he loves his children as best as he is able. For the moments when he was a genuine father I love him too.

I hope that at least makes my opinion of the matter understandable.

 

[Huckleberry]

That implies they had the children on accident. If they wish they waited to have children, that implies the child wasn't an accident and they regret having the child.
Now, the way I say it sounds bad, but that's basically all it is. It's taboo to say you regret having your child, so people get around saying that by saying something else, which basically says the same thing.

I'm assuming you mean that the child was an accident, and saying it wasn't is an error.

Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to say that all parents who have unplanned pregnancies regret having their children. I know that I won't convince you otherwise, so I'm just going to go scribble the word serendipity out of my dictionary.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to say that all parents who have unplanned pregnancies regret having their children.

I didn't say all do. But I was responding to someone who said none do. Some definitely do.

 

[Jack21222]

I hope that at least makes my opinion of the matter understandable.

None of your examples, except possibly the first one, are instances of child abuse. The original statement was about "abuse and neglect" of children. From the examples you provided, you were neither abused nor neglected as a child.

My belief is that a bona fide child abuser does not love his or her child. My parents, and I'm sure almost everybody's parents, have made stupid parenting mistakes from time to time. That's not what we're talking about here.

 

[DaveC426913]

This would be new territory. ...I could invent a new way of quantifying someone's worth.

Thank you. Twice you have agreed that there currently is no quantifiable way to measure these things.

I don't believe there's anything spiritual about it.

That is not your call. It is entirely a matter of the parents feeling that they are spiritually-enhanced by their children.

 

[DaveC426913]

My belief is that a bona fide child abuser does not love his or her child. My parents, and I'm sure almost everybody's parents, have made stupid parenting mistakes from time to time. That's not what we're talking about here.

No. Your viewpoint is far too black and white.

Just because a parent regrets what they did to their child, does not mean it was not abusive.

Examples:
- a parent might use excessive corporal punishment, such as using a strap or belt, for a particularly bad transgression. The parent may feel this is necessary, may even dislike it, but that does not mean they are not being abusive. Nor does it mean they don't love them (flawed as it may be).
- a parent may lash out at a child with a slap in anger or weakness (say, they were lacking sleep or had been drinking). It is abuse, but it does not mean they don't love their child (again, no argiung that these people need help to deal with their issues).

Nor are these simply "mistakes". This behaviour may be institutionalized, meaning, within the family, it is considered "normal".


Whether you disagree the above (or think it should be stopped or think the authorities should step in) is irrelevent; it is de facto. It is what it is. Some parents do love and abuse their children.

 

[Kerrie]

Kids are fun. They're fun to make and fun to watch and fun to see become real people.

I have to say, my only regret about fatherhood is that I only had one.

I have heard this regret from my own mother too-she had just me in her youthful energetic life. At age 40, she had my half brother who has Downs Syndrome as well as Autism. While this is an incredible responsibility, she does not regret the decision to raise him because it is humanistic to raise, care, and love another.

It is also humanistic to be afraid of or repulsed by the responsibilities to raise a child. To those who do fear this, I don't think any less of them because they are aware of what sacrifice it takes to raise a child who has the morals and decision making skills to be a productive member of society. At the same time, I don't need others questioning my decision to raise a child with my dedication and commitment to their well being in society-for one day they will be caretakers of those who question their existence.

 

[Huckleberry]

None of your examples, except possibly the first one, are instances of child abuse. The original statement was about "abuse and neglect" of children. From the examples you provided, you were neither abused nor neglected as a child.

My belief is that a bona fide child abuser does not love his or her child. My parents, and I'm sure almost everybody's parents, have made stupid parenting mistakes from time to time. That's not what we're talking about here.

Neglected, no, but it sure felt like abuse much of the time. A pattern of violent behaviour isn't a parenting mistake, and having to occassionally suffer it for no reason at all and constantly live under the threat of it is a kind of abuse. Whether that is bona-fide or not I'll leave to you. Though I'm sure some abusers do suffer from a form of antisocial personality disorder that renders them incapable of empathy, my point was to show that not all abusers (children,women,animals) have that extreme limitation. If only the most psychopathic forms of abuse are considered bona-fide, then maybe you are right, but rarely is the world so black and white.

I didn't say all do. But I was responding to someone who said none do. Some definitely do.

I suppose that is true, but I don't think it follows that because a parent says one thing they necessarily mean something different. It doesn't help your argument.

edit - I like this scene from Good Will Hunting about regret.
Warning: the clip is rife with bad language!

 

[leroyjenkens]

Thank you. Twice you have agreed that there currently is no quantifiable way to measure these things.

Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist.

That is not your call. It is entirely a matter of the parents feeling that they are spiritually-enhanced by their children.

Just because they feel that way, doesn't mean it's actually happening. Some may feel that god answers their prayers, but just because that's the way they feel, doesn't mean that he actually does.

I suppose that is true, but I don't think it follows that because a parent says one thing they necessarily mean something different.

I'm saying they're not different. I'm saying they're the same thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist.

The proof will have to be in the pudding.

I am claiming we cannot quantify personal worth or the benefits of children. As it stands, that is the way it is.

If you think it's possible. Theoretically. Some day in the future. If someone takes it on. And they succeed.

Well, one can say the same thing about teleporting to other planets. But the proof will be in the pudding.

Till then, there's nothing to debate. These things are not quantifiable.


I wonder, maybe you think what I'm saying is that they can never be quantifable, even in principle. I am not saying that.

Just because they feel that way, doesn't mean it's actually happening. Some may feel that god answers their prayers, but just because that's the way they feel, doesn't mean that he actually does.

God has nothing to do with it. You have a very narrow definition of spirituality. Spirituality does not necessarily have anything to do with the supernatural.

If it would help you, substitute the following words: identity, moral compass, emotional well-being, compassion, love of thy neighbour, philanthropy, philosophy, etc.

 

[Jack21222]

No. Your viewpoint is far too black and white.

Just because a parent regrets what they did to their child, does not mean it was not abusive.

Examples:
- a parent might use excessive corporal punishment, such as using a strap or belt, for a particularly bad transgression. The parent may feel this is necessary, may even dislike it, but that does not mean they are not being abusive. Nor does it mean they don't love them (flawed as it may be).
- a parent may lash out at a child with a slap in anger or weakness (say, they were lacking sleep or had been drinking). It is abuse, but it does not mean they don't love their child (again, no argiung that these people need help to deal with their issues).

Nor are these simply "mistakes". This behaviour may be institutionalized, meaning, within the family, it is considered "normal".


Whether you disagree the above (or think it should be stopped or think the authorities should step in) is irrelevent; it is de facto. It is what it is. Some parents do love and abuse their children.

I have been slapped for inadequate reasons on several occasions as a child, however, I do not feel that I was "abused." We're using different definitions of the word.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The proof will have to be in the pudding.

I am claiming we cannot quantify personal worth or the benefits of children. As it stands, that is the way it is.

If you think it's possible. Theoretically. Some day in the future. If someone takes it on. And they succeed.

Well, one can say the same thing about teleporting to other planets. But the proof will be in the pudding.

Teleporting to other planets isn't a comparable analogy. We haven't done anything close to that yet, yet we've done something close to putting human worth into numbers. For that to be a comparable analogy, you would have to accept that putting human worth into numbers is as far off as teleporting people to other planets.
Not only can we not do anything like that, we don't even know if it will ever be possible.
On the other hand, I could create a system right now for assigning numbers to human worth.

God has nothing to do with it. You have a very narrow definition of spirituality. Spirituality does not necessarily have anything to do with the supernatural.

If it would help you, substitute the following words: identity, moral compass, emotional well-being, compassion, love of thy neighbour, philanthropy, philosophy, etc.

Why are any of those intrinsically incapable of being quantified?
Credibility has been assigned a numerical quantity, proving that similar ideas can be quantified. Your argument is that because they haven't, no one knows if they could be.

 

[DaveC426913]

On the other hand, I could create a system right now for assigning numbers to human worth.

By the same argument I could assign a colour to human worth. But how does one judge if it has any meaning?

You claiming you could invent a system for assigning a number to human worth is an empty claim.

And, getting back to the initial argument, let's remember why we're talking about this. You are effectively criticizing parents for describing their joy of having children without giving quantitative values. Yet there is no such system. You are criticzing them for not using something that does not exist.

Why are any of those intrinsically incapable of being quantified?

I didn't say anything about that. I simply said you don't know what spirituality usually means.

If you have a specious concept of spirituality, who's to say you don't have a specious concept of the joys of parenthood?