Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Couples who CHOOSE not to have kids

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Neuro


    nesf wrote:
    The whole issue is different nowadays though. Now it's feasible to not have children and not abstain from sex. You can have your cake and not need to pay for it. (I'm speaking from "a masses" viewpoint here).

    Yet 50% of all pregnancies are still unplanned despite the widespread availability of cheap and effective contraception.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    nesf wrote:
    Intellegence isn't purely genetic. It's only about 50% so.
    Actually the jury is out on that one. The nature versus nurture debate is probably the oldest one in psychology and as yet no definitive answer has been agreed, although there is a general consensus that it is a combination of both - in what ratio, we don’t know. One of the problems with measuring intellectual development with a view to the above debate is that often the offspring of stupid or intelligent individuals will be brought up in a similar environment as their parents.
    just wondering what you define as intelligence? aptitude for learning or actual knowledge? cause pretty much every child has an enormous aptitude for learning at a young age. and its the correct nurturing and feeding of that aptitude that makes intelligence.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_%28trait%29
    utopian wrote:
    The amateur eugenicists who posted above think Ireland would be a better place with more people like them, and fewer "knackers" and "unintelligent" people.
    Fewer "knackers" sure, but not too few "unintelligent" people. After all, someone’s got to dig ditches.
    Some might think it better to be stupid than to be so smart that you make jokes about compulsory sterilisation.
    Try making a rational rather than emotive argument. You’ll find it carries better.
    Neuro wrote:
    Yet 50% of all pregnancies are still unplanned despite the widespread availability of cheap and effective contraception.
    Ironically the argument has been put forward that the introduction of contraception into a Society actually increases unwanted pregnancies.

    The logic behind this is simple; introducing contraception engenders a more sexually permissive society, leading to an increase in sex. However, other than contraception failure rates, people being people either misuse or don’t even bother using contraception to such a degree that there is a net increase in unwanted pregnancies.

    I don’t know if there’s any data supporting this theory, but it’s an interesting paradox nonetheless.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Actually the jury is out on that one. The nature versus nurture debate is probably the oldest one in psychology and as yet no definitive answer has been agreed, although there is a general consensus that it is a combination of both - in what ratio, we don’t know. One of the problems with measuring intellectual development with a view to the above debate is that often the offspring of stupid or intelligent individuals will be brought up in a similar environment as their parents.

    I agree completely. I was just refuting macmorris offhand and in a rush :)

    My "rough" figure of 50% just comes from statistical measures done with IQ levels.

    Personally I don't think it's very quanitifiable. Sure IQ and the like plays some role but I'd put it far more down to a child's upbringing. For instance: My parents even when we were poor, always bought books for us. They always had money to spend on educating us. It was very important to them.

    I'd put that ahead of any other contributing factor tbh.


    The nature vs nurture debate though is more deserving of a seperate thread to be honest. It's one of those "important" questions in my eyes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 167 ✭✭Macmorris


    Neuro wrote:

    That link to the website of Future Generations is worth following. I agree with most of what they say in that mission statement.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 167 ✭✭Macmorris


    Fewer "knackers" sure, but not too few "unintelligent" people. After all, someone’s got to dig ditches.

    I agree. What we need are more intelligent people rather than fewer unintelligent people. If the intelligent segment of the population would at least reproduce itself it wouldn't be too bad.

    I believe the aim should be to encourage the better quality people to have more children than they are having at present. At least if that happened we might be able to maintain our current standards of living into the future.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 167 ✭✭Macmorris


    nesf wrote:
    Sure IQ and the like plays some role but I'd put it far more down to a child's upbringing.

    As I've written already:
    Good environments usually comes along with high intelligence because intelligent people usually provide a better environment for their children. They are usually wealthier and take more of an interest in their children's education.

    and as The Corinthian has written:
    One of the problems with measuring intellectual development with a view to the above debate is that often the offspring of stupid or intelligent individuals will be brought up in a similar environment as their parents.

    Nobody has said that the environment isn't important. The question is what determines the quality of the environment. On average, the wealthier and more intelligent the parents are, the more likely they are to take an interest in their children's education and development.

    That's a generalisation I know, but we can only ever really talk in terms of probabilities. Good environments are more likely to be the creation of people with good genes. We could satisfy both sides of the nature-nurture debate (i.e. we can have better genes and better environments) if we took more of an interest in the quality of the gene-pool.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,314 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    An aunt and uncle(in law) are married, but have no kids. They've been together for a good while, and are in their 30's at this stage, I suppose. Had they had children, their life would have been different.

    Uncle got a job over in London (at the time, the type of job didn't exist in Ireland), and after moving there, my Aunt got a job as a primary school teacher. This was a few years ago, and recently, they moved over to one of the Nordic countries (job related move).

    So, with no kids, your options are more vast. You can move around, and go on holidays on a whim.

    Some people want kids to "continue their legacy", "fit in with the locals", etc. Look at a long term plan. Really talk about kids. If you don't want them, good. If you do, still good, but be aware that your current lifestyle will change.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Macmorris wrote:
    Good environments are more likely to be the creation of people with good genes.

    I'm not convinced that genes play a significant role in this. For instance, look at a collection of siblings in their 40's. They all (for the sake of argument) have the same genetic background, and the same biological parents.

    It's perfectly plausable that some have better qualities of life than others. But this would be more down to their personal choices, choice of living and environment than it would be down to their genes.

    I do not think there is any justification in playing eugenics with social groups due to a person's genes. People don't work like that.

    Plus, I'd be interested to know what makes up good genes and bad ones in your eyes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Macmorris wrote:
    Nobody has said that the environment isn't important.
    Why did you quote me in reference to that? What I said did not in any way say that the environment is not important or that anyone had said that it was not important.
    Good environments are more likely to be the creation of people with good genes.
    Sorry, that’s not how genes work. You inherit them, your genetic code does not mutate because you get a degree.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Macmorris wrote:
    I agree. What we need are more intelligent people rather than fewer unintelligent people. If the intelligent segment of the population would at least reproduce itself it wouldn't be too bad.
    But think of the cues in Tescos...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,917 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    I think that people deciding not to have children is a perfectly valid life-choice. It is one that I had dificulty understanding in my early twenties but that was because I couldn't see past my own desire to have children.

    Similar to what Seamus has said I have the most unbelievably strong urge to have children. I am 26 and am aware that if I had a child now I would not be able to offer it the life I would like to give it but that doesn't stop the ache that I get every so often.

    Perhaps it is because I had such a good relationship with my own parents that I want to copy that, while at the same time learning from what I percieve to be their mistakes. While I have professional ambition it isn't on the same radar as my desire to be a great mother.

    But I have far more respect for someone who decides they don't want children than someone who decides to have then because they should and is not willing to put their children first for a few years.

    My mother used to work as a child minder and while many of the working mothers were great there were those who just never put their children first and that is not ok. Obviously a parent can't always put their children first but for a few years kids need to come first most of the time. That doesn't mean spoiling them, often bad parenting means giving children everything they want as opposed to what they need.

    At the end of the day deciding not to have children is your decision and if that is right for you, it is no-one else's business. You aren't willing to have a child to fit in with society and that is a whole lot less selfish than bringing a human being which you don't really want into the world and that is to be admired.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 167 ✭✭Macmorris


    nesf wrote:
    For instance, look at a collection of siblings in their 40's. They all (for the sake of argument) have the same genetic background, and the same biological parents.

    Although siblings have the same parents, that doesn't mean that they share all of the same genes. They inherit different combinations of genes. If one of the parents is much less intelligent than the other one, then it's likely that some of the offspring will more closely resemble that parent in intelligence, while the rest will resemble the other parent.

    And that argument could also be used to undermine your claim that nurture is more important than nature. If siblings get the same upbringing and grow up in the same environment, why is that some of them turn out to be more intelligent than the others?

    Differences in intelligence between people in the same family are more easily explained in terms of differences in genes than by differences in environment because the environment they grew up in would have been identical but the genes they have inherited from their parents are not identical. The exception is with identical twins who share the same genes. I read (I can't remember where so I can't link to it) that identical twins have almost identical IQs while there is a greater disparity between the IQ levels of normal siblings. That would seem to indicate that genes have a greater influence on intelligence than environment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 167 ✭✭Macmorris


    What I said did not in any way say that the environment is not important or that anyone had said that it was not important.

    I didn't say that you did. I was speaking generally. The reason I quoted you was because I thought you made a similar point to one I made in a previous post about the way a child's environment is determined by the intelligence of the parents.

    "often the offspring of stupid or intelligent individuals will be brought up in a similar environment as their parents."
    Sorry, that’s not how genes work. You inherit them, your genetic code does not mutate because you get a degree.

    I don't know what that is in response to. I never said that acquired traits have an effect on a person's genes. I actually said the opposite, that it's the genes that have an effect on the quality of the environment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Sorry, it would appear I completely misread your post.

    Bad, bad Corinthian...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭MorningStar


    Sorry, it would appear I completely misread your post.

    Bad, bad Corinthian...

    For a person with teeth as eyes you are a bit easy going. I might have to have a word with dreaming about you :D


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement