Is it ethical to have children if you're not happy with

Yes, hence why you need to upgrade your social class and genetics by getting a good spouse.

Unless you're a serf, you at least have the prospect of improving your social class.

>>583396
>implying

Serfs could just go away and they wouldn't be serfs anymore.
At least, in western Europe it was like that. If you were living in eastern Europe then you were just a slave.

>>583389
But they would have to downgrade.

>>583385

IT COULD BE ETHICAL IF YOU ARE JUSTIFYING IT ACCORDING TO A SET OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES.

"ETHICAL" IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH "GOOD", WHICH I ASSUME IS WHAT YOU MEANT TO ASK, SO IN THAT CASE, THE ANSWER WOULD BE "NO".

>>583385
Genetics and class is by no means the sum total of you as a person. So unless you disagree with this, your predisposition and material well-being should not dictate whether you should have children.

And besides, if you disagree, you might as well hedon it up until you die or plan your own premature death and live accordingly anyway.

>>583423
The hypothesis is just 'empathy'.

It bothers you that people suffer.

Specially your son. Specially if it was because of your decision and you were thinking only on yourself.

People rationalize to accept their shitty lives then have children not because they think their children might be happy, but to satisfy their own desire to make their lives less miserable.

>>583571

DID YOU EVEN READ THE POST TO WHICH YOU ARE REPLYING?

File: Assbaby.jpg (22KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x400px

>>583385

Only if they're Assbabies.

>>583584
The ethical principle is to minimize the overall suffering (empathy). Is that ok for you?

>>583406
>Serfs could just go away

Where?

I don't think I'll ever have kids. And if I find myself in a relationship and the missus wants a kid, I'd like to adopt one.
I think the unethical thing is bringing more people to this world. Fuck it, let's try and improve the life of someone who's already here

>>583588

IMPROVE YOUR "READING COMPREHENSION".

>>583588
Just filter and ignore

>>583436
>Genetics and class is by no means the sum total of you as a person.

The root cause of suffering is always the lack of money, health, intelligence or beauty, All of them are inheritable.

>>583385
if you're not happy with your genetics and social class chances are you are genetically superior to 99% of the population

>>583598
>Just cover up what rustles your sensitivity and close your eyes and ears

>>583616
but that guy is being just stupid. There is no justification for his behavior.

Depends

>>583618
but that guy is being just stupid.

No, he's not

>>583600
See, I would agree to the extent that everything you mentioned should be accounted for when considering whether or not you should procreate. It's just that those factors can't preclude a person from choosing to have children with a clear conscience because the decision to make children is about responsibility first and foremost. It's about whether you are willing to take on the burden and hope that you willingly chose for yourself. This does mean that it would, and should, be harder to justify bringing a new kid into the world if you are disadvantaged genetically or economically, but it's not impossible to justify having children even with those two limits.

Of course, I'm talking about cases when one has the option of deciding this like OP said, so this doesn't necessarily apply to unplanned impregnation or pregnancy.

>>583413
a deal's a deal, even with a dirty dealer

>>583385
Social status can be fixed. Just get dont haves kids until youre not poor as shit. Genetics, you're fucked. Plastic surgery only let's you cover up your genetic flaws, not rid yourself of them. Plus attempting to trick ppl into thinking you have good genetics can result in a divorce(at least for me).

>>583585

What the fuck is that thing?

>>583838
ugly people can have pretty children. plus there is other genetic factors, like disease.

>>585220
True, but rare

>>583423
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>>583436
>Genetics and class is by no means the sum total of you as a person
But it is, genetics and your environment define you, and nothing else.

>>583588
I think Rei is saying that "ethical" is relative to the system of ethics being used. If that's your principle, that's your principle, but "ethical" is much broader.

>>583385
Depends on the ethical framework you operate under.

To me it would be unethical, because it makes me sad to think that my child is very likely to suffer cancer if she's a girl. And there's a ton of other time bombs either way. I'm very simple.

Just waiting for those designer babies.

>>583604
What makes you say this?
I'm inclined to sorta agree but I just want to know your reasoning.

>>583406
Naw, man. Serfs were bound to the land. You'd have to be a freeman.

Then, not only could you work where you wanted, you could even come to own land, possibly.

Is it ethical to have children if you're mentally ill or have genetic diseases?

>>585804
Class is not synonymous with "environment". There are more factors than money, like womb environment, diet, education, peer group and chemical exposure. These are correlated with class but not quite the same.

>>585851
Depends how bad the conditions are and the prospect of treatment, which may improve with time. Also a nurturing but structured environment can mitigate a lot of the problems of mental illness.
So long as your offspring have the capacity to kill themselves voluntarily and not live in constant pain I wouldn't have an issue with it.

>>585860
I'm a tranny.

>>585860
I should elaborate. "Mental illness" is a vague set of mostly behavioral symptoms that cluster together. It's arbitrary and subjective to some degree, even if the functional problems can be real. Whether your kids will actually inherent it and to what extent is another matter. I don't think someone with an IQ of 40 should have kids, but if it's moderate OCD or autism or something, even shit like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, I wouldn't let it stop you. A lot of mentally ill people can still be successful or enjoy their life.

>>583385
trick question, having children is never ethical. Especially not considering overpopulation

File: 5a16d16d459220abc5907a37df9093d2.jpg (125KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 450x450px

>>585869
That's not a mental illness. Don't be so hard on yourself <3

>>585876
Not since a recent update to DSM

>>585876
>>585884
I don't agree with that. It brings a lot of hardships and inherently is undesirable, so it is at the very least a disorder.

>>585876
>A human thinks he's an animal
>A person thinks he's another person
>A person wants to cut his arm off
Uh, that's a serious mental illness, the person should be institutionalized.
>A man think he's a woman and wants to cut his penis off
That's perfectly normal, literally nothing wrong here.

>>585876
Tranny here. Nah, it's a mental illness. It's a shitty one. But it's a mental illness.

>>585908
>>A human thinks he's an animal
>>A person thinks he's another person
>>A person wants to cut his arm off
>Uh, that's a serious mental illness, the person should be institutionalized.
>>A man think he's a woman and wants to cut his penis off
>That's perfectly normal, literally nothing wrong here.

One has a scientific justification, the others are delusions.

>>585917
>it's a mental illness. It's a shitty one.
Call a circle "round".

Good luck with your thing.

>>585931
There are scientific justifications for delusions.

Alien hand syndrome is actually pretty discussed in neuropsychology literature.

>>585937
Brain fart.

Body integrity identity disorder has some mention in psychopathology literature.

>>585937
They're just fundamentally different.
>transgender transitions with hormone therapy and (maybe) surgery
>bodymap and mental image fixed, quality of life shows improvement in 95%+ of cases
>otherkin or furry "transitions" by nailing fur to their skin and whatnot
>delusions exacerbate.
There's a difference between an actual female brain in a mans body and an actual male brain in a mans body that thinks it's a dogs. Even if it's a real neurological condition, it's definitely not going to be fixed with transition.

>>585896
>brings a lot of hardships

People mistreating transgender people brings them hardships.

>inherently is undesirable

Many people desire it. You just happen to Not Like Thing.

>>585908
Clearly you want to control everyone else down to even their most basic autonomy of the body. Typical finger-twiddling maniac. If someone wants to get a piercing or a tattoo or cut their dick off, whatever man. It's their body.

Also, trannies recognize that they are genetically female. They merely adopt cultural roles that aren't conventional. You can claim sex and gender are the same, but clearly some aspects of gender like the color pink are arbitrary and was even reversed in the past. Transphobes try toto make abstract social concepts concrete to an absurd level.


>>585917
You don't think self-hate and labeling yourself as "broken" is more damaging than wearing certain cuts of fabric society tells you are "masculine", which is a total spook?

>>585963
>Also, trannies recognize that they are genetically female.

I mean "mtfs recognize that they are not genetically female"

>>585946
>quality of life shows improvement in 95%+ of cases
I'm going to need some sources on this.

Also, while there may be differences between a man's brain and an mtf's brain, for instance, there are also differences between an mtf's brain and a woman's brain.

To paint this has a cosmic mistake of some sort, where a brain that was meant to be of one sex ended up inside of a body of a different sex, is to have prescriptive views on gender and to misrepresents biological realities.

That isn't to say I oppose body modification. If it can be ascertain sufficiently that it will make someone happier.

>>585946
> Male and female brains are basically the same, there is no biological basis for gender stereotypes
> But actually male and female brains are different, and you can have the wrong one
Uh.

>>585917
Why do you care about bending to the ideology of people who don't give a fuck about you?

>>585968
>To paint this has a cosmic mistake of some sort, where a brain that was meant to be of one sex ended up inside of a body of a different sex, is to have prescriptive views on gender and to misrepresents biological realities.

This is a bit of a generalization as to pro-trans views. I don't see it as a mistake whatsoever, I see them as being dysfunctional due to social rejection based on trivial norms.

>>585963
>People mistreating transgender people brings them hardships.
Being not the gender I should have been brings me hardships, social stigma is just the icing, dysphoria is the kicker.
And for people that "desire to be transgender". That doesn't even make sense, they WANT to not be happy with their sex? that's fucking retarded, it's logically inconsistent. that's like saying "Man, I wish I hated something I love".

>>585963
>You don't think self-hate and labeling yourself as "broken" is more damaging than wearing certain cuts of fabric society tells you are "masculine", which is a total spook?
You think wearing certain cuts of fabric makes this shit go away? You think this shit follows any sort of reasonable pattern that you can get the same reaction out of by doing the same thing?

It's super weird to me that people jump to the 'self-hatred' label for talking about it as a mental illness, but we're supposed to be working on being cool with mental illness. Are people who think their depression is a mental illness, or their ADHD is a mental illness, or their PTSD is a mental illness self-hating for thinking themselves 'broken'.

>>585969
I don't agree that male and female brains are basically the same, neither does science.

>>585969
>> Male and female brains are basically the same, there is no biological basis for gender stereotypes
Transgendered people don't believe this, I find.

Most people knowledgeable on the subject don't hold genetic-determinism and environmental determinism to be exclusively true, anyway.

Leave strawmans at the door.

>>583385
no. You can try to talk your way around it, but just no.

File: transregretssmall.jpg (715KB, 1200x1677px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 1200x1677px

>>585968

>>585979
>You think wearing certain cuts of fabric makes this shit go away?

It was one example among many potential ones, but it wasn't meant to be suggested as curative, just an arbitrary norm that there's no reason to alienate people over.

>You think this shit follows any sort of reasonable pattern that you can get the same reaction out of by doing the same thing?

That depends on the person. You'll be unhappy for as long as you're willing to blame everything on yourself.

>It's super weird to me that people jump to the 'self-hatred' label for talking about it as a mental illness, but we're supposed to be working on being cool with mental illness

Because the stigma around calling transgender people mentally ill is designed to deprive trans people of their autonomy or justify "eugenically" murdering them. That's not comparable to the relatively mild stigma for something like depression. I could agree that gender dysphoria is a mental illness but that's not the same as being trans and can go away with treatment.

>Are people who think their depression is a mental illness, or their ADHD is a mental illness, or their PTSD is a mental illness self-hating for thinking themselves 'broken'.

Calling yourself broken is more than recognizing problems. It's a vicious cycle that prevents you from addressing them in defeatism. You think if your kids were transgender (not certain) they won't be way better off in the future than you are today?

>>585976
I don't see it merely from a social perspective but from a personal one.

More so than change social norms, these people seek to change their very bodies. It's not just a quest to behave the way the other gender does, but to be recognized as a member of that gender, through "trivial" things such as body traits, fashion, etc.

Why, I'd like to be like a gal sometimes, but not to the extent that I'd to forever give up being a guy. I'm more like one of those people that doesn't put much weight on such labels.

>>586006
>More so than change social norms, these people seek to change their very bodies

Most people want to change their bodies in some way. Who cares.

>It's not just a quest to behave the way the other gender does, but to be recognized as a member of that gender, through "trivial" things such as body traits, fashion, etc.

It's not trivial for them.

>Why, I'd like to be like a gal sometimes, but not to the extent that I'd to forever give up being a guy. I'm more like one of those people that doesn't put much weight on such labels.

That's cool with me, but why do you have an issue with people who feel drawn to those labels?

>>583385
is having children ethical

>>585993
OK, seems in order.

>>586020
>Most people want to change their bodies in some way. Who cares.
Like I said, I don't. But these people perceive their bodies as the dysfunction. The dysfunction stems from the difference between their own idealized self-image and their actual image. They reject aspects of themselves. Social rejection exists, but I don't see how it's the cause of this dysfunction. I said before I see the problem from a personal perspective, rather than just from a social one.

>It's not trivial for them.
That's why I used quotation marks. If those things aren't what you meant by "trivial things", then what did you mean?

>That's cool with me, but why do you have an issue with people who feel drawn to those labels?
Labels are useful because they convey information. They describe. I have no problem with this.

When people enforce prescriptive social category systems around them, I tend to get prissy. Not that it's a real problem right now, but I don't like people trying to label me and thinking they know me because of it. Same reason I dislike the notion of right-left political spectrum.

>>586026
no

> The year is 2015+1
> Having children
Ethics are irrelevant, but is it rational/reasonable thing to do?
Hell no.

File: 1423569754532.jpg (259KB, 600x533px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 600x533px

It depends who you ask.

According to Aristotle, having children and a family is part and parcel of living a virtuous and happy life.

I tend to agree with him, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who gets children wants to have them, and it doesn't necessarily mean that having children will make you happy either.

In the same way that a political system might not function to the benefit of the individual, a family might not function to the benefit of an individual either, considering the fact that raising a child requires enormous resources and time.

>>586096
I want to spawn an sociopolitically affluent line to keep pushing my ideology long after I'm gone.

I also want a real tamagotchi to love.

>>586111
> I want to spawn an sociopolitically affluent line to keep pushing my ideology long after I'm gone.
Write a book, start a political party, shitpost on /pol/.
> I also want a real tamagotchi to love.
Get a cat. It's irrational (and IMO immoral) to bring another conscious being into existence just because you want to play dolls.

File: 1452917376186.gif (35KB, 296x289px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 296x289px

>>583423
Who are you?

>>586138
>> I want to spawn an sociopolitically affluent line to keep pushing my ideology long after I'm gone.
>Write a book, start a political party, shitpost on /pol/.
I'll do all but post on /pol/. There is nothing to be gained there.

>Get a cat. It's irrational (and IMO immoral) to bring another conscious being into existence just because you want to play dolls.
I already have a cat. Now I want children. Why is it irrational, more so than any other desire? It's not immoral under my ethical framework.

File: epi006.jpg (310KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1536x2048px

>>586154
> Why is it irrational, more so than any other desire?
The desire itself is biological, so you can't say it's rational. Now you can either follow your biological desires or don't, it's rational to follow your desire to eat and sleep, because otherwise you'll suffer and it's rational for a conscious being to avoid suffering. It's unreasonable to rape people just because you have biological desire to have sex right now, because society will prosecute you for it and you'll suffer. In other words, it's reasonable to follow biological desires that prevent problems, and don't follow these creating more problems.
Now consider how many problems having a baby entails, how your quality of live will drop, how more vulnerable you'll be. I don't think it's rational to follow that desire.

>>586204
Biology isn't inherently irrational.

File: arton3050.jpg (38KB, 300x305px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 300x305px

>>586211
It's maybe not irrational in some grand scheme of things, from some kind of evolutionary POV. But for a conscious being trapped inside instinct-driven piece o meat, it's pretty much irrational.

>>586204
>it's rational to follow your desire to eat and sleep, because otherwise you'll suffer and it's rational for a conscious being to avoid suffering
You imply here that wanting to avoid suffering is rational. I say it is just another desire. If your goal is to cause suffering, and theft, rape and murder cause suffering, it is rational to to steal, rape and murder.

Desires aren't rational.

You are window dressing.

>>586237
>>586211
There is no intelligence or intent behind evolution. It's a series of random mutations that shape the gene packages that are selected against by an uncaring, arbitrary environment.

It isn't rational.

>>586246
>You imply here that wanting to avoid suffering is rational. I say it is just another desire.
I actually agree with you, but you have to have some basis to build practical rationality upon, to close is-ought gap, so to say. "Avoiding suffering" is good enough. Otherwise you just have to admit there is nothing rational and any conversation is meaningless.

> If your goal is to cause suffering, and theft, rape and murder cause suffering, it is rational to to steal, rape and murder.
It is rational to steal, rape and murder if you want to and there is no potential punishment. It's irrational to do so if you know the society will punish you.

>>586258
>series of random mutations
>rational
How so?

>>586111
>I also want a real tamagotchi to love.

Thats why most people have children. Specially women. They don't care if their children will be happy. Theh want a doll to play.

>>585993
Is they're so happy, then why is their suicide rate just as high after transitioning?

>>586301
Because they're not and that's a myth based on a study that shows that post-op transgender people have higher suicide rates than cisgender people, which is pretty obvious.

>>586289
>Otherwise you just have to admit there is nothing rational and any conversation is meaningless.
Logic is rational.

I don't need to agree that your desires are rational for them to have meaning. People are driven by your desires so I would do well to know the desires of others.

>>586289
>It is rational to steal, rape and murder if you want to and there is no potential punishment. It's irrational to do so if you know the society will punish you.
You imply that my desire to do those deeds is lesser than my desire to avoid the corresponding punishment, otherwise there is no logical link. What reason do you have to expect this from me? Would you not call it intuition rather than reason?


>series of random mutations
>rational
>How so?
I said it isn't rational. (>>586258)

>>586322
>Logic is rational.
Yeah, but you can't use logic to justify any practical action, you can't make "ought" form "is", so you have to have some base "ought" to build upon. If you say all desires are irrational, then your actions can't be rational at all.

>You imply that my desire to do those deeds is lesser than my desire to avoid the corresponding punishment, otherwise there is no logical link.
>What reason do you have to expect this from me? Would you not call it intuition rather than reason?
Well, then it's rational to steal, rape and murder. Yes, it's mere intuition to assume other peoples desire the way you do.

So yeah, you're right, If a person don't care for his well being and quality of life, yet has a huge desire to have children, it would be rational for him to do so. And it's not rational for me to assume other people care for themselves the way I do, people can be quite stupid.

>>586364
>Yeah, but you can't use logic to justify any practical action, you can't make "ought" form "is", so you have to have some base "ought" to build upon. If you say all desires are irrational, then your actions can't be rational at all.
The base isn't logical, like you said. Logic can be used to justify pretty much any practical action: I stepped off the ledge because I wanted to get to the roof of another building but I didn't know gravity existed - this may have been a logical course of action, given the information the agent had available. As to the ought-is gap - it doesn't matter. People act based on their desires, passions, instincts or whatever you call your drives, not because they ought to behave some way. People may even act because they believe they ought to act some way and desire to behave the way one ought to act - the way a person "really" ought to act has no bearing on this, hence I can do something you'd call monstrous and think myself righteous.

>>586364
>So yeah, you're right, If a person don't care for his well being and quality of life, yet has a huge desire to have children, it would be rational for him to do so. And it's not rational for me to assume other people care for themselves the way I do, people can be quite stupid.
I was gonna say "attaboy" but I noticed you refereed to well being and quality of life and apparently assumed we'd agree on what constitutes these.

>>586413
> I want to get to the roof
> I don't know gravity existed
> I ought to step off the ledge
There is a missing link here - "If I want to do something, I ought to do it". You can't justify it with logic alone.

> People act based on their desires, passions, instincts or whatever you call your drives, not because they ought to behave some way
Yeah, this is why human actions are mostly irrational.

>>586237
Rationality isn't objective, since the desired achievement of the individual varies.

>>583385
If you have bad genetics as in the worst genetics possible, I think not. But for social class, it depends on how far down you are.

If you are potentially starving at any point during the year or are fully reliant on someone else's dime, then you shouldn't reproduce at all.

>>586456
I said "may" (>>586413), as in "doing stupid things may be justified logically". My goal wasn't to explain that it was logically justified, just that there was no logical contradiction barring the action from logical justification.

"Ought" doesn't matter. He would move because he wanted to move. He wouldn't move because he ought to move. "Wanting to move" is the justification, there is no need for a middle step - desire was the cause and would be the cause with or without logical justification.

>>583600
>money, health, intelligence or beauty
yet people that lack all those thinks can be perfectly happy.

Sort of. I'm not having children because i'm ugly, but billions of peasant trash around the planet whom are uglier than me will have children, so there's no point in ethics.

I think i'll just buy some orphaned kids from a third world country for 20 grand and raise them.

The real question is, is it ethical to buy young boys from the middle east, force feed them estrogen and have them wear girls clothes?

>>585993
I'm on fetlife and I confirm that holy fuck, do not ever transition ever. Unless you have liberal faggot parents and started before 14 DO NOT TRANSITION.

ITT the pure ideology of self-loathing workers.

>Not happy with social class
Work hard to get a good job and start a college fund for your children to improve your socioeconomic standing

>Not happy with genetics
Marry a smart, pretty girl

What about this do robots not understand?

>>587307
class doesn't equal SES deciles, do soca1000

>>587307
>Marry a smart, pretty girl
The world would be better off if she married a smart, pretty boy, though.

>>587325
As far as I can tell, where I'm from, your social class is almost entirely dependent on how much money you have and whether or not you're black.

>>587330
How so?

>>587344
If you consider your genes have negative value and her genes have positive value, your genes can only depreciate her genetic payload (offspring).

Of course, mating with another packet for genes with negative value won't do any good either.

If you consider that your genes are bad (very high risk of genetic diseases) adoption would be preferable.

>>587344
>As far as I can tell
You're a blind cretin

dont bring ethics into love baby just let it do

File: 004.jpg (84KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 736x552px

Of course it is wrong!

You should never have childre OP!!

The world is already overpopulated!!

White people shoudn't breed, they're destroying this planet when having children!!

>>583624
Why are there so many posts today quoting others without greentexting? Are we in the middle of a reddit invasion or is it just one rogue redditor?

>>583423
I HAVE A TRIPCODE AND I TYPE IN CAPS
DID YOU NOTICE MY POST SENPAI ?

>>587981
That's just my grandpa. He fought in WWII and wanted a place to talk shit about Germany, so I told him about this site but didn't tell him how to use all the features.

>>583385
It is always ethical to give life because they can always kill themselves if the suffering becomes too much. And who's to say that they'll have the same perspective on life as you?

And I say this as someone who inherited a debilitating genetic illness.

I'd say it is unethical if you your standard of living is extremely poor and you live in a large city where you don't need children to do work for you.

That being said, I was raised in a very wealthy family and it was pretty detrimental because I never had to go through any hardships growing up.

>>583389
/thread

File: tumblr_mlmw8ejo0Q1r8qyoxo1_400.jpg (114KB, 398x398px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 398x398px

>>585993
>doesn't specify where the people interviewed came from
>implying 448 people can seriously represent an entire population
>poll was taken over 5 years ago
well shit, you sure convinced me

File: 294047_2318021997353_309107512_n.jpg (44KB, 421x406px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 421x406px

>>583385
I couldn't tell you, myself. But I was lurking in an /an/imals thread the other day (I'm sure it's still up... Yes, in fact it is. It's the "rage" thread on their board. I can link it later if you like) - Anyway, I'm in that thread, and the topic turns to pugs (and other dogs) who have been changed for the worse over time by generations of breeding and selecting for features that are more desirable for the breeder, but often times far worse for the health of the breed.

This link from that thread gives a pretty short and sweet description of this idea with details (and pictures) for the most affected breeds:

https://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/

Obviously, there are animal advocates who want to see these breeding practices stopped, and to encourage breeding for the traits that are best for the health of the dog.

When I saw your post, I thought of this. It's not unlike one or two parents who have known hereditary conditions that will impact the health (and life quality) of the child.

just my $0.02. carry on, /his/.

>>586292
>Thats why most people have children. Specially women. They don't care if their children will be happy. Theh want a doll to play.

Wow, great argument fagatron. You sure convinced me with those hot opinions.

I think you're a deluded kid, kid.
I think you're misogynistic because it's the "cool" thing to do (or to fit in over on /r9k/)

"Most people" know that having a baby isn't like getting a fucking puppy. "Most people" know the difference between having a baby and raising a teenager.

Only immature idiots would want (and actually risk having) a baby because "they want a doll to play" - and that includes men (boys).

Also, everyone who has a child wants that child to be happy, even if they didn't plan on having it. And "most people" who are grown up definitely plan on having, or not to have, babies.

>>588471
Before posting:
1) read the entire image
2) look at the paper cited in the image
3) read the first two chapters of a statistics book

Then people will stop laughing at you.

File: historicallaugh.jpg (59KB, 512x624px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 512x624px

>>588378

>>586311
>>585993
Found the trap.

>>588810
Let me guess.. You re a girl?