Reading that other thread about women who don't want children, what use are these women to society and the world at large. Unless you're a nun or dedicated to an altruistic cause, a female is basically useless if she can't bear children. Any woman who falls under this category should take a serious look at suicide.

The above message was braught you by the flava flav foundation.

You're gonna have this thread closed. I just know it. Some people who are abusive don't make good parents, sensibly. Some people are just barren and can't have children at all. And there is abortion. The only time someone should abort a child is if they were raped. Especially if it's by a family member or friend.

alabamagirl

I'm not talking about barren women, they can't control it. I'm talking those who choose not to have children for selfish reasons.

You always here that kind of nonsense from the educated type of women, somehow a little education turns them into some feminzai who hate children. Educated and intelligent people should be the ones to procreate to build better societies not the crack addicts, hookers and pimps. But some of these women become selfish and that kind of behavoir and choice should not be encouraged.

condeeleeza rice is a perfect example, though in a way it's better they don't procreate.

I know women who accept not having kids as a possibility if the right conditions for having those kids are seen as an unlikely possibility...one friend is seriously considering freezing her eggs rather than breed for any and any punk where others have crossed race to better the chances of the right conditions.

The only men I have heard say they do not want children are white men and usually for tie down reasons in being free to make money means that much to them. Children are a natural consequence of life, they are what we are here for, don't let society warp your perception of this.

Biology aside and to some degree your demeanor (i.e. some people are actually scared of the thought of giving birth in a squeamish kind of way) go forth and multiply. Still, in the reality that it takes all sorts to make the world, these individuals are entitled to their opinions based on their own feelings. A bit like homosexuals, left to them alone the human race would cease, fortunately there are enough people in the world to keep it turning.....but let a gay man try tell me it's me who has got it all wrong then you know it's hell and powder house.

What is wrong with chosing not the have children? What is wrong with chosing not to be inpregnated for the sake that it is a 'woman's right' to produce?
Do men have the 'right' to impregnate? Shouldn't children have the 'right' to two parents? What about the financial implications and dedication involved in having children?
Is it a woman's 'right' to be forced to produce a child by a man forced to impregnate her or who impregnates her because she is 'his property' as often happened during the time of enslavement?
Many women who did not have any control over being impregnated resisted bringing children to birth by any means necessary so as not to perpetuate a system. Those women would have been looked on as resisters and something to emulate back then.
Why is it today that women are called selfish because they do not want children?

A friend of mine in a long term relationship had two children and when the youngest was about three the relationship broke down because HE wanted more children. She did not, because that was all she could afford (long term planning) financially. Now, she is having to drag him through the courts because he won't look after his two children and he was the one who wanted more.

Sargaco - that's it, we all have a choice, I suppose it's the mind behind it we are interested in, a bit like the mind that has you sewing the hair of another race into your own head.

No a woman in that same situation of not wanting anymore children where the man did, she told him he's free to go and get that out a road - easily done but that went against his concept of family....rock and a hardplace tings....but maybe a good candidate for polygamy if nothing else....but for both men and women?...hmmm there's another argument there already.

QUOTE:
a bit like the mind that has you sewing the hair of another race into your own head.

Firstly, If that is meant to insult me, then it does not because I have never worn a weave. I AM BLISSFULLY HAPPY WITH THE SKIN I AM IN AND THE HAIR I WAS BORN WITH and if anything should happen to make me lose my hair then I am going to go BALD.

Yes, people do have a choice.
But there is an awful lot of our children being looked after by the state because mother's exercised their right to procreate and then for whatever reason changed their minds and because father's chose (or in some cases had no choice) to impregnate. If I chose not to have children, it is based on my circumstances and no one else's. Just as if someone chose to have children, it's no one else's business but the people concerned. Because none of those opinionated people are going to feed, clothe, provide emotional, moral, and educational support.

Sargaco - sorry, my misuse of the word 'you', wasn't directed at you personally at all - whoever the cap fits.

Again depends what you are defending and the mind behind it. My children live without me, I have no control over how they are being raised mainly because I aint into no half daddy nastiness, the raising I need to do can't be done part time...it's part time enough with other commitments much more outside of a family unit. So if my children end up in prison or dead before their time I still see this as a lesser evil to having had them aborted or not born in wedlock because either way you look at it no outcome or consequence is guaranteed but I do agree there are better odds in one pool than the other....guess it's my time to throw a bit of caution to the wind, a bit like sexing a one night stand bare back.

I fully appreciate in these times why people have choices and should make the best choice of that. I'm a firm believer in marriage but can fully understand why many would rather not but when you have African militants telling you marriage is for white people and women saying they choose not to have children because they tie you down then this is completely different, these people are scapegoating children for their own selfish reasons.

Nobody is women bashing, so put the cape down hero. When it comes to procreating women are far more valuable then men, so in this regard the emphasis will always be about their choices. Also most men don't even entertain this existentialist bull about choice and recognize that children are a fundmental part of life.

Those men you're talking about are irrelevant to this discussion, they are wrong for not parenting but do we go to the extreme and encourage women not to have children?

In animal husbandry, the bull, stallion, donkey is used to provide the substance of procreation and his job is done, while the female of the species is left to feed and maintain the young one.
I know lots of men who chose that role and many also who do not want to have children quoting that they are not prepared to commit to fatherhood. I also see far more men who don’t verbalise that but who mean it by their actions.
Men are equally as valuable in the procreation of children because despite modern technology, women cannot provide the substance needed to make a child and, visa versa. Therefore no-one has that monopoly. But it is just easier for a man to ‘dig up’.
Surely, deciding when to have a child is a COUPLE’S decision?
Or is it that people are too used to just accepting a one sided decision, later justifying why they are not playing their part by ‘she trapped me’. Or is it that men and women don’t talk about what they really want, or the assumption on the woman’s part is that he is there for the long haul, when in fact, he is only there for the moment with no long term commitment? Unfortunately a lot of children are born under those circumstances.
I have a cousin, nicknamed the farmer and the reason he is called that is because he is planting his seed here there and everywhere like a farmer plants seeds. Action which I think is thoroughly irresponsible because he can’t afford to maintain all those children. Nor does he have anything to give them in terms of education, identity, and belonging.
Yes, procreation is a fundamental part of life and children are an important role in that continuum. But men and women who recognise that children are a part of life, should also recognise that children are not commodities, they are individuals that need love, nurturing, protection etc.
But isn’t it the case that people tend to invest more thought, time and care into buying a car, than when it comes to their own blood?
And isn’t it the case that a lot of us cannot differentiate between animal and human behaviour? Human’s make choices!




Watch the fireworks spark

Incognito, sorry, I am confused - with all your strong views about raising children - how can you justify not being a part of your own children's lives?? what do you think your children think of this?

N.B - I had children for one of babylon's daughter's i.e. no culture where men pay for the privilege to be part of their childrens life, that's their white life. My children will think whatever the babymother wants them to think. My views and principles don't change because I'm now in that club, I'm a babyfather through association not by class.

She despised Africa so my values meant nothing...and that's after 7 years before any children were born. She was one of those so called independant women which basically says you only need a man as a sperm donor with a bank account.