meindzai wrote:If the kamma of a child is not our business, then we have no part in either it's liberation OR it's suffering. You can't say we're not responsible for one but we're responsible for the other.
Exactly. Each being's kamma is their own responsibility. There is Buddhist tradition that places great emphasis on being responsible for saving other beings, but it isn't the Theravada.
This isn't an anti parent argument?I'm not really putting forth a pro or anti parent argument here. I've been on both sides of the fence and I'm trying to keep an open mind. (Though deep in my heart I still feel that 90% of the population should be spayed or neutred before their teens).
What I suspect here is that Buddhism seems to attract those with world negating and cynical views about family and parentage which seem to be justified by a certain interpretation of the Suttas.
Is it your view that one who places more value on liberation from suffering than pursuing worldly concerns is anti-family? Does one have to create a family in order to respect and cherish the institution? And thinking that "90% of the population should be spayed or neutered before their teens" isn't " world negating and cynical"?