NationStates Jolt Archive

That's a question that's been puzzling me for years now, but this thread is somewhat inspired by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443451&page=1&pp=15) .

The argument many brought up against a relationship with a transsexual woman was that they wouldn't be able to have kids with her.
Now, seeing that there are more children up for adoption on this planet than there are parents willing to take them in, and seeing also that many of those who gave the argument seemed to belong to the "religiously opposed to abortion" group, why is it paramount for you to have your own kids rather than go out helping those poor unwanted kiddies that would actually need a good home and your support?

That's a question that's been puzzling me for years now, but this thread is somewhat inspired by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443451&page=1&pp=15) .

The argument many brought up against a relationship with a transsexual woman was that they wouldn't be able to have kids with her.
Now, seeing that there are more children up for adoption on this planet than there are parents willing to take them in, and seeing also that many of those who gave the argument seemed to belong to the "religiously opposed to abortion" group, why is it paramount for you to have your own kids rather than go out helping those poor unwanted kiddies that would actually need a good home and your support?

For me it's a matter of limited financial resources, considering how little money I make now and how little money I'm going to make once I'm done with my schooling. Adoption ain't cheap. Neither is raising children in general, of course, but at least I don't have to pay so much extra to go through the legal adoption process if I do it the natural way. Besides, trying to have children naturally would probably be a lot more enjoyable. ;)

Good question, btw.

That's a question that's been puzzling me for years now, but this thread is somewhat inspired by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443451&page=1&pp=15) .

The argument many brought up against a relationship with a transsexual woman was that they wouldn't be able to have kids with her.
Now, seeing that there are more children up for adoption on this planet than there are parents willing to take them in, and seeing also that many of those who gave the argument seemed to belong to the "religiously opposed to abortion" group, why is it paramount for you to have your own kids rather than go out helping those poor unwanted kiddies that would actually need a good home and your support? Well, a good reason not to adopt would be that you already have your own kids or stand a good chance of having several anyway.
I've nothing against adoption, and I couldn't tell you whether I'll ever adopt kids or not, to be totally honest, as it's never crossed my mind. It's not something I would feel uncomfortable about, though.

I concur, good question.

That's a question that's been puzzling me for years now, but this thread is somewhat inspired by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443451&page=1&pp=15) .

The argument many brought up against a relationship with a transsexual woman was that they wouldn't be able to have kids with her.
Now, seeing that there are more children up for adoption on this planet than there are parents willing to take them in, and seeing also that many of those who gave the argument seemed to belong to the "religiously opposed to abortion" group, why is it paramount for you to have your own kids rather than go out helping those poor unwanted kiddies that would actually need a good home and your support?

Good question, but I think it all comes down whether they're your kids or someone elses. Sure, you might be able to adopt and love them as much as you would your own kids, but I think that it all comes down to blood. So the same feelings that actually gives the spark to racism (they're not like us) probably is the reason why you'd rather have your own kids if you could. Once you have your own kids, you don't have a reason to adopt, so no adoption takes place.

I'd prefer to be able to have my own kids someday, but wouldn't mind adopting if I can't. I'd just rather begin from the beginning. With both, I can say these are my children and perhaps an adoptive child might even be better than my own, however, my own child would somehow be more connected to me. It's hard to explain, I don't know how hard it is to understand.

Why is it important to have *my* own children.
Simply, because the child will have resulted from a very pleasing act! :fluffle:

Why is it important to have *my* own children.
Simply, because the child will have resulted from a very pleasing act! :fluffle:

You realise that you can have the act without having to have the child? :confused:

having a child of your own is a basic animal instinct, producing an offspring is ensuring that your genes continue to contribute to the species.

Having said that, there are many who don't feel that need and choose not to have children at all.

Those who have the instinct but cannot reproduce will adopt if they can and don't for one minute think that having your own children is 'cheap' it's very very expencive and time consuming having a child by whatever method.

having a child of your own is a basic animal instinct, producing an offspring is ensuring that your genes continue to contribute to the species.

Having said that, there are many who don't feel that need and choose not to have children at all.

Those who have the instinct but cannot reproduce will adopt if they can and don't for one minute think that having your own children is 'cheap' it's very very expencive and time consuming having a child by whatever method.

Beat me to the punch.

It's all wired into our genes.

It's not important to have your own children as long as you join a cult. That way you can punish other peoples children too..

I would like to have my own children so that my family bloodline can continue to go onto future generations. I also would like to adopt as well but I would like to make sure my family exists in the future.

Beat me to the punch.

It's all wired into our genes.

So much that not even the love for another person would make you reconsider?

The question asked in that thread was "would you consider a relationship with a transsexual if you really loved her", to which a good number replied "No, because she can't have kids"
So, if you love this woman but find out that she can't have kids, instead of considering adoption you would leave her?

That's a question that's been puzzling me for years now, but this thread is somewhat inspired by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443451&page=1&pp=15) .

The argument many brought up against a relationship with a transsexual woman was that they wouldn't be able to have kids with her.
Now, seeing that there are more children up for adoption on this planet than there are parents willing to take them in, and seeing also that many of those who gave the argument seemed to belong to the "religiously opposed to abortion" group, why is it paramount for you to have your own kids rather than go out helping those poor unwanted kiddies that would actually need a good home and your support?
Adoption process = uber bureaucracy
Own children = free sex

Any couple can go around having sex like rabbits and have a kid without having to be approved or anything and it will only get taken away from them if they seriously screw up up and some one finds out about it and presses the matter. The adoption process is more bureaucracy and red tape than a pencil pusher meeting.

I had to have my own child. Every time I tried to take someone else's, I got yelled at. :(

I won't let this earth get by without a little ARFCOM running around. Better yet, 6 of them.


It would be wrong for me to not do so. Hey, the Big guy told me to have sex and replenish the earth, so...... :D

I won't let this earth get by without a little ARFCOM running around. Better yet, 6 of them.


It would be wrong for me to not do so. Hey, the Big guy told me to have sex and replenish the earth, so...... :D :eek: LITTLE ARFCOMS! EEK!

So much that not even the love for another person would make you reconsider?

The question asked in that thread was "would you consider a relationship with a transsexual if you really loved her", to which a good number replied "No, because she can't have kids"
So, if you love this woman but find out that she can't have kids, instead of considering adoption you would leave her?
That question was so misphrased that I guess everyone changed it to something that made sense. I mean "Would you be willing to have a relation with ... assuming you really loved them*" ... the answer is yes for everyone. You could insert dog instead of transexual and it would still be obvious that everyone would. The interesting question is wether or not the situation could arise, and I guess that is what people were talking about in the thread.

*and, I presume, it is that kind of love, it is mutual and you can communicate it.



Why are kids important? Because we are taught that 'real men' and 'real women' have children, I guess. The mother/father instinct works as well with adopted children, or in a pinch with anything small and qute.

I won't let this earth get by without a little ARFCOM running around. Better yet, 6 of them.


It would be wrong for me to not do so. Hey, the Big guy told me to have sex and replenish the earth, so...... :D

And here was me thinking "Do as you're told" was an inherently German value.... :D

My mom is sterile, but she wanted kids anyway, so she adopted me, as well as several other kids. :)

That question was so misphrased that I guess everyone changed it to something that made sense. I mean "Would you be willing to have a relation with ... assuming you really loved them*" ... the answer is yes for everyone. You could insert dog instead of transexual and it would still be obvious that everyone would. The interesting question is wether or not the situation could arise, and I guess that is what people were talking about in the thread.

*and, I presume, it is that kind of love, it is mutual and you can communicate it.

What puzzled me there was that people were giving rather superficial reasons as to why they would end any relationship of that kind... which in turn made me start this thread.

What puzzled me there was that people were giving rather superficial reasons as to why they would end any relationship of that kind... which in turn made me start this thread. Well, I can't really speak for everyone, but I'd feel deeply uncomfortable and that's no way to have a relationship - it wouldn't work, simply. Also, assuming the relationship could go further, I just wouldn't be able for any kind of sexual relations.

What puzzled me there was that people were giving rather superficial reasons as to why they would end any relationship of that kind... which in turn made me start this thread.
I guess because they can't communicate why. There is something inherently disgusting about changing the human body too much. For some people transexuals cross that line. It is nearly impossible to communicate to somebody who don't find it obvious. You might try thinking about human/animal chimeras, except that you'll just be pissed that I "compare" people to that for something you find acceptable.

I guess because they can't communicate why. There is something inherently disgusting about changing the human body too much. For some people transexuals cross that line. It is nearly impossible to communicate to somebody who don't find it obvious. You might try thinking about human/animal chimeras, except that you'll just be pissed that I "compare" people to that for something you find acceptable.

Which brings up the question if you would have the same objections towards somebody who had plastic surgery?

Which brings up the question if you would have the same objections towards somebody who had plastic surgery? Why, is that also common?

Why, is that also common?

I would assume that plastic surgery is a lot more common than transsexuality...

I would assume that plastic surgery is a lot more common than transsexuality... No, I mean are aesthetic/emotional objections towards it as common?

The instinct to have biological children is linked to a need for a sense of "immortality". If one can leave a child or three in the world before they die then their genes carry on. In that way each child is like half of them still running around after death, and the person can believe that a small part of him or her will be part of future generations. Though a person can transfer their moral genes, as it were, to their adopted children, this transfer of physical genes can only happen with biological children.

I've never understood it either, I mean I know darn well what the problems with the genes in my family are and would hate to curse some kid with them. Plus when you have your own kid you have to accept whatever the genetic crapshoot lands on, while with an adopted kid you can get the pick of the litter and they frequently let you take the kid home and try 'em out for a while to see if they fit well, you cannot do that with one obtained the conventional way.

hmmm... this is an interesting thread. Especially to see others opinions on this...

Given that I'll have to adopt if I want a child anyway, whether the person is transexual or not is irrelevant. That and it'd be rather hypocritical of me to be put off if someone was trans, hehe.

I want to have a child of my own. I can't really explain it, but I do. Of course, I also want to adopt a child.

However, if I really loved someone who could not impregnate me, then I would not discount them because they couldn't do so. I would simply look into other options. I'm not big on IVF, so I would probably go exclusively with adoption.

Cabra West, maybe you should create some sort of poll in this topic. Can you create polls in topics that you've already made?

I think those of you who can have children naturally are missing the point of the question. (Which is one that I've had for years) Why do we have "fertility clinics"? Why is it that the abortion people aren't demanding a stop to the invitro fertilizations, where they throw away thousands of fertilized eggs? It is bad to use them for scientific research to cure disease, but great to pick out one or two and throw the rest away? Adoption costs $$ but what does all of this fertility cost? Somebody on this thread said something about racism. I think this has a lot to do with it. There are very few perfect white children to adopt in the US. But, there are lots of minority or "less than perfect" and older children. Another factor which I think not only contributes to this, but also to abortion is "open adoption" and "open adoption records." We have extra parents and extra children showing up on doorsteps 20 years later. We only hear of the happy reunions, not the unwanted ones. If you don't want a child to show up 20 years from now--abort. If you don't want to deal with another set of parents 20 years from now---fertility clinic or Asia.

That's a question that's been puzzling me for years now, but this thread is somewhat inspired by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443451&page=1&pp=15) .

The argument many brought up against a relationship with a transsexual woman was that they wouldn't be able to have kids with her.
Now, seeing that there are more children up for adoption on this planet than there are parents willing to take them in, and seeing also that many of those who gave the argument seemed to belong to the "religiously opposed to abortion" group, why is it paramount for you to have your own kids rather than go out helping those poor unwanted kiddies that would actually need a good home and your support?
I'd really like to have a heir to the Throne of the Earth Overlord who is as similar to me as possible.

Unless you want my clone over and over and over again, which wouldn't be a bad idea...

adoption costs arround 20,000+ usd per kid.....most people dont have that kind of money just laying arround......having your own is cheeper

Probably because the primary biological impuse is to have children.

I think those of you who can have children naturally are missing the point of the question. (Which is one that I've had for years) Why do we have "fertility clinics"? Why is it that the abortion people aren't demanding a stop to the invitro fertilizations, where they throw away thousands of fertilized eggs? It is bad to use them for scientific research to cure disease, but great to pick out one or two and throw the rest away? Adoption costs $$ but what does all of this fertility cost? Somebody on this thread said something about racism. I think this has a lot to do with it. There are very few perfect white children to adopt in the US. But, there are lots of minority or "less than perfect" and older children. Another factor which I think not only contributes to this, but also to abortion is "open adoption" and "open adoption records." We have extra parents and extra children showing up on doorsteps 20 years later. We only hear of the happy reunions, not the unwanted ones. If you don't want a child to show up 20 years from now--abort. If you don't want to deal with another set of parents 20 years from now---fertility clinic or Asia.
May anti-abortion folks ARE demanding a stop to in vitro. Logically, if you believe life starts at conception, then destroying any fertilized eggs would be wrong.

You don't hear that because MSM will only report on the most extreme of the extreme - such as Eric Rudolph.

Here's a for instance:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/ivf/press.htm

Would it be improper to summarize the major objection so far as being that adoption is not worth the cost or hassle? If we extend that to the transexual, it seems that the argument those who object to marrying a transexual because of the child issue is that their love is not worth a few thousand dollars or the hassle of going through some bureaucratic rigamarole. Hmm.

People want to have their own kids because it's a continuation of your bloodline. Personally, I don't see why anyone would want the little monsters. Smelly, stupid, little blobs that eat and yell and cause pain and misery. Let's just master immortality and keep this generation.

Probably because the primary biological impuse is to have children.

Concur, it is instinctual.

No, I mean are aesthetic/emotional objections towards it as common?

They aren't. But the argument was that it is "deeply disturbing" if the human body gets altered. That, to me, would include altering it by plastic surgery as well.
I may be mistaken, though, and the argument only refered to altering of the biological sex of the body.

My fiancee and I have talked about the option of adoption or going through with the process (makes it sound so clinical).

She wants to actually have our children as she feels that bearing a man's child is just about the ultimate expression of love a woman can do for her man (I don't know how the ladies on NS feel about this, but that's her reason). Me personally, I don't really see one way or the other as being better as I feel that it is more in the raising of the child than blood that determins the person that child would become.

My fiancee and I have talked about the option of adoption or going through with the process (makes it sound so clinical).

She wants to actually have our children as she feels that bearing a man's child is just about the ultimate expression of love a woman can do for her man (I don't know how the ladies on NS feel about this, but that's her reason). Me personally, I don't really see one way or the other as being better as I feel that it is more in the raising of the child than blood that determins the person that child would become.

I tend to agree more with your position.

I'm a bit of a negative person in that respect, I know very well that genes have nothing whatsoever to do with the way the child will turn out in the end. That is to say, you can adopt and the child will turn out perfect, you will love it and it will make you proud in any way, and you can have your own kid and it might be the worst brat the world has ever seen, ending up badly. It also can happen just the other way around.

My general opinion is that having your own child in todays world is a perfectly selfish act, as you are not doing it "for the child", but purely because you "want to have it". If your interest was to help and further a child, adoption is the way. But that's just my slightly crooked view of things.

Btw, what good is an "ultimate expression of love" if it doesn't mean the same to the man?
:confused:

Btw, what good is an "ultimate expression of love" if it doesn't mean the same to the man? :confused:
Oh, I'm not saying that I don't appriciate it, but if you think about it, it never can mean the same to a guy. We don't have the option to get pregnant and bear (and I mean that word) the child for 9 months. It's a lot of work and not something I think should be entered lightly.

So, for my fiancee at least, the willingness, the desire, to do this for me is her way of saying that she loves me that much. I accept that in the spirt for which it is intended. But for me, I attach no particular need for it to be our child by birth as opposed to adoption.

Does that make sence or did I manage to make it worse?

.....

Btw, what good is an "ultimate expression of love" if it doesn't mean the same to the man?
:confused:
Just in passing: for me as a man, it, along with actually raising the child together, is the ultimate expression of love as well.

Just a point.

There is no 'animal instinct' or 'biological impulse' to have children. The instinct is to have sex. Children CAN result from having sex, but the impulse is for sex, not for children. This is why people often want sex when they have no intention of having children as a result, and will take steps to prevent conception.

Now, once there are children, there are instincts that kick in. There is an instinct to have sex and an instinct toward children once they are there, but there is no biological impulse to actually create children. The difference is subtle, but it is there.

I tend to think the desire to raise children carrying your own genes is mostly a social thing. The desire for there to be more of 'us' and less of 'them'. If 'we' start raising 'them', then time and effort that could have been spent on raising more of 'us' is perceived as being wasted. And also the assumption that passing on DNA somehow makes the genetic donar "immortal" in some fashion.

I tend to think that raising a child in a loving environment who would otherwise not have that kind of love or comfort is a much better legacy than having a few genes that you carry be replicated in someone else.

Edit: I think adoption is better for everyone, over all. Becoming parents to a child who is already here and has no parents, rather than making more children, means less population growth and, over time, less consumption of limited resources.

I tend to think the desire to raise children carrying your own genes is mostly a social thing. The desire for there to be more of 'us' and less of 'them'. If 'we' start raising 'them', then time and effort that could have been spent on raising more of 'us' is perceived as being wasted. And also the assumption that passing on DNA somehow makes the genetic donar "immortal" in some fashion.

To expand on this: there doesn't seem to be an instinct to determine if a child is yours or not. Put a baby amongst 20 others from the same population group, and if the parents have not seen the little toddler before they will not know which is theirs. Nor do most fathers notice they are not the biological father of the child they're raising if the mother cheated. In fact, they will think they notice striking similarities to themselves or relatives in the child - even though it is not related to them at all.

Just a point.

There is no 'animal instinct' or 'biological impulse' to have children. The instinct is to have sex. Children CAN result from having sex, but the impulse is for sex, not for children. This is why people often want sex when they have no intention of having children as a result, and will take steps to prevent conception. [snip]

I tend to think the desire to raise children carrying your own genes is mostly a social thing.


I disagree. The instinct is having children to carry on the gene pool. Sex is just the way to get there. This can be clearly seen in the animal world. A good example is the lion. If a pride of lions gets a new dominant male, it is an instinct to spread their own genes, going so far as to kill the predecessors cubs.

Although I think that the principle of adoption is great, I can fully understand if people think it might be better to have kids with their own genetic material, where you can make a good guess at some of the things passed on (medical history etc) than to have a pot luck with someone else's child. The problem is that the outcome (i.e. the grown up) is a mixture of genetics and up-bringing. No matter how much care you take, with an adopted kid you never know what is just outside of your influence. That does not necessary mean that bringing up your own children will be a success as is amply demonstrated. There are so many ways to screw up a child ...

I have a few friends who were adopted. They were brought up by loving, caring parents. One family I know has one child of their own (the first), the other three are adopted. You would never know by the way this family interacts, which one is not adopted, as all are treated exactly the same. An ideal pro-adoption example.

Here in Germany the adoption process is very complicated. To go through it takes a lot of time and effort and the chances to get a child at the end are not always that good. Friends of mine are going through this at the moment and they were already told that a lot of factors (age, size of flat, the fact that both have careers) are against them. At the moment the officials are trying to convince them that they go into fostering instead. But my friends want a "proper" child, naturally conceived or adopted, not a tem solution. So both are also trying everything to have a child of their own, including invitro. Chances are that either both works or both fails ...

I'm not sure if I would adopt myself. I have a son now whom I love dearly, but my wish to have kids was never that great. I wouldn't change it for the world now, but before he came, I wasn't that bothered. So if I couldn't have kids of my own I'm not sure I would want all the bother. But I guess if my wife had insisted on kids (not sure she would have) I would have contemplated adoption. Seeing what my friends go through, I'm glad it didn't come to that.

orginal post

really boils down to me wanting to pass on my genes and family name. Both are important to me.

I would not have a problem adopting only if there was no way in hell i could have kids myself or if io had already several children and was wealthy enough to be be able to help and love an orphan properly.


Please remember everyone, an orphan is for ever! not just for Xmas

I disagree. The instinct is having children to carry on the gene pool. Sex is just the way to get there. This can be clearly seen in the animal world. A good example is the lion. If a pride of lions gets a new dominant male, it is an instinct to spread their own genes, going so far as to kill the predecessors cubs.

No, actually that is just the instinct to have sex, nothing more. The lion will only kill those cups that aren't weaned yet, for the simple fact that the lioness who is still nursing cups will not be ready to mate.
All the other cups that are already weaned are perfectly safe from the new dominant male.

The "if you really loved her" is a bit of a loading of the question and also just because you love someone if you find out they have decieved you, you do not have to stay in love with them

"If you really loved someone would you stay with them if you found out they had cheated on you and had someone elses child and pretended it was yours".

I know there are people out there who would like someone to love them even if they know they will not. If you are gay it is a bit off to start chasing after someone who is straight hoping they will change their mind. Likewise if you are straight it is a bit off to go chasing someone who is gay (of opposite gender) and expect them to change their mind too. If you are transexual you have to understand that many will not go for that.

Aside from that - people want to have their own children in no small part because of an instinctive desire to pass on ones genes.

That's a question that's been puzzling me for years now, but this thread is somewhat inspired by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443451&page=1&pp=15) .

The argument many brought up against a relationship with a transsexual woman was that they wouldn't be able to have kids with her.
Now, seeing that there are more children up for adoption on this planet than there are parents willing to take them in, and seeing also that many of those who gave the argument seemed to belong to the "religiously opposed to abortion" group, why is it paramount for you to have your own kids rather than go out helping those poor unwanted kiddies that would actually need a good home and your support?
Having your own children is an entirely different experience/feeling/relationship than having someone else's. At least it was for me. My ex had three children when I met her, then we had two more. We both made every effort to make no differentiation between all five of them, and largely succeeded.

However, looking into eyes that bear a remarkable resemlance to your own, or watching the behavior of a small child which reminds you of yourself when you were that age has a pronounced affect on your psyche. There's a sort of deep recognition ... an automatic bond, that is established at the first eye contact between the two of you. It's bone deep and not controllable.

No, actually that is just the instinct to have sex, nothing more. The lion will only kill those cups that aren't weaned yet, for the simple fact that the lioness who is still nursing cups will not be ready to mate.
All the other cups that are already weaned are perfectly safe from the new dominant male.
You don't spot the instinct to have sex (an act that causes procreation) to be related to an instinct to pass on ones genes?! And the fact that this is one of the strongest instincts in any animal to be connected with the level of importance of having sex? Do you really think animals would have such a strong instinct for purely recreational purposes?

You don't spot the instinct to have sex (an act that causes procreation) to be related to an instinct to pass on ones genes?! And the fact that this is one of the strongest instincts in any animal to be connected with the level of importance of having sex? Do you really think animals would have such a strong instinct for purely recreational purposes?

I know humans do... and I know that apes do. And so do parrots, actually.
There's a large number of species that will mate "out of season", both for social and recreational purposes. So why shouldn't humans?

However, I fail to see the drive to pass on genes in most male animals who won't even stay around with the female to actually see their offspring. I seriously doubt that "sex" in their instincts or minds is in any way connected to "procreation".

I know humans do... and I know that apes do. And so do parrots, actually.
There's a large number of species that will mate "out of season", both for social and recreational purposes. So why shouldn't humans?
Yes, they also mate for recreational purposes, but they also mate for procreational purposes.

Sex - the only way to naturally procreate and one of the strongest instincts.

Incidently - AFAIK women when ovulating experience higher sex drive and produce more pheromones that have the effect of raising their partners sex drive - i suppose this is coincidence and nothign to do with having children. Regardless of mentally wanting to have children, your body and genes do.

Yes, they also mate for recreational purposes, but they also mate for procreational purposes.

Sex - the only way to naturally procreate and one of the strongest instincts.

Incidently - AFAIK women when ovulating experience higher sex drive and produce more pheromones that have the effect of raising their partners sex drive - i suppose this is coincidence and nothign to do with having children. Regardless of mentally wanting to have children, your body and genes do.

I never said my body wouldn't trick me ;)

The difference is, while having sex is an instinct, it is also mother natures way of enticing us to procreate. In a way you could say that it makes us do something we would otherwise abstain from because it basically is a waste of our resources, time and a danger to our health.

You can compare the sex drive to another very basic instinct : hunger.
No animal eats to survive, it eats because it feels hunger. No animal has offspring because it wants to pass on its genes, it has offspring because at one point, it simply got horny.

You can compare the sex drive to another very basic instinct : hunger.
No animal eats to survive, it eats because it feels hunger. No animal has offspring because it wants to pass on its genes, it has offspring because at one point, it simply got horny.
It gets hungry because it needs to eat to survive. It gets thirsty because it needs to drink to survive. It has sex because it needs to pass on genes to aviod extinction.
you are looking at the manifestations of the survival instinct, but are not connecting them to being caused by the survival instinct.

To clarify my position - in no way am I of the opinion that women are baby machines.

It gets hungry because it needs to eat to survive. It gets thirsty because it needs to drink to survive. It has sex because it needs to pass on genes to aviod extinction.
you are looking at the manifestations of the survival instinct, but are not connecting them to being caused by the survival instinct.

I do connect them. But both hunger and thirst ensure the survival of the individual, whereas the sex drive will ensure the survival of the species. Most individuals (both animals and humans) are generally not very concerned about that.
Animals will kill others, even of their own species. And so do humans.
The survival of the species can therefore not be a very strong drive...

To clarify my position - in no way am I of the opinion that women are baby machines.

Not to worry, I didn't understand it that way.

I do connect them. But both hunger and thirst ensure the survival of the individual, whereas the sex drive will ensure the survival of the species. Most individuals (both animals and humans) are generally not very concerned about that.
Animals will kill others, even of their own species. And so do humans.
The survival of the species can therefore not be a very strong drive...
The instinct for others survival is often not so high, however the instinct for ones own offsprings survival and success is very very high. This has a very unfortunate effect of being at some level responsible for a large number of wars throughout history.

The instinct for others survival is often not so high, however the instinct for ones own offsprings survival and success is very very high. This has a very unfortunate effect of being at some level responsible for a large number of wars throughout history.

I do understand that those instincts kick in once the offspring is there... but I fail to see any instinct regarding procreation (other than purely enjoying sex) anytime before that.

The way I look at abortion, and always have, is that there are always going to be people having children, but not always people to give a good life and loving home to the ones already alive.

The way I look at abortion, and always have, is that there are always going to be people having children, but not always people to give a good life and loving home to the ones already alive.

Amen to that.

I had to have my own child. Every time I tried to take someone else's, I got yelled at. :(


:D hahaha that's good.

However, I fail to see the drive to pass on genes in most male animals who won't even stay around with the female to actually see their offspring. I seriously doubt that "sex" in their instincts or minds is in any way connected to "procreation".
Sex is the way to get procreation. In the animal world a lot of males don't hang around because they are busy procreating somewhere else - to ensure a maximum spread of ones genes. While females often try to mate with more than one male to ensure the strongest possible fathering for her offspring in order to secure the survival of her genes.

About a later post: Hunger and thirst are not instincts, but reactions of the body to the thread of malnutration and dehydration. To then try and feed is the instinct.

Sex is the way to get procreation. In the animal world a lot of males don't hang around because they are busy procreating somewhere else - to ensure a maximum spread of ones genes. While females often try to mate with more than one male to ensure the strongest possible fathering for her offspring in order to secure the survival of her genes.

About a later post: Hunger and thirst are not instincts, but reactions of the body to the thread of malnutration and dehydration. To then try and feed is the instinct.

I daresay that you are giving most animals to much credit in regard to the result of their actions.
Males don't impregnate other females to spread their genes more widely, I doubt that many of them are even aware that their behaviour will lead to offspring at all. They have sex because they feel like it.
The offspring is the eventual result, yes. But it wasn't the purpose of the individual, it was rather a cunning system of having a drive in an animal that will lead to satisfaction for the individual and offspring for the species.
No animal has the drive to have offspring in the first place. They have the drive to have sex, and once the offspring has been created, they will have the drive to feed and protect it. But those are two different steps...

But those are two different steps...
... in procreation.

The instinct is to repoduce, the instinct manifests itself in a drive to have sex, which is the act required to repoduce.

Repoduction is not a concious step for many animals, but the instinct is there in a manifestation they are concious of.

If the instinct is to only have sex for recreation then why do most animals get pissed when another has sex with their partner? If it is just for recreation then they should only get upset if the partner stops having sex with them, otherwise they would not mind.

If the instinct is to only have sex for recreation then why do most animals get pissed when another has sex with their partner? If it is just for recreation then they should only get upset if the partner stops having sex with them, otherwise they would not mind.
This is a very good point.

Personally, I don't see the attraction of having children at all, regardless of them being mine or anybody else's. There seems little to recommend them.

To expand on this: there doesn't seem to be an instinct to determine if a child is yours or not. Put a baby amongst 20 others from the same population group, and if the parents have not seen the little toddler before they will not know which is theirs. Nor do most fathers notice they are not the biological father of the child they're raising if the mother cheated. In fact, they will think they notice striking similarities to themselves or relatives in the child - even though it is not related to them at all.
Read some research a while back (sorry I can't give the source) that DNA studies show about 1 in 25 men are raising a child they think is theirs but isn't.

If there truly were an instinct to procreate, than there would be no reason for sex to feel as good as it does. If the instinct were to actually procreate, then we would do it without needing to be 'tricked' into doing it by having sex produce a favourable cocktail of chemicals in our brain and body. The instinct is to have sex, and the reward at the end of the act largely prevents us from fighting that instinct.

This may well collectively be geared toward the eventual conception of offspring, but theinsinct itself is not to produce offspring. As I said before, the difference between "instinct to procreate" and "instinct to perform an act that may lead to procreation" is a subtle one, but difference it is.

As for raising your biological child as opposed to your adopted child being different experiences, I'm certain they are quite different. But this is far more likely to be psychological, because you have the knowledge that one is your biological child and the other is adopted, not because of any biological aspect. As was stated earlier, some fathers are not the biological sires of their children, but they do not know it, yet they still see physical and behavioural similarities between themselves and their child. They impose these similarities onto their view because they expect them, not necessarily because they are truly there. In my opinion: Psychology, not biology.

As for animals getting pissed when someone is trying to screw their mate... well, again, the desire to keep your sex buddy for yourself is just that, the desire to keep them to yourself. Even were the female not pregnant with their offspring after sex, the male would very likely still want keep the female for itself. The instinct is not to stop someone else from procreating or to protect their theoretical offspring, but to keep someone else away from the one they've decided is theirs. Again, subtle difference, but definite.

As for animals getting pissed when someone is trying to screw their mate... well, again, the desire to keep your sex buddy for yourself is just that, the desire to keep them to yourself. Even were the female not pregnant with their offspring after sex, the male would very likely still want keep the female for itself. The instinct is not to stop someone else from procreating or to protect their theoretical offspring, but to keep someone else away from the one they've decided is theirs. Again, subtle difference, but definite.

Yeah, but if you found out your girlfriend had been having sex with some guy when you were at work (and hence unable to have sex with her anyway at the time) but still was going to be having sex with you when you got home each day would you be happy? You're not missing out on any current sex and you're not missing out on any future sex, if it is purely a pleasure instinct then what would it matter?
The instinct is to procreate, it is a subconcious instinct but it is the underlying drive behind sex. The reason people get pissed about others trying to have sex with their chosen mate is that those who did not are not our ancestors as their genes are extinct.

That's a question that's been puzzling me for years now, but this thread is somewhat inspired by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443451&page=1&pp=15) .

The argument many brought up against a relationship with a transsexual woman was that they wouldn't be able to have kids with her.
Now, seeing that there are more children up for adoption on this planet than there are parents willing to take them in, and seeing also that many of those who gave the argument seemed to belong to the "religiously opposed to abortion" group, why is it paramount for you to have your own kids rather than go out helping those poor unwanted kiddies that would actually need a good home and your support?

Pride of accomplishment ;)

Why is it so important to have your own children?

Well for me, I have little choice, I have two of them and the number to sell them to gypsies isn't listed.. *LOL* :D

Well for me, I have little choice, I have two of them and the number to sell them to gypsies isn't listed.. *LOL* :D

Dammit, bad childhood memories. My parents used to tell me they were gonna sell me to the gypsies all the time.

Excellent point. I've allways been of the opinion that until ever child that could be is adopted is, the Anti-abortion faction should put there money where their mouth is so to speak and either start adopting these kids or STFU This is one of my "A" list issues along with the 2nd Amendment and unfortunatly the people that are pro choice on one tend not to be on the other. :(


That's a question that's been puzzling me for years now, but this thread is somewhat inspired by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443451&page=1&pp=15) .

The argument many brought up against a relationship with a transsexual woman was that they wouldn't be able to have kids with her.
Now, seeing that there are more children up for adoption on this planet than there are parents willing to take them in, and seeing also that many of those who gave the argument seemed to belong to the "religiously opposed to abortion" group, why is it paramount for you to have your own kids rather than go out helping those poor unwanted kiddies that would actually need a good home and your support?

There is no 'animal instinct' or 'biological impulse' to have children. The instinct is to have sex.

Bullshit. There is an instinctual pull to have sex. There is also, for many, an instinctual pull to have children. I know this to be true because I am currently holding mine at bay.

You think that's bad....I was adopted (from an orphanage no less) and my parents said that they saved the receipt and if I was bad ...back I went. :eek:


Dammit, bad childhood memories. My parents used to tell me they were gonna sell me to the gypsies all the time.

Bullshit. There is an instinctual pull to have sex. There is also, for many, an instinctual pull to have children. I know this to be true because I am currently holding mine at bay.

Very true. If I recall correctly, I believe the stronger urge is the instinct to preserve the integrity of the species by procreating. At least according to evolution, but that's for a different thread.

You think that's bad....I was adopted (from an orphanage no less) and my parents said that they saved the receipt and if I was bad ...back I went. :eek:

Funny, I was adopted too, as were my 3 other siblings, and my parents use to tell us we were "picked" or "chosen" not like all those other parents who got stuck with what they made..lol ;)

If I have any kids they will be 'my own', just not necesarily genetically.

Yeah, but if you found out your girlfriend had been having sex with some guy when you were at work (and hence unable to have sex with her anyway at the time) but still was going to be having sex with you when you got home each day would you be happy? You're not missing out on any current sex and you're not missing out on any future sex, if it is purely a pleasure instinct then what would it matter?
The instinct is to procreate, it is a subconcious instinct but it is the underlying drive behind sex. The reason people get pissed about others trying to have sex with their chosen mate is that those who did not are not our ancestors as their genes are extinct.

Well, it wouldn't be a girlfriend for me. If it were my boyfriend, how I would feel about it would depend on a number of things. How closed or open we had decided our relationship would be, whether he was using protection, etc, etc.

I have absolutely no desire to procreate. I still have the instinct to have sex, even though I know my sex cannot biologically result in offspring.

I would say that animals (people included) get pissed about others trying to screw their mate is more about 'ownership' and territory than anything else.


Bullshit. There is an instinctual pull to have sex. There is also, for many, an instinctual pull to have children. I know this to be true because I am currently holding mine at bay.


In my opinion, any pull that anyone feels to actually have children is more from pressure put on them by friends/family/society at large or pressure they are putting on themselves rather than a true biologial impulse. Perhaps even a semi-conscious extrapolation of the instinct for sex to the conclusion of children. I don't believe that there is actually any true instinct to have children, partly because such an instinct simply isn't necessary for the result.

Then again, you would know yourself better than I ever could, and you're free to believe what you like.

In my opinion, any pull that anyone feels to actually have children is more from pressure put on them by friends/family/society at large or pressure they are putting on themselves rather than a true biologial impulse.

That might make sense, if it weren't for the fact that every pressure from friends/family/society at large/myself is to not have kids, at least not yet - not the other way around.

Perhaps even a semi-conscious extrapolation of the instinct for sex to the conclusion of children.

My desire to have sex and my desire to have children are two separate things. Intellectually, I realize that the two are linked - that, if I want to have children naturally, then sex will be what leads to that, but the two really aren't linked in my head.

I don't believe that there is actually any true instinct to have children, partly because such an instinct simply isn't necessary for the result.

It isn't necessary, but it could increase the chances of the result. Wanting to have children could make a woman's body more hospitable - leading to a higher chance of conception. Psychosematic effects on the body are hardly unheard of. A woman who does not especially enjoy sex, but wants children, may have sex anyways, because of her desire for children. This is also true in animals for which sex is not a pleasureable activity.

If I have any kids they will be 'my own', just not necesarily genetically. Well said, sah.

That might make sense, if it weren't for the fact that every pressure from friends/family/society at large/myself is to not have kids, at least not yet - not the other way around.

Perhaps there is more to it than simply outward/inward pressure, but a even sub-conscious desire does not an instinct make. Perhaps there are other pressures you are not consciously aware of? But as I said, you'd know yourself better than me.



My desire to have sex and my desire to have children are two separate things. Intellectually, I realize that the two are linked - that, if I want to have children naturally, then sex will be what leads to that, but the two really aren't linked in my head.


Again, desire does not equate to instinct. For instance, right now, I'm somewhat thirsty and my instinct is to consider sources of hydration. My desire is to have some spearmint flavoured milk. I do not know exactly why I desire spearmint milk in particular, but that doesn't make my wanting to have spearmint milk an instinct.


It isn't necessary, but it could increase the chances of the result. Wanting to have children could make a woman's body more hospitable - leading to a higher chance of conception. Psychosematic effects on the body are hardly unheard of. A woman who does not especially enjoy sex, but wants children, may have sex anyways, because of her desire for children. This is also true in animals for which sex is not a pleasureable activity.

Psychosomatic effects on the body are definitely not unheard of, but I've never seen enough evidence of their effect to convince me they play any consistent part in our biology. Certainly not enough for a reproductive system to bend itself around them.

Also, sex need not necessarily be a pleasurable activity for there to be a instinct to partake in it. Sticking with the offspring thing, many animals have instincs, once the offspring are present, to protect those offspring even at their own expense. Not pleasurable, but the instinct is there. Of course, just as many animals don't seem to care what happens to their offspring once they've popped out (certain humans included), but that's really beside the point.

You make some good points, as you always do, but I'm not convinced.

If I have any kids they will be 'my own', just not necesarily genetically.
Booya.

Why is it so important to have your own children?

Because slavery is illegal. So far ... having kids ... isn't.