â„–3099368[Quote]
If you are called to a married life, and are able, then yes.
â„–3099402[Quote]
If you can then sure
â„–3099405[Quote]
Yes
â„–3099411[Quote]
no because everything is a fucking chemical reaction or however the rick is mortyied
â„–3099447[Quote]
>>3099391Like if it's the lifestyle for you; if it's your calling. I say this because obviously someone called to monasticism is not obligated to have children.
â„–3099514[Quote]
no
â„–3099539[Quote]
>>3099494Even though all normies are vehemently anti-natalist
â„–3099584[Quote]
Give that society is a good thing worth continuing, then having a child is a good thing if it has a positive impact on society. Too little children and a society ceases to exist. Too many children and productivity and resources become strained. If a nation becomes overpopulated, a fertility rate below 2.1 might be beneficial, although if it falls too far we again reach a net negative outcome. However, I would s personally state that overpopulation is almost never the root cause of an issue. Most societies never truly reach minimal living standards and so cultural expectations about quality of life are often the real limiting factor.
â„–3099631[Quote]
>>3099584Interesting analysis, would you be in favor of legislation to "force" (as in obligating married couples to have children. This notion deserves to be discussed doe) fertility during periods of lacking numbers of said statistic?
â„–3099639[Quote]
>>3099539They don't hate birth, they're indifferent to it
â„–3099642[Quote]
No.
â„–3099964[Quote]
Yes. Biologically, aside from surviving, your main task is to have children and spread your genes.