Intense sadness

[truth seeker]

Why not, it's a question of will, whether free or automatic ? Is there love ? Is it selfish ?
And not wanting to have children goes against nature too. The same questions apply...
Whatever, in a way going against nature may be a stepping stone outside the matrix. Is that right ? As for everything else, it depends, I suppose.
Now, what's sure is that there is love from most mothers and fathers for their natural children.
But nowadays it's so awful ! Yes, it has always been as far as I know; it may also be delightful. Look, it's a terrible time, we're gonna suffer and die ! As always, yes; and live, too. But now it's so much worst ! Yes; then it depends on the point of view,individual, collective, dimensional, cosmic...
We are presently able to deal with these questions because we have a full stomach, live in a technological society and have some freedom to choose (so much more than before). And because we were procreated with (more or less) love. Mechanical and selfish love may be, but love anyway, and a lot of care, and deep hopes...
At least we owe some gratitude to our ancestors, to our world, to what and where we are. That is simply part of being in service of others imho.
Thank you for your presence and attention

Hi eoste,

You seem to be misunderstanding some of the concepts we discuss here and have put your own subjective spin on them based on what makes you comfortable.

If you haven't seen it yet, you may be interested in this thread on love.

It may also help for you to read or reread what is our understanding of STO.

Because we're not sto and have no real concept of what True love looks like, it's challenging to make choices that correspond with that path. However, what we can do is try our best to not inflict any more damage to ourselves and/or others. One way to begin to do this is to See/feel viscerally (as opposed to 'just' intellectually) how narcisistic wounding from ancestors has affected us. Once one has fully realized this, the choice of whether or not to continue this cycle of suffering becomes 'easier'. If you haven't read them yet, I'd suggest you read the books on narcissism linked earlier in this thread.

My thoughts on gratitude is that it can only be given when one has carefully weighed, measured and recognizes the value of what's been received. This means being able to discern what is true and what's false. Is having children 'natural' because we live in a world that says it is? Are we 'supposed' to procreate simply because we have the ability to do so? Just because we can do something, doesn't mean it should be done.

It seems that many, if not most people (at least in the US) have children without really putting much thought into it. So is it to keep from being lonely, boredom, to hold onto a relationship, fear of death, the desire to play god in the life of another, the thought of 'well at least someone will love me'? If we are really honest with ourselves, we'll realize that the choice is made due to inner considering.

 

[salinafaerie]

My 2 cents is that medically assisted procreation is absolutely against nature and can't be entirely healthy for any child born from it. The child may look and behave normally but who's to say a child born to those same parents through the "natural" way wouldn't be more beautiful and/or smarter, using all the ways we measure those attributes, ie.. IQ tests for one. And then there are the soul issues to consider, as well. Does the soul seat in the same way as a child born naturally? I honestly don't know enough yet about soul seating but seems logical there may be a difference depending on how the being came into existence, no?

I don't think there is any reason whatsoever to come to that conclusion based on the thousands of children who have been born this way. I happen to have a family member who is the result of in vitro fertilization and this young person is brilliant and kind and an amazing kid, so, even though that is an n of 1, it still carries a lot of real life, real experience weight.

This is my theoretical opinion that I cannot back-up with anything other than my gut instinct and a rudimentary science education. I just find it hard to believe frozen sperm and eggs are as normal/healthy as sperm or eggs coming directly from the body that merge together without other intervention. I am sure the physical scientists here can speak to this more than I ever could and I am very open to being educated on this subject because it is something I think about a lot with my other concerns about reproduction in our world today.

I, too, know two children born through in vitro to two gay couples my husband and I are close friends with. This is in no way an attack on their children, anyone's children or the gay community.


And I couldn't agree with your statement here more:


"Personally, I think anyone who brings a child into this world at this point in time is selfish and short-sighted and merely providing more food for the moon - and increasing the sum of the suffering on this planet."

 

[salinafaerie]

If you haven't seen it yet, you may be interested in this thread on love.

It may also help for you to read or reread what is our understanding of STO.

Hi, truth seeker,

I can access the second link but not the first. Is there a reason for that?

Thanks!

 

[Guardian]

Which is getting me to this remark : Gays in the Western world are fighting to have the right to get married and raise their own children through medically assisted procreation.
This goes against nature.

Well, by this "logic" using a condom "goes against nature" too. My question is how did the condom, or medically assisted procreation, somehow get outside of Nature? Is there a secret Nature Exit Door no one has told me about?

 

[Beau]

Hi, truth seeker, I can access the second link but not the first. Is there a reason for that?

It was a link to this short essay by Michael Crichton titled On Love:

Most of the people I know confuse love with possession. It's easy to see why; it's built into the fundamental assumptions of our culture. "You're mine," says the popular song, "and we belong together." Hardly anyone stops to question the sentiment.

As soon as we feel love, we immediately attempt to possess. We speak confidently of my boyfriend, my wife, my child, my parent. We feel justified in holding expectations about those people. We consider that perfectly reasonable.

Why? Because all our concepts of love ultimately derive from romantic love — and romantic love is furiously, frantically possessive. We want to be with our lover, to have them to ourselves, to feel their eyes on us, to consume their minds and bodies...to possess them.

So strongly do we equate love with possession that we may even feel if someone doesn't want to possess us, they don't really love us. Yet I would argue that what we call romantic love is not love at all. It's a kind of emotional storm, an overpowering, thrilling attraction — but it isn't love.

Because real love isn't possessive. It can't be. We'd all agree that love involves giving, not taking. Yet the desire to possess actually springs from the lover's own need — the need for approval from the beloved, for support from a parent, for straight A's from a child, for status, for financial security — for something. A possessive lover is overly focused on what he's getting, not what he's giving. The lover may dignify his dependency with the name love, but it's a lie. How can you really love somebody when you're dependent on them for things you need? That isn't love, that's just manipulation to keep the needed stuff coming your way. Robert Palmer sings about being "addicted to love," but nobody really is. People are addicted to their needs.

And love isn't the same as need. It just isn't.

Of course, a loving relationship will produce interdependencies. But all too often, the pleasure of freely giving changes to a fear of possibly not getting. It's just that this person — your husband, your girlfriend, your child — is suddenly so important to you. You worry about what's going to happen. What they're going to do. And at that moment, love stops.

People sometimes wonder if they're feeling real love. These same people never wonder if they're sexually aroused, or sad. Then what's the problem about recognizing love? Most often, because they're sensing a conflict: they're feeling the depth of their need, not the heights of their love.

There are ways to know real love. It feels calm. It's steady, and it can easily last a lifetime. It's nourishing — people grow under its influence. They become who they really are, and now what someone expects them to be. Real love isn't blind; on the contrary, people feel understood, accepted for who they really are. It's healing. People recover.
So whenever you hear that love is blind, or love can't last, or love is destructive, you can be sure that you're hearing a description of lust, or desire, or need. And it's an accurate description, because needs really are transient and destructive.

But love is something else entirely. An emotion of deep caring that asks nothing in return, an emotion that is fulfilling without any expectation at all, is so rare that most people in our society can't imagine it. They can't imagine feeling it, or receiving it. They may even come to believe it doesn't exist. But it does.

And it's the best thing there is.

 

[Guardian]

I am not against adopting but yes I do want children that are biologically mine.

Maybe it would help you get clarity on this to explain exactly why it's so important to you that you have children that are biologically yours?

As an adoptee I can tell you that we are never as good as having "real" children. We're the booby prize for people who can't have "their own" children for whatever reason.

 

[Esote]

Thank you eoste but I must add this to the conversation.

Although this may have the opposite affect of what I am intending to encourage, which is not having children for the societal pressurized sake of having children, and this information might encourage Trajan to get it on, so to speak, but recent studies have indicated that, although, men may be able to biologically father children well into their senior years, it is older father's (past 40) DNA that is mostly responsible for genetic defects in children, not mother's DNA as was thought.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/15/the-dangers-of-older-dads-2/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect

Interesting. Thanks for the information + links

eoste, your homophobia and bigotry is showing again. This forum is not the place for that, as it is ignorant and insulting to many members.

anart, I'm not homophobic and I don't know what you mean by bigotry (lol) and that it shows again. It's a very well known manipulation trick to separate what is written or said from the whole context (I'm surprised that you may kinf of use it). I wrote, after the end of your quote from my post, "Why not..." Now, I apologize if anybody might consider this to be insulting. Being ignorant, that's right. I know that I don't know. Do you know otherwise ?

Artificial insemination is not only used by "gays" wanting to have children, it is also used by heterosexual couples with fertility issues - so by your logic that all "goes against nature". The fact that it exists at all suggests that it does not "go against nature", since if it happens, it is in accordance with nature else it would not be possible at all since "nature" is reality itself. Yes, human technology is involved, but if one considers the idea that human technology is also part of the natural world, your statement makes little sense. fwiw.

Everything comes from nature, of course. I could have better said "against natural ways", does it make more sense ?

Personally, I think anyone who brings a child into this world at this point in time is selfish and short-sighted and merely providing more food for the moon - and increasing the sum of the suffering on this planet.

This is a deep moving topic and I mostly agree with your statement. I would add that the lack of love, of consideration, of respect, of taking care of others is the most important part of what's "increasing the sum of the suffering on this planet".

Hi eoste,

You seem to be misunderstanding some of the concepts we discuss here and have put your own subjective spin on them based on what makes you comfortable.

If you haven't seen it yet, you may be interested in this thread on love.

It may also help for you to read or reread what is our understanding of STO.

Because we're not sto and have no real concept of what True love looks like, it's challenging to make choices that correspond with that path. However, what we can do is try our best to not inflict any more damage to ourselves and/or others. One way to begin to do this is to See/feel viscerally (as opposed to 'just' intellectually) how narcisistic wounding from ancestors has affected us. Once one has fully realized this, the choice of whether or not to continue this cycle of suffering becomes 'easier'. If you haven't read them yet, I'd suggest you read the books on narcissism linked earlier in this thread.

My thoughts on gratitude is that it can only be given when one has carefully weighed, measured and recognizes the value of what's been received. This means being able to discern what is true and what's false. Is having children 'natural' because we live in a world that says it is? Are we 'supposed' to procreate simply because we have the ability to do so? Just because we can do something, doesn't mean it should be done.

It seems that many, if not most people (at least in the US) have children without really putting much thought into it. So is it to keep from being lonely, boredom, to hold onto a relationship, fear of death, the desire to play god in the life of another, the thought of 'well at least someone will love me'? If we are really honest with ourselves, we'll realize that the choice is made due to inner considering.

Thank you truth seeker for your spot on comments.
What I shared in this thread has not much to do with making me comfortable, afaik. I just want to go deeply into the subject, looking right and left as much as possible with external considering.
I'm not centered on myself when sharing this, my thoughts basically meet yours on this subject. But I know it's very tough for young people and this is the place to really think and reflect about it, for the sake of all, osit.

Which is getting me to this remark : Gays in the Western world are fighting to have the right to get married and raise their own children through medically assisted procreation.
This goes against nature.

Well, by this "logic" using a condom "goes against nature" too. My question is how did the condom, or medically assisted procreation, somehow get outside of Nature? Is there a secret Nature Exit Door no one has told me about?

Well, you didn't read my answer yet...
Whatever, making fun this way in such a thread, about fundamental issues and intense sadness, seems quite close to inner considering to me...

 

[salinafaerie]

Thank you eoste but I must add this to the conversation.

Although this may have the opposite affect of what I am intending to encourage, which is not having children for the societal pressurized sake of having children, and this information might encourage Trajan to get it on, so to speak, but recent studies have indicated that, although, men may be able to biologically father children well into their senior years, it is older father's (past 40) DNA that is mostly responsible for genetic defects in children, not mother's DNA as was thought.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/15/the-dangers-of-older-dads-2/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect

Interesting. Thanks for the information + links

You are welcome eoste.

I hope the information adds to the understanding that not all is as we have been told/ programmed to believe and science often reverses itself only to reverse itself again and again.

 

[anart]

anart, I'm not homophobic and I don't know what you mean by bigotry (lol) and that it shows again. It's a very well known manipulation trick to separate what is written or said from the whole context (I'm surprised that you may kinf of use it). I wrote, after the end of your quote from my post, "Why not..." Now, I apologize if anybody might consider this to be insulting. Being ignorant, that's right. I know that I don't know. Do you know otherwise ?

I can only go by the statements you make on this forum and saying that "gays" taking available steps to have their own children goes against nature is a bigoted and homophobic thing to say, as if just because someone is homosexual, it is unnatural for them to want or to have children. It is not. There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality, nor about wanting or having children in whatever way that is possible.

Everything comes from nature, of course. I could have better said "against natural ways", does it make more sense ?

No, it does not, actually.

 

[Guardian]

Well, you didn't read my answer yet...

Well I have now, and "against natural ways" doesn't make any more sense. How can ANYTHING exist in this world, and not be "natural?" Just because "the gays" are not (usually) inserting tab A into slot B that makes them "unnatural?"

Whatever, making fun this way in such a thread, about fundamental issues and intense sadness, seems quite close to inner considering to me...

Oh no hon, I'm perfectly aware of the fact that I'm stomping all over your sacred bovine. :)

 

[salinafaerie]

Well, by this "logic" using a condom "goes against nature" too. My question is how did the condom, or medically assisted procreation, somehow get outside of Nature? Is there a secret Nature Exit Door no one has told me about?

Funny Guardian.

anart captured it here:

"Artificial insemination is not only used by "gays" wanting to have children, it is also used by heterosexual couples with fertility issues - so by your logic that all "goes against nature". The fact that it exists at all suggests that it does not "go against nature", since if it happens, it is in accordance with nature else it would not be possible at all since "nature" is reality itself. Yes, human technology is involved, but if one considers the idea that human technology is also part of the natural world, your statement makes little sense. fwiw."

This is definitely going to adjust my thinking.

Although, this is very scary, too, because don't we then have to accept genetically modified foods as within nature and every other franken creation--- for example, other animals (Jurrasic park anyone?) that humans can recreate as within nature, so therefore acceptable? Or are we back to just because we can doesn't mean we do?

 

[Timótheos]

As an adoptee I can tell you that we are never as good as having "real" children. We're the booby prize for people who can't have "their own" children for whatever reason.

I disagree.

It would seem that many, if not most children born to couples by the normal means of procreation, usually happen by accident. Not saying that these children won't be loved and cared for, depending on the specific situation, their conception oftentimes comes as a surprise, welcome or not, by the parents.

Whereas an adoptive parent consciously chooses to raise a child, even though for various reasons they are biologically unable to procreate in the normal way. This suggests that the prospective adoptive parent has put a great deal of thought and energy into the choice of raising a child, and I doubt one would find many adoptive parents describe their children as being a "booby prize" or something less good than having a "real" child.

As an adoptee myself, I'm pretty sure my parents would take great issue with the comments above.

Perhaps, it's more accurate to say that both situations can have beneficial or detrimental effects to the child in question depending on the specific context of family home; including parental temperaments, economic status and various other factors.

It's also a safe bet to say that each of us are likely coloured by our own personal parental experience.

 

[Guardian]

It's also a safe bet to say that each of us are likely coloured by our own personal parental experience.

I'm sure that's true, and I'm curious about our difference in opinions regarding adoption (which I think should be outlawed) Do you know who your birth parents were? Was it an "open" adoption, or has your genealogy, medical history, etc. been concealed from you?

 

[Guardian]

This suggests that the prospective adoptive parent has put a great deal of thought and energy into the choice of raising a child,

Or it suggests they wanted an accessory just like the Jones?

 

[truth seeker]

...I'm not homophobic and I don't know what you mean by bigotry (lol) and that it shows again. It's a very well known manipulation trick to separate what is written or said from the whole context (I'm surprised that you may kinf of use it). I wrote, after the end of your quote from my post, "Why not..." Now, I apologize if anybody might consider this to be insulting. Being ignorant, that's right. I know that I don't know. Do you know otherwise ?

You may not see yourself as homophobic but for what it's worth, your comments came across as bigoted and homophobic. If anart hadn't addressed it, I would have.

Everything comes from nature, of course. I could have better said "against natural ways", does it make more sense ?

Perhaps you can define 'natural/nature' then in order to clarify because quite a few of the statements you make come across as either misunderstanding and/or lacking in some knowledge.

What I shared in this thread has not much to do with making me comfortable, afaik. I just want to go deeply into the subject, looking right and left as much as possible with external considering.

Part of external considering includes how information is shared - to keep in mind who may be reading what you're posting and how that makes them feel.

I'm not centered on myself when sharing this, my thoughts basically meet yours on this subject. But I know it's very tough for young people and this is the place to really think and reflect about it, for the sake of all, osit.

Then perhaps there's a language issue because I'm not really getting that impression. You seem to be playing devil's advocate yet agree with statements posted that run contrary to what you say. It's as if you're 'arguing' for the sake of arguing. It doesn't feel as if you're being genuine and is confusing. So it doesn't really allow for a true conversation to take place because others are trying to be honest and as objective with you but your posts don't have the same feel. At the same time you're trying to not step on anyone's toes by agreeing, much of what you write has the flavor of identification with your 'beliefs'. For what it's worth.