How does your faith answer Alexandra Occasio's basic Moral Question?

[whirlingmerc]

"Is it still OK to have children?"

I would say yes. As Psalm 127 says "Children are a gift of the Lord"

What say you? and your religious view on this?

 

[David1967]

Of course it's ok,in fact necessary to have children in order for the human race to continue, however from a practical standpoint we should cut back on the number of children we have. Overpopulation is a definite problem.

 

[SomeRandom]

Are there religions that prohibit having children?
I mean overpopulation concerns don’t seem to be included in many religions as far as I’m aware. Unless you count hippies or something.

 

[sun rise]

What she really said, in context:

• 'There is scientific consensus that the lives of young children are going to be very difficult,' ...
• 'And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question – you know, should, is it okay to still have children?,' ...
• She also said there is a 'moral obligation' to leave a healthy planet to children

The moral obligation is to leave a healthy planet to children is her point.

Back during the depression, people put off having children because of their economic distress as my parents did. Now people might choose to put off having kids because of environmental distress. Only the nature of the distress has changed.

 

[sun rise]

Are there religions that prohibit having children?
I mean overpopulation concerns don’t seem to be included in many religions as far as I’m aware. Unless you count hippies or something.

The Shakers were one such religious group.

 

[Jumi]

Yes, it's ok as long as you're ready to have them immigrate to places once your own land can't handle them.

 

[BSM1]

What she really said, in context:

• 'There is scientific consensus that the lives of young children are going to be very difficult,' ...
• 'And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question – you know, should, is it okay to still have children?,' ...
• She also said there is a 'moral obligation' to leave a healthy planet to children

The moral obligation is to leave a healthy planet to children is her point.

Back during the depression, people put off having children because of their economic distress as my parents did. Now people might choose to put off having kids because of environmental distress. Only the nature of the distress has changed.

Actually, 'obligation' is a man-made concept. No one really has an 'obligation' to do anything unless they choose so.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Is it still OK to have children?"

I would say yes. As Psalm 127 says "Children are a gift of the Lord"

What say you? and your religious view on this?

Her parents should've stopped reproducing in 1989.


Oh, come on....someone was going to say it.

 

[stvdv]

"Is it still OK to have children?"
I would say yes. As Psalm 127 says "Children are a gift of the Lord"
What say you? and your religious view on this?

IF God gave humans their life + freedom to do as they want, then I guess there is no problem
IF God is not OK with it AND "He" created the Universe with a Thought/Word
THEN His Thought "Not OK" would stop "children making" instantly

 

[columbus]

THEN His Thought "Not OK" would stop "children making" instantly

God seems to be making more and more gay people.

Maybe that's His way of saying "Enough with the 'be fruitful and multiply' already!".
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

God seems to be making more and more gay people.

Maybe that's His way of saying "Enough with the 'be fruitful and multiply' already!".
Tom

I regularly tell people to go forth & multiply
(not in so many words).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are there religions that prohibit having children?
I mean overpopulation concerns don’t seem to be included in many religions as far as I’m aware. Unless you count hippies or something.

The Shakers.

And plenty of religious groups prohibit clerics/monks/etc. having kids.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The world is very overpopulated, so the obvious solution is to have fewer children. If no family had more than one or two, the problem would gradually correct itself.

For me, however, this not a religious matter. Virtuous behaviour is that which is conducive to a flourishing life, in harmony with our environment. If a religion commands people to reproduce regardless of the consequences, it is a false religion. If it claims there will be no consequences, it is a stupid religion.

As for the idea that no-one has an obligation to do anything they didn't chose to, I can only say that I'd keep a tight grasp on my wallet in the company of anyone who believed that.

 

[columbus]

The world is very overpopulated, so the obvious solution is to have fewer children. If no family had more than one or two, the problem would gradually correct itself.

My post #10 doubtless looked like a snarky joke, but it really wasn't.

In a world with over seven billion humans, and growing, homosex is the best option I know of to (peaceably) reduce the procreation rate and create a better world for future generations. Given that humans still get born with a strong instinct towards lust.

If:
God knows everything
God works in mysterious ways

then why do religious folks keep referring back to the humans who wrote Scripture instead of listening to God? Today. In 2019?

Maybe God just can't fit a message in, because religionists already think that they know everything important about God?
Tom

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I think the problem is not having children but having more children than you can properly take care of. I know people who can't afford to pay their rent or buy food but they have six young kids. These kids will grow up without the proper care and may have health problems from malnutrition and poor hygiene. Also some parents mistreat their kids. Several cases have been in the news lately. Kids locked in cages or denied proper food and medicine. Have kids but have only as many as you can and will take care of.

 

[sun rise]

One more comment: hyperbole is one of the "stock in trade" of the political class. Let's all, including me, try to remember to attack every politician's hyperbole be they left or right.

That written, there is a legitimate point if some politician's hyperbole is worse than another's.

 

[SomeRandom]

The Shakers.

And plenty of religious groups prohibit clerics/monks/etc. having kids.

That always kind of confused me as a kid. If Christian monks or nuns or priests or whatever are supposed to live biblical values, why ignore “go forth and multiply” command. Though I suppose Jesus didn’t have kids either, so eh I guess there’s an easy out.

 

[osgart]

I would say only faithful, loving, and responsible people should have children.

It is ok to not have children, as well as it is ok to have children. I think children born of any circumstance need desparately all the genuine love they can get.

I chose to never have children because i do not like the direction the world is heading in.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That always kind of confused me as a kid. If Christian monks or nuns or priests or whatever are supposed to live biblical values, why ignore “go forth and multiply” command. Though I suppose Jesus didn’t have kids either, so eh I guess there’s an easy out.

The Bible has something for everyone. In this case, there's plenty of anti-sex stuff in the Pauline epistles. Paul puts forward the position that marriage is only for people who don't have the strength to be celibate.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"Is it still OK to have children?"

I would say yes. As Psalm 127 says "Children are a gift of the Lord"

What say you? and your religious view on this?

Two Jews, three answers.

I can only give my own view on the question, informed by Torah and Jewish tradition.

God said, Be fruitful and multiply and fill up the earth. Well, the earth is full. We are no longer under the moral imperative to ensure the survival of our species via procreation.

This doesn't mean that children aren't still a blessing. Children will always be a blessing. But like a super rich dessert, the question is whether our 600 pound bloated body should be eating that dessert.

We have reached a time in history where the population of human beings threatens the very existence of life on this planet. It becomes a moral issue from the other side. Too many rats in the cage has not only created the impending catastrophe of climate change, but has set us down on the precipice of many apocalyptic sorts of crises--worldwide water and food shortages, global pollution, mass extinctions, etc.

If the well being of our species (not to mention other species -- remember that we are the stewards of the earth) matters at all, then morally we must look for ways to radically reduce the world's population. How we can do this ethically? I'm rather lost here. It seems to me that a worldwide epidemic is the quickest most efficient way, but to DELIBERATELY release such a pathogen would be a moral outrage of its own. I think we can only hope for a natural outbreak before it is too late.

In the meantime, I can only take personal responsibility for myself. My husband and I deliberated a long time before having our two children. We thought of adoption as an alternative way to have a family. The problem is, intelligent people are foregoing children while the less intelligent are having large families -- inevitably this is going to lower the general intelligence of our species unless something changes, meaning there is a second moral dilemma to consider. We settled on two kids -- simply replacing ourselves, no harm, no foul.

I would say, however, that those who are genius material should have a great many children. After all, we need as many great minds as possible to get us out of this mess.