# I'm "selfish" because I don't want to have kids.



## cchurchi (Mar 21, 2007)

I've heard this over and over from several co-workers, some who have 6 kids. One guy I work with, the janitor that cleans my cubicle, has 12 kids!

I, myself, am 30 years old and have been married for a couple of years, which by virtue of popular opinion up here at work means I should have at least 2 children by now. This is just my opinion, but it seems to me, choosing to have kids is really what's selfish.... and rather selfindulgent, especially when there are so many children right now that need to be adopted.

I've known for quite some time that parenting isn't for me. Simply going to Walmart to observe all of the screaming, misbehaving, prepubescent brats and selfabsorbed, narcissistic teens demanding their parents provide them with cellphones and MP3 players, is for me, the ultimate birthcontrol.

From an environmental point of view, having children is the single worst thing you could do. Assuming you have 3 kids and each of your kids has 3 kids, how many generations until there are literally thousands of your descendants consuming resources and releasing polution, until you get Easter Island on a global scale. I could drive a hummer 16 hours a day for the next 10,000 years and still have less of an overall environmental impact that having even 1 child.

I would never suggest the government past laws to limit family size like China has but I wonder how much longer humanity can continue to expand itself. Even if the Earth can sustain 50 billion people and still somehow leave some habitat for other species, the human race will still have to limit it's own numbers eventually. When that day comes, how will it be done? I can't see people voluntarily choosing to abstain from reproducing. The genetic drive is too strong, just ask the Janitor I work with.


----------



## Thujone (Mar 21, 2007)

Amen brother. My wife and I feel the exact same way. We get all the child experiences vicariously thru our friends and we are fine with that. Our children can be locked up while we are at work, and never say they hate us. They are dogs. And we are happy.

Edit: I guess I should clarify that we love and care for our dogs. It is just a perk that you can kennel them while at work. Also I would never lock up a child should I have one. My wife and I would be perfectly competent parents. We simply choose not to be.


----------



## LifeNRA (Mar 21, 2007)

If it is any comfort I will pray that you never have any children.


----------



## DaFABRICATA (Mar 21, 2007)

I couldn't have said it better myself!!!!
Stick to your guns. I you want, and can support them and have the willingness and drive to make it work, good for you, but a lot of people shove their opinions down others throats and assume because one is married (or together for a long time)it is expected that kids are part of the plan. I know too mant people that are pulling their hair out trying to make it work. They end up miserable and angry, which in turn just messes the children up! On the other hand I know people that have been together for a while with NO kids and they say thing like "I just don't know how people with kids make it work". Its hard in todays world and in my opinion, not the same place today in which a safe, stable, child friendly envirnment SHOULD BE had. Thats my 2 cents. Stay strong and happy....don't have kids.


----------



## cchurchi (Mar 21, 2007)

Only down side: No one to pass down my cool flashlights and sweet firearms to.

:mecry:


----------



## DaFABRICATA (Mar 21, 2007)

Simple solution.....use the HECK out of 'em!!! then sell 'em when you don't need 'em anymore and spend the money to go to the playboy mansion for one last HURRAW!!!


----------



## carbine15 (Mar 21, 2007)

cchurchi said:


> Only down side: No one to pass down my cool flashlights and sweet firearms to.
> 
> :mecry:


Sure there is.. send them to me!


----------



## nerdgineer (Mar 21, 2007)

If you wanna not have them, then for heaven's sake, don't have them!

Keep a few practical things in mind:

1. this should be a consensus between husband and wife (or significant other). If you agree fine, if not then it is an issue which should definitely be worked out before you commit either way (or change partners).

2. If you have a wife/significant other, then child bearing has a time window for her (and for you to a degree - don't want to be tossing toddlers into the air in your 60's...). Understand that delaying past a certain time removes the option.

If both 1 and 2 are go for no kids, then your only decision is whether to take transient birth control steps or a permanent one (vasectomy) given that the permanent one is much more convenient, if you're willing to commit to this decision. Vasectomies may be reversible, but the process is expensive at least.

Your call. Good luck and a good life to you.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 21, 2007)

I accept and respect those who chose not to have children, especially when they are cognizant of not being cut out for the task. I also don't think they should feel presured by others to have them.

That said, I have raised a child and had one pass on, and don't like anyone telling me that todays world is not worth bringing a child into. After all the children of today can be the ones to make the world the place it should be. :shrug:


----------



## cchurchi (Mar 21, 2007)

carbine15 said:


> Sure there is.. send them to me!


 
Thanks for the offer, however, I don't plan on dying anytime soon.

I was thinking of including in my will a provision that all my personal belongings be auctioned off with the proceeds going to the VA and some to St. Judes hospital.


----------



## carbine15 (Mar 21, 2007)

I wonder how much your most valued flashlight will go for at a charity auction. $5.00?
Good luck resting peacefully.


----------



## Zigzago (Mar 21, 2007)

cchurchi said:


> I've heard this over and over from several co-workers, some who have 6 kids.



Misery loves company.


----------



## Woods (Mar 21, 2007)

carbine15 said:


> I wonder how much your most valued flashlight will go for at a charity auction. $5.00?
> Good luck resting peacefully.


 
Still better than "the state" getting it! 

I'm surpsrised this hasn't brought up the religious aspect yet. Is there not some Christian tenet to the effect of "go forth and multiply"? Dude, it's your duty (I said doodie, lol)!

My wife and I feel the same. We have nine "kids" that wouldn't be here if we hadn't adopted them, and their impact on the Earth is pretty dang small.

This might bring the flames but, I actually think that some of the folks that feel the need to bear 4/5/6 children might actually be the more selfish individuals. I honestly think that for many people, it's an ego feed. When there are so many parentless children in the world, why not spread the love to beings already in existence?

Just my opinion and random thoughts, I don't have a problem with folks having lots of kids, just don't agree with it.

I never should have come in here today!   Good thread though!


----------



## WAVE_PARTICLE (Mar 21, 2007)

Bringing children into the world is not for everyone, especially those who embrace the misconceptions of what raising a child is really about. I'm not saying that any of you fall into this category, because I don't know you. However, I have plenty of friends who convince themselves to not have children for all the wrong reasons (making a lotta money is one of them). And I have equal number of friends who HAVE children for all the wrong reasons (pressure from parents and friends is one of them).

The underlying truth to all this is the fact that having children is a LIFE-CHANGING decision. IT WILL ALTER YOUR LIFE. Period. There's nothing truer than this. If you have any self-doubt about having a child, don't have them. Children are not dice to gamble with. They are an investment that requires a lot of time, some money and most importantly, love. Lacking any one of these necessities will bring some hardship to the child. I am not saying you need to be rich to have children, however, if you know you cannot provide the basic necessities to the child, then you should think about not having them.

When I see the terms "brat" and "narcissistic" as your initial descriptors for children, then your decision to not have them is a good one!

To say that having children are the worst thing you can do for the environment I think is ridiculous. What is worst for the environment are people like us.... it will be our children who will be the ones fixing it.


WP


----------



## RA40 (Mar 21, 2007)

We've been married 16 years and don't have children. Our path took a different route then expected so it was a choice we made at the time. Just recently, some distant relatives commented to my wife about us not having children. 

Since we don't have children, we compensate. So yes, we do pursue more time together and it includes vacations along with some comforts. To presume it's a lifestyle we chose over children and for a selfish nature...not so. 

(rant)

By now, if we were going to have children, we would. These ladies don't know the circumstances but ASSUME. It doesn't take brains to realize that if people are going to have children, they do so. If they don't...it's none of their flippin' business. There are circumstances and it is obviously a decision made....respect it. 

We've heard the selfish thing...I want to :whoopin: these people. If a couple chooses not to...it's not for public discussion. Keep their thoughts to themselves. 

I dunno, guys don't ask but women seem to be digging for something to chew on. It is one of those mindless discussions that open to pissing matches about kids. Mine did this...mine did that...:duck:


----------



## zx7dave (Mar 21, 2007)

My wife and I are the same way. no kids. It is nice to do what you want when you want without having to worry about dipers, babysitters etc...
Most of our friends have kids, but true friends and co-workers that are worth communicating with would never pressure you to have kids if you don't want them. 
It is much better to buy flashlights than to buy dipers...yet another reason I don't want one


----------



## prof (Mar 21, 2007)

Everyone needs to make their own decisions, but must realize that children are PEOPLE and have needs. Responsibility is great--if you do not want children or cannot be good parents, don't have them. That's a good decision for the potential children! 

Having said that, my wife and I are blessed with two children. Without going into details, let me say that our children are incredible blessings and I thank God for them every day. I'd trade all my flashlights (and everything else) for them. No hesitation. 

Children are reflections of their parents, to some degree. When you talk about brats--look at the parents. Guess what? This is not 100% accurate, but close.

As to saying another person should have kids or not--that's not responsible. Each person should make their own decisions with the potential children's best interests in mind. Read that again--it's not about the parents, it's about the children. As someone said above, they're not bargaining chips, they're PEOPLE.

Anyway, sounds like you made a good decision for you. It's not my decision but I respect it more than you may realize. Now to go see my kids!


----------



## DaFABRICATA (Mar 21, 2007)

Zigzago said:


> Misery loves company.


 

So very true!


----------



## DaFABRICATA (Mar 21, 2007)

I only have to feed my flashlights every couple of weeks and they don't poop.


----------



## Kiessling (Mar 21, 2007)

Now that the need for children to secure one's own survival in old age is no longer that relevant ... the decision to have as well as the decision no to have children are both purely selfish ones.
This is not bad though. 

I myself am not sure wether I want children or not. I am torn ... and so is my girl. Which is a very bad thing that lies heavy on our shoulders. The time window is rapidly closing for us to have children. And we are sitting idly ... in ambivalence.
It hurts.

bernie


----------



## greenLED (Mar 21, 2007)

Cchurchi, having kids or not is a very personal decision, and I wouldn't feel bad because of the choices I make as an individual, and as a couple who've decided to live their lives together. There are plenty of reasons to support either side of the argument, and I can only listen and respect both. The only thing I ask, is that people stay out of my personal decisions in this issue. Whatever their mindset, beliefs, cultural and biological needs, they are not my own, and they have no right to project those onto me.

From a _strictly _biological and genetic point of view, it's a shame that individuals with obvious greater fitness (in the biological sense) do not to pass on those genes (this applies to all living creatures). Human social pressures can be strong, though, and may even supersede biological urges, etc.

In any case, whatever you choose, it'll be the right decision for _you_ (and, hopefully, your partner), and in my mind, that's all that matters.


----------



## BillCurnow (Mar 21, 2007)

cchurchi said:


> but it seems to me, choosing to have kids is really what's selfish.... and rather selfindulgent, especially when there are so many children right now that need to be adopted.


This is where you lost your argument with me. Remove the counter-attack and I'll have your back any day of the week.

I agree, the decision to have children or not is a personal decision, but the decision itself is no more or less selfish than the decision not to have children. Want kids? Great. Don't want kids? That's fine too. Realize, though, that the decision is theirs, not yours, and in the end doesn't affect your life at all*. 

Now, I'm not saying "don't judge people". That's simply not realistic. Judge all you want, just keep it to yourself. 

I really feel for those who want children but can't and have to put up with the crap you described in your original post. I'm a huge fan of adoption** but it's not for everyone. The birds and the bees is strong juju and I don't fault anyone for wanting to give procreation one more shot.

* Of course, all bets are off if your mother is pressuring you for grandchildren. You're on your own there, dude. (My personal battle is with a Grandfather-in-law who believes home-ownership is the end-all-be-all of Western civilization.)

** My mother was adopted as was my wife's best friend and I "surprised" my parents shortly after they started looking into adoption


----------



## BillCurnow (Mar 21, 2007)

Kiessling said:


> Now that the need for children to secure one's own survival in old age is no longer that relevant


It's still a factor here in the United States. We have segments of the population that view large extended families as a safety net of sorts. In these groups, it's not unusual to find 34 year-old grandmothers who are carying for their newborn right alongside their new grandbaby.


----------



## WNG (Mar 21, 2007)

The people who give non-children rearing adults the lame line of being selfish, etc. are all full of sh!t. Excuse me for my frank position on this. It has been already stated above on points for respecting others' choices. You want to have kids, good for you, but if you don't, that's your right. Lousy brats and spoiled children are the fault of their parents.

Funny how you can substitute, the kind of religion, political position, the food you eat, the clothes you wear, or car you drive (what do you mean you don't own an SUV?? More recently, don't drive a Hybrid??) into the same argument with these people.
They have to put their nose into other people's business and give their $0.02 on the subject even when it wasn't solicited. Their advice is only worth that much.

There are valid personal points to having children and not to have children.
And both sides contain adults who have poor reasons to do both and they preach them. That's what some of us get to experience. 
I've been wrongly accused of being 'selfish' about not having kids by my own parent. And it couldn't be more off the mark.

As I get older, and come across more people in our world, it has become pretty obvious that the world is full of stupid people, who shouldn't be reproducing.

Same thing can be said that there are some who would make wonderful parents but can't or don't.

Finance/wealth is not a watermark for parenthood. You can be personally successful financially and be god-awful as a parent. 

If you are a successful, well-rounded, well-liked and happy individual, take the time to go thank your parents. They'd appreciate it coming from you, even if it's in your prayers.

I've in the past questioned whether I want to have kids. But as time went, I planned for parenthood with 2 kids in mind. But life's circumstances have me now no longer having kids of my own. It's a personal choice. I've been told I'd make a very good father. And I do like kids.
But don't get me wrong, I can't stand brats of any age, just like any sane person. No excuses just because he/she is a child.

Here's a good read:

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/family/articles/2007/03/12/spoiler_alert/


----------



## PEU (Mar 21, 2007)

I'm pro having childrens (look my kid in the avatar) the only concern I have regarding the people that don't want to have kids is what would they feel if in the future they regret that decision. 

But as many stated, everyone is free to live his own life...


Pablo


----------



## Kiessling (Mar 21, 2007)

It is that possibility of regret as you say that is frightening and maddening. But does that justify making children ... just to avoid the possiblity of regretting not having done it?
This is not enough I think. I fear.
bernie


----------



## raggie33 (Mar 21, 2007)

i just pray the people who have kids and want kids know there is a hell of a lot more to be a parent then giveing birth or planting a seed.


----------



## Raven (Mar 22, 2007)

No social safety net can ever replace the needs that elderly people have. Imagine your wife (now a widow) being diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

Children sure would come in handy then, huh. Instead your life mate is attended to in a privatized nursing home, run by emotionally disconnected bureaucrats, while she waste away, alone, frightened, and vulnerable.

Don't kid yourself. Children are a couple's greatest resource.


----------



## tradderran (Mar 22, 2007)

cchurchi said:


> I've heard this over and over from several co-workers, some who have 6 kids. One guy I work with, the janitor that cleans my cubicle, has 12 kids!
> 
> I, myself, am 30 years old and have been married for a couple of years, which by virtue of popular opinion up here at work means I should have at least 2 children by now. This is just my opinion, but it seems to me, choosing to have kids is really what's selfish.... and rather selfindulgent, especially when there are so many children right now that need to be adopted.
> 
> ...


 
I am with you 100% the wife and I will stick with our Cat's.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Mar 22, 2007)

Selfish, imho, is someone saying "I deserve your tax dollars to raise my kid."

Have as many kids as _you can actually afford yourself_, I could care less about that. But expecting single people, other parents, and couples without kids to foot the bill for your kid is just wrong.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 22, 2007)

I think it's great when someone realizes that child-rearing is not for them. That's one less kid in the world who will grow up miserable because he/she has parents who either don't want them, or are unable financially/emotionally/physically to raise them properly. I feel likewise. Also, for purely practical reasons I couldn't have kids since I'm a poor provider and kids require lots of money to bring up nowadays, even just for the essentials. I'm also 44, which means I'm probably too old at this point anyway to raise a family. If I were to meet someone tomorrow, by the time I was financially secure enough, and into the relationship enough, to consider having kids I'd probably be in my early 50s at least, meaning I would be well into my 70s when they graduated college. That's just too old.

Anyway, congratulations on not being swayed by the "you have to have kids" crowd. Even putting aside personal issues, the world is already too crowded for everyone to bring more people into it. I say we take care of the people who are already here rather than bring new ones in. I also fully agree with you that choosing to have kids is more selfish than choosing to not have them. I don't consider myself so important or great or outstanding that I need to leave behind little jtr1962 juniors in this world. I'm more than happy making whatever little contribution I can, and then leaving that behind as my legacy. If I can share my life with one person who feels likewise, so much the better. If not, that's OK as well. I don't require either progeny or a mate to embellish my ego, or make me feel like a whole person. Society does an extreme disservice by making people feel incomplete when they're alone.


----------



## DUQ (Mar 22, 2007)

WAVE_PARTICLE said:


> The underlying truth to all this is the fact that having children is a LIFE-CHANGING decision. IT WILL ALTER YOUR LIFE.



*You got that right!*


----------



## turbodog (Mar 22, 2007)

Currently in the USA, white and black populations are not having enough children to maintain a replacement rate.

And if you're using what you see at wal-mart as a litmus test for your actions, I feel for you.

Children are the single best thing my wife and I have ever done. We've got 1 and another on the way in late summer.


----------



## Greta (Mar 22, 2007)

Some good posts here! :thumbsup: And a good/interesting topic! :twothumbs:

Personally, I think that some of the reasoning stated for *not* having children is a bit flawed but then that's just my opinion and in this instance at least, I'm not even gonna begin to judge people for their reasoning. This is too huge of an issue to start nit-picking. If you don't want to have children, it doesn't matter what your reasoning is... don't do it!

I have two children. I love them both with everything that I am. I would give my life for them and have no regrets whatsoever. That said... in general... I don't like kids. Never have... probably never will. I've come across very few in my 45 years that don't instantly irritate the crap out of me. That's just me. Don't know why... perhaps I should ask my therapist about it at my next session...  However... I hold in the highest regard those who are not like me and devote their lives to caring for children. I couldn't do it... I know that. I don't try to fool myself or anyone around me. My friends with children know how I am and have me at the very end of their babysitting list... as an absolute last resort, only in case of dire emergency. I'm not kidding guys... they really do...  I would never, ever even consider harming a child... _EVER!_... but I just don't care to be around them. 

What *DOES* annoy the hell out of me though as far as people popping out babies as if they themselves are bunnies, is those who do it and can't afford it. Yes, this has already been mentioned in this thread but I thought I'd bring it up again as it really is a sore spot with me. Truly, I don't care if a couple wants to create their own football team complete with cheerleading squad... _IF THEY CAN AFFORD IT!_... this means that they have the financial means _ON THEIR OWN!_ to feed, house, clothe, educate, and provide medical care for every single one of them! Otherwise, tie a knot in it! What is _UP_ with these people who cannot even afford to keep the lights on in the house or put food on the table (literally!!) but they can sure as hell keep reproducing?!?!?  

Once again, it seems that it all comes down to personal responsibility. As a society, we're losing it. And yes, we've become selfish because we expect everyone else in the world to be responsible for our so-called "choices" and "rights". It is our "choice" and our "right" to breed like bunnies and then expect others to provide the financial means to care for the results. 

We need a license to get married, a license to go fishing, a license to drive a car, a license to carry a gun, a license to operate a business, a license to practice medicine or law, a license to work... but no license to bring a child into this world. Sad... very, very sad... :shakehead


----------



## tiktok 22 (Mar 22, 2007)

Sasha said:


> Some good posts here! :thumbsup: And a good/interesting topic! :twothumbs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have a slightly different opinion of women (and men) who have children and cannot raise them. For me it was a blessing. I adopted my baby boy a year ago and on the 9th we will celebrate his first birthday. If it wasn't for a woman who couldn't afford her child, I would never have my son. I'm not saying it's O.K. to pop them out, but her mistake was my greatest opportunity. I am very thankful to her.


----------



## Greta (Mar 22, 2007)

tik... I'm not referring to those who have children and put them up for adoption, realizing that they cannot raise the children themselves for whatever reason. I applaud those who are _responsible_ enough to act so self-*less*ly. My gripe is with those who continue to have children and *keep* them and continue to put their hand out to others for the financial support to raise them. That, to me, is irresponsible and *very* selfish!


----------



## Manzerick (Mar 22, 2007)

it's just an opinion and I respect it as such. 

I'm 28 and kidless.. Some in my family beat me on x-mas to pump out kids. I will in time, jus tnot now. i'm thinking 34 is a good age. I'll have all of my partying out of me (I hope LOL)


----------



## raggie33 (Mar 22, 2007)

holly crap the world will stop spining i agree with sasha


----------



## Tritium (Mar 22, 2007)

48 years old, married 26 years next week, no kids.

If you want them then have them but raising them is on you. You should not expect anyone else to lend a hand physically or financially. When they get to their teenage years and are disobedient and a big pain remember that they need more examples of life than a TV at the baby sitters to grow up "right". Two parents cannot both work and expect a child they raise to resemble anyone but the sitter who actually raised "their" child.

And as a side note if your kid walks up to me at X-mart and hits, stomps or kicks me while you stand by and just smile and say kids will be kids know I will take the action that you obviously cannot.

Sasha, I did enjoy your post #34 greatly. +1 on it.

Thurmond


----------



## Omega Man (Mar 22, 2007)

Manzerick said:


> I'm 28 and kidless.. -cut- I will in time, just not now. i'm thinking 34 is a good age. I'll have all of my partying out of me (I hope LOL)


The man said alot here :buddies: I'll be ready when it happens. I can't believe me (27) and my girl(21) has a arguement *after dating for 10 months* that surmised to her saying "If you don't want kids, why are we even in this relationship?". That was f-ing sobering. But she calmed down later and realised she probably shouldn't have said something that way out. She just wanted me to know* in no uncertian terms that she wants kids, period.
*I'm still undecided at this point in my life, but I dare not bring it up again, my God!:touche:


----------



## lukus (Mar 22, 2007)

Recognizing you're not cut out to be a parent is something I'll respect. For so many people, having a kid is more a consequence of an uncontrolled romp (1-800-who's your daddy). I think the environmental angle is b******t. I remember when I was a kid the smog report for the big cities was a regular part of the national nightly news. I went through life thinking LA, NY, and Chicago were dark gray. Technology (and to a greater extent this country) is the answer. The birth rate tends to naturally regulate itself with the more educated populations/countries.

For me I guess it was more about maturity. I waited until I was 32 to get married, and my wife and I had dated for 6 years before that. Built a house on a nice little piece of land and more or less had most things in order before having the first kid. Now I'm 40 and I have a 4 year old and a 1 month old. It is a totally life changing thing. I always viewed it as the next step in life. And it changes you (or should change you) completely. I love it, seeing my 4 year old (boy) growing and learning to think and do things is the best thing in my life. The downside is I keep catching him with my HDS or my SF L2. He came to me and showed me how he could switch through the different levels on the HDS, thought he was teaching me something. I gave him a Princeton Tec Impact XL and a nice heavy duty yellow incan but he still likes mine better.

One of the bigger changes is empathy. My wife will be the first to say I'm not very emotional or empathetic and I would mostly agree. I love the Darwinism in action stories and generally think people should cowboy up and quit whining. Some years ago I wouldn't have given the missing 12 year old scout story much thought. Now a story like that has me scared for the parents and scares me (inside of course, I'll never show it) because I can't even begin to imagine being in that situation. 

As for having to pay for others' indiscretions: I absolutely resent the amount of taxes, both income and property, that I have to pay. Some of it's the maturnity and hospital care for having kids you can't afford (in large part illegal alliens). There's a lady I see regularly at a small grocery store that drives a large extended cab, jacked up, 22" wheels and every option truck that cost at least twice what my truck cost paying for 2-liter sodas and bags of chips with her Lonestar card. And the worst of all is the majority of people that think social security and medicare are their retirement. I looked at the witholding on my check stub the other day and was pissed. That's MY retirement. The govt. puts a gun to your head and you hand over the sweat of your work and good decision making to pay for the poor planning of others.

You can not be completely ready to have kids. If you're waiting till you're completely ready and everything is in order you'll be old and dead. Life has to have a few surprises and hardships, that's what makes it worth living.


----------



## tiktok 22 (Mar 22, 2007)

Sasha said:


> tik... I'm not referring to those who have children and put them up for adoption, realizing that they cannot raise the children themselves for whatever reason. I applaud those who are _responsible_ enough to act so self-*less*ly. My gripe is with those who continue to have children and *keep* them and continue to put their hand out to others for the financial support to raise them. That, to me, is irresponsible and *very* selfish!



Agreed...When we were going thought the adoption process, our lawyer spoke of a woman who has been pregnant 16 times in the last 18 years. These were not unplanned pregnancies however. She was living off of the system that's in place (called living expenses) that allows a birthmother to take care of herself and the baby before and after it is born at the adoptive parents expense. She can ask for "reasonable" living expenses depending n those states laws and does not have to give it bck even if she decides to keep the baby. It's a misdemeanor for the adoptive parents to ask for the money back. It's a risk you take when adopting


----------



## Wolfen (Mar 22, 2007)

I have read that the problem of low birth rate is a major one in the so called 1st world. All over the globe the most industrialized / modern nations are losing populations and have to bring in people from the so called third world to stop the loss of population. 

The question is should new immigrants have to shoulder the burden of an aging population that is not related to them?


----------



## BillCurnow (Mar 22, 2007)

Wolfen said:


> The question is should new immigrants have to shoulder the burden of an aging population that is not related to them?


No more so that I should have to shoulder the burden of an aging population that failed to plan ahead.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Mar 22, 2007)

Wolfen said:


> I have read that the problem of low birth rate is a major one in the so called 1st world. All over the globe the most industrialized / modern nations are losing populations and have to bring in people from the so called third world to stop the loss of population.
> 
> The question is should new immigrants have to shoulder the burden of an aging population that is not related to them?



No, we do NOT "need" to bring in immigrants to offset our falling population.

Using immigrants to offset the falling population in 1st world countries is a political/economic decision: it enables the state to continue socialist programs such as SSS.

The fall out can clearly be seen in France, and also parts of U.S. -- where immigrants such as the *Hmong* are incapable (or at least unwilling) to respect American law, culture and values.


----------



## WNG (Mar 22, 2007)

I wasn't aware of these Hmong groups within the USA. Very interesting.

But this group, and the many other groups where the US federal gov't simply allows into our borders, due to refugee status, have always shown they don't willingly intergrate into American culture.
They have bypassed the checks/standards for immigrating into the USA. Most who officially go through the official channels, are scrutinized closely. Only the most desirable of those wanting to become permanent residents and/or students, get granted.

Just look at the other mass refugee migrations, the vietnamese after Vietnam War, Haitians, Cuban boat exidus, Illegal Mexican immigration amnesty, etc. All produced a major slide in social conditions, crime, a load on social services, taxation.
For every one of these that can be called a success story, there are 100s of failed ones.

The sad thing is the next lobbied round of refugees considered allowed into the USA are Iraqis. How many are legitimate due to allying with US forces, how are just thieves, thugs, how many are actually terrorists subverting the refugee program?
With the war going so poorly, and the USA pull out expected, the tens of thousands of Iraqis hitting our shores will make the Hmong seem like a sideshow.


----------



## flashfan (Mar 22, 2007)

Kiessling's got it right, in that the decision to have or not have children, is ultimately a "selfish" one.

What's irksome to me, are those parents who come across as somehow superior to childless people...


----------



## RA40 (Mar 23, 2007)

Some parents these days resort to using day care as a substitute to raise their kids. WHile they continue to do activities as a simple couple or as single types. 

Given the westernized society and selfish ways many grow up with, these people should not have children. Add in divorce and the lack of commitment thereof, society has enough dysfunctional issues to deal with. By all means, it is probably the better choice to not have children. IMO


----------



## PEU (Mar 23, 2007)

Sasha said:


> We need a license to get married, a license to go fishing, a license to drive a car, a license to carry a gun, a license to operate a business, a license to practice medicine or law, a license to work... but no license to bring a child into this world. Sad... very, very sad... :shakehead



Be carefull, this is a very dangerous proposition, if you let the government take decisions about this issue, they will find natural to regulate other parts of your personal life... (think China)

Speaking of annoying comments, in this case for a couple with one kid a common one is: when are you planning on having the next? You are not leaving (insert your kid name here) alone right?


Pablo


----------



## savumaki (Mar 23, 2007)

WAVE_PARTICLE said:


> Bringing children into the world is not for everyone, especially those who embrace the misconceptions of what raising a child is really about. I'm not saying that any of you fall into this category, because I don't know you. However, I have plenty of friends who convince themselves to not have children for all the wrong reasons (making a lotta money is one of them). And I have equal number of friends who HAVE children for all the wrong reasons (pressure from parents and friends is one of them).
> 
> The underlying truth to all this is the fact that having children is a LIFE-CHANGING decision. IT WILL ALTER YOUR LIFE. Period. There's nothing truer than this. If you have any self-doubt about having a child, don't have them. Children are not dice to gamble with. They are an investment that requires a lot of time, some money and most importantly, love. Lacking any one of these necessities will bring some hardship to the child. I am not saying you need to be rich to have children, however, if you know you cannot provide the basic necessities to the child, then you should think about not having them.
> 
> ...



AMEN


----------



## RA40 (Mar 23, 2007)

Seems that people enjoy taking shots at those across the fence in other pastures. People have to put in their $0.02 cents to make their ego's feel better by cutting others down. Makes me view them as unhappy types who feel better in misery. These types love to play analyst and dish out advice for others yet their own home life bites.


----------



## raggie33 (Mar 23, 2007)

RA40 said:


> Seems that people enjoy taking shots at those across the fence in other pastures. People have to put in their $0.02 cents to make their ego's feel better by cutting others down. Makes me view them as unhappy types who feel better in misery. These types love to play analyst and dish out advice for others yet their own home life bites.


welcome to the internet!!! it sucks but thats how it is


----------



## RA40 (Mar 23, 2007)

raggie33 said:


> welcome to the internet!!! it sucks but thats how it is



Not talking about my fellow CPF'ers, this discussion has been civil. (Probably was to generic in that reply.) My gripe is the casual discussions that people you come across in person that have to dig into one's private affairs. 

The OP asked for thoughts so it opened it up.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Mar 23, 2007)

No rugratz here.


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Mar 24, 2007)

My wife and I are both 27, financially comfy, and have been told we'd make excellent parents. We've been pressured to have kids for years. I used to grit my teeth and bear it, now I've just stopped caring. Those who are rude enough to tell us we should have kids are in turn rudely told to mind their own business. No one has said so twice.

:buddies:

P.S. Thank goodness for vasectomies.


----------



## peekay331 (Mar 24, 2007)

PEU said:


> Be carefull, this is a very dangerous proposition, if you let the government take decisions about this issue, they will find natural to regulate other parts of your personal life... (think China)
> Pablo


 
wait until your country gets 1.2 BILLION people (or whatever equivalent population density to china), then see if your government will take active measures to control population.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Mar 24, 2007)

I didn't start having kids till my 40's and 50's + my already had three kids when I married her, I adoped one of them (the youngest who did not rememger her ah father). When my daughter was born it was the most awsome experience I ever had, and later when I remaried and had my son, that was awsome too. Being a parent is sort of hard to explain. It offers some of the most enjoyable experiences, and the most horrid, scary experiences, and the bonding, oh my god, the bonding. The parent child bond is sort of supernatural and can not be really explained to someone who does not have children. It is sort of wonderful and scary at the same time. So, don't have children, don't have someone who calls you up and says, "Dad, I love you", and you just melt.

Bill


----------



## PEU (Mar 25, 2007)

peekay331 said:


> wait until your country gets 1.2 BILLION people (or whatever equivalent population density to china), then see if your government will take active measures to control population.



This density problem won't happen anytime soon in any country in the American continent 


Pablo


----------



## Tooner (Mar 26, 2007)

cchurchi
I could have written your post. I'm just surprised to read so many like minded responses here. Where are all you child-free people in real life? Seems that most everyone we know have kids. And since we are older now, a lot of those kids have kids now. 

Get used to the question. When you get older it changes from, "When are you going to have a baby?" to "Why didn't you have any kids?" I head off the question by saying I'm selfish, even though I agree with on your premise that having them is more selfish than not. It is just easier that way and shuts them up.


----------



## tradderran (Mar 27, 2007)

Sasha said:


> Some good posts here! :thumbsup: And a good/interesting topic! :twothumbs:
> 
> Personally, I think that some of the reasoning stated for *not* having children is a bit flawed but then that's just my opinion and in this instance at least, I'm not even gonna begin to judge people for their reasoning. This is too huge of an issue to start nit-picking. If you don't want to have children, it doesn't matter what your reasoning is... don't do it!
> 
> ...


 
I am with you on this. I don't like kids and my wife is the same. we talked about this before getting marred. I ask her if she wonted kids. she said not
no but he$$ no. I replied Great lets get marred tomorrow. That was 25 years ago. and still no regrets. And we still feel the same way. As for someone to take care of us in our old age. We have the means to pay someone to do that. If we had kids we would be as broke as most parents. after sending them to school and college. We have a lot of friends with kids and we see what it has done to them. Know thanks


----------



## cutlerylover (Mar 27, 2007)

Selfish...NO, infact I wish more people would stop having kids...not to sound like an enviromentalist or anything, lol, but the planet is way over populated already...we need to stop having kids in general as people...Its just your choice, and you should not be critisized or questioned by your family or friends about the choices you make...Sure you will be missing out on soem cool stuff like going to sports games and other activities, but you also bought yourself finacial freedom, and time to build on your relationship as a married couple...

lol, wow that sounded kind of therapudic...didnt mean to do that, lol...Anyway just my opinion, I do not think it was a selfish thign to do at all...


----------



## Sarratt (Mar 27, 2007)

LifeNRA said:


> If it is any comfort I will pray that you never have any children.



It's my wish that your prayers go as un-answered as was your hurtfull comment.

Since you like praying .... I pray you suffer a stubbed toe!! 

Blah !! there !!

... no I honestly 'pray' for you to sit quietly some day and contemplate a fairy tale.


----------



## Radio (Mar 27, 2007)

Time for me to chime in. I AM Selfish! I did NOT want any kids. My wife agreed. Five years in her sister had a baby. First one in the family. Long story short, I caved. Four kids later I can NOT Imagine my life without MY kids! Probably the selfish thing again. They do change your life. Luckily mine was for the better.  Each to his own, I won't judge others and don't BASH me. I worked two or three jobs most of my 25 thus wedded years and am PROUD to be able to support a Wife and 4 kids and 2 cats and a house and 3 cars. :lolsign: I consider myself lucky. The big question is, would I have missed what I didn't have? Who knows. Life Happens. Enjoy the Ride!!!


----------



## Biker Bear (Mar 27, 2007)

Sasha said:


> We need a license to get married, a license to go fishing, a license to drive a car, a license to carry a gun, a license to operate a business, a license to practice medicine or law, a license to work... but no license to bring a child into this world. Sad... very, very sad... :shakehead


Are you familiar with David Brin's short story _Piecework?_ It describes a culture where (among other things) people have to do serious study before they can be licensed to be a parent. SF in general has expended a lot of thought on this issue, as it's clear the situation we have now can't go on forever. Of course, a lot of the scenarios depend on forms of contraception that are vastly less bothersome than the ones we actually have now.... :sigh:


----------



## Coop (Mar 27, 2007)

I'm not sure I want to have kids... One part of me would like to, but another part is scared to hell that it might turn out like me... Last thing this world needs is a MayCooper v2.0


----------



## Tooner (Mar 28, 2007)

It seems as though wanting kids is more of a female thing at first. That for most males it is more of an acquired taste, like scotch. You know, the women want them, then the men go along to keep her happy and before long they can't imagine life without the little critters.

I wonder if there was a widely available men's "pill" or some other such form of reliable contraception that didn't involve getting cut, would there be a drastic decline in births? I can just see us guys taking it in secret.


----------



## cchurchi (Mar 28, 2007)

One of the most fascinating, and confusing, aspects of parenting to me is the "Not my little Billy! He wouldn't hurt a fly" syndrome. The idea here is that your genetic offshoot is incapable of wrong doing simply because they are your child. 

Locally, we have two highschool students that murdered a 16 year old female classmate in an unbelievably sadistic manner, and filmed it with a camcorder. Both sets of parents of the killers are busy spending their entire life savings to fund the best attorneys money can buy, in an attempt to set these psychopaths free. I could understand this if there was any doubt about their guilt, but since they FILMED THE MURDER WITH A CAMCORDER... there is no doubt they are guilty! I love my dad very much, but if the police found 8 bodies in the crawl space of his house, of which he is the first and only owner, I would be like, you're on your own man...

Reminds me of an interview I saw once where Ted Bundy's mother is adamant that her son is completely innocent of any crime. Only problem was he had already confessed and led police to several bodies.


----------



## WAVE_PARTICLE (Mar 28, 2007)

Radio said:


> I worked two or three jobs most of my 25 thus wedded years and am PROUD to be able to support a Wife and 4 kids and 2 cats and a house and 3 cars. :lolsign:


 

:rock:


----------



## raggie33 (Mar 28, 2007)

good luck what ever ya choice is


----------



## Max (Mar 28, 2007)

Wow! I haven't wandered into the Cafe for a long while. Great discussion.

Probably because my two kids keep me so busy. 

There are some great points being made here. 

My two cents:

Don't go asking people why they haven't had kids yet, what are you waiting for, etc. Aside from all the other reasons why that is a rude thing to ask, there are some couples who actually want to have kids but are having fertility problems. It's bad enough going through infertility without having people thinking you're being selfish on top of it. You can't tell what other people are going through just by looking at them. You just don't know.

Another point: I love being a father to my children, and I get a lot of happiness from my kids, but that is not the purpose of having kids. Why not? You think it's fair to raise a child to believe his or her purpose in life is to make Mommy and Daddy happy? That's an unfair burden to put on your child and probably a sure path to a messed up kid and a messed up adult.


----------



## LiteBrite (Mar 28, 2007)

There has been no greater joy in my life than when my daughter came into this world (see avatar). Having someone love you so much unconditionally is just indescribable. My wife is also pregnant with our 2nd (a boy, due in June). We are stopping there because we want to be able to provide them both with a good life and pay for their education when the time comes and if they chose to pursue a higher education. 

Even with all the joy my daughter brings to my life, there is also a lot to worry about. Every time they get sick, injure themselves, etc. is a challenge. My little one tripped when she was one and chipped her two front teeth. I saw it happen in slow motion and there was nothing I could do to prevent it. I could feel the life being pulled out of me. She made it just fine, but I would rather break all my teeth than have her injure even a hair. 

I'm rambling now, so I'll say this:

Children are the greatest thing that can happen in your life, but they are also the cause for great suffering. Be prepared to deal with the highs and lows and be prepared for your life to change drastically.


----------



## js (Mar 29, 2007)

It amazes me that co-workers would have the audacity to tell you that you are being "selfish" for not having kids!

My brother's FATHER-IN-LAW made some condescending and snide remark to my mother about my wife and I not having kids. He's lucky he didn't make that remark to me. My mom said, more or less, "I don't know. It's none of my business."

Exactly.

When people ask me if my wife and I have kids, I always respond that we have three cats. That usually ends the discussion on a light tone and still keeps people out of my personal business. (Not that I have a problem if people ask IF I have kids, BTW. Just would rather not discuss the whys and wherefores and possible future situations of it).


----------



## AlphaTea (Mar 29, 2007)

My fraternal grandfather was first of 14 children
My fraternal grandmother was from a 18 kid family
My maternal grandfather was from a 7 child house.
My maternal grandmother was one of a set of twins. 
When first twin died in childbirth, other twin married grandfather and had 2 more kids.
My father was the last of 9 children.
All of his siblings had from 3 to 6 kids.
My mother was the last of 6 children.
All of her siblings had 4 to 8 kids.
I was the first of 3 by my father, my mother later had 4 more (seven total)
My wife was the last of 5.
All of her siblings have 2 kids each.
As you can see I come from some fairly large family.
No, we are not catholic.
I have been quite happily married for 29 years and have no kids by choice.
We kept putting it off for different reasons (timing, career etc) and finally realized we were doing just fine without children.
There are pro's and con's to being a parent.

I would never criticize anyone for their decision to have or not have kids.
I really wish some people would NEVER have children though.


----------



## Fallingwater (Mar 31, 2007)

cchurchi said:


> I've known for quite some time that parenting isn't for me. Simply going to Walmart to observe all of the screaming, misbehaving, prepubescent brats and selfabsorbed, narcissistic teens demanding their parents provide them with cellphones and MP3 players, is for me, the ultimate birthcontrol.


Oh boy, I can't agree enough with what you said. No kids in my future, either. I'm actually looking forward to having a vasectomy to avoid the tiniest possibility a mistake could bring any about.



> I would never suggest the government past laws to limit family size like China has but I wonder how much longer humanity can continue to expand itself. Even if the Earth can sustain 50 billion people and still somehow leave some habitat for other species, the human race will still have to limit it's own numbers eventually. When that day comes, how will it be done? I can't see people voluntarily choosing to abstain from reproducing. The genetic drive is too strong, just ask the Janitor I work with.


It will probably be done in a harsh way.
Most people will not, by themselves, willingly agree to stop procreating. They'll need either considerable monetary incentive from the government (unlikely) or it'll have to be forced on them. Maybe even by mandatory sterilisation, with only a random minority being allowed to have children.
Or, you know, families could be allowed to only have one child. That should halven the world population pretty quickly (relatively speaking). The problem is, that might not be enough...


----------



## tradderran (Mar 31, 2007)

Sorry allready posted in this thread


----------



## Phaserburn (Mar 31, 2007)

Life is self-indulgent. So is fooling yourself if you think it isn't. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to step out of that box as much as possible, however.

Having children and expecting others to support them is unreasonable, and I can see where it might be annoying. Then again, supporting all those cigarette smokers via taxes and insurance isn't so popular, either. We all pay to support all of us, basically.

Children are alot of work, which is quite the understatement. They are not for everyone; what is? But, if you bring yourself to it, there is no greater reward or happiness in life.

I am one who felt like many of you in this thread; an outspoken non-family type. I met the right woman and that changed, and I thank God daily that it did. The only thing I can tell you is you can't imagine how children change you. I thought that was hogwash, but I'm converted.

I have 2 children, and that's enough for me! But I love them and wouldn't have it any other way. And, if you think you'd be a lousy parent, perhaps not. In some (like me), what amounts to fear of the work, unknown, loss of personal freedom, cost, liability etc are quite daunting.

You may be bigger than you think... and thus pleasantly surprised. It is one of life's major experiences, no question about it. Think carefully and deeply before you quickly decide to miss it.


----------



## Robocop (Mar 31, 2007)

Sad to say but most young peoples values and thoughts have changed over the years....used to be if you asked a child what they wanted to be when they grew up they said "doctor"...."Lawyer"..."Nurse" or maybe a "Fireman" however ask any random child these days and often you get the reply of "I want to be a rap star"...."I want to be a basketball player"..." I want to be a football player"...ETC:

Recently I had a call where a social worker called the police to visit a home as the 12 year old child there had phoned the hot line number saying he was abused by his parents. You see the first day of school teachers passed out a card to children with a number to call if they were being abused at home....well long story short after speaking with the child he called the number after his parents sent him to his room saying he could not come out until he had done his homework and chores.....imagine a social worker even getting involved with that much less demanding I investigate abuse here. Imagine how scared the parents are now to even try and discipline their child for fear of social services getting involved. point is this was not an abuse case but the school had placed the idea in the childs mind weeks before. Not that the child did anything wrong to call but years past all kids just knew this was not abuse....sad situation to say the least and frustrating for a parent.

Sad to say it is very hard to even be a parent these days....society in general makes it even harder. There seems to be so many bad influences on TV and children are constantly bombarded with crap thus not even knowing how to be kids. Plus there are no more schools that use punishment anymore and any idiot can see that school have went way down hill ever since they removed the paddles from teachers hands.

Whatever happened to a child getting a spanking in school.....man I was scared to death to act up as well as my schoolmates for fear of getting a paddling. It was not really the pain issue but more of an embarassment issue and thus we had few problems in my day. Now these days you see cases where metal detectors are needed in schools and often times teachers are actually being assaulted.....WTF this was unheard of years back and is really a bad sign for all kids I believe.

Please someone prove me wrong here but it appears that society in general has made it so easy to be a vagrant and un-responsible child it is sickening. I am 38 yrs old and also have no children for many personal reasons. I will admit that I often saw parents that were good parents however struggling with a wild child......they often tried everything and their lives were miserable trying to control their child. This did not do much to make me look forward to having a child. I have also seen many children the victim of school violence or worse killed while playing in the yard like kids are supposed to do. (drive by shooting)....so again this made me bitter as well seeing all the dangers kids face these days.....it is not bad enough a parent has to worry about their kids being victims of bad influences but also worry about sending them to school......times have changed for the worse these days and society seems to simply ignore the problem.

Good thread for the most part and interesting to read others thoughts on this.


----------



## Wits' End (Apr 1, 2007)

Just to throw my 1 cent in. I have 14 children, I wouldn't give any up. Neither my wife or I come from a large family. 1 sibling each  . We let God determine our family size and are quite happy. We'd like to be able to provide some better things but we make do and are satisfied.


----------



## 65535 (Apr 1, 2007)

If any of you older guys and gals want to put me in your will to accept yoru flashlights money and knives (not debt or land) I will gladly ablidge.


----------



## PEU (Apr 1, 2007)

There is the darwin awards way or a concious choice, the result is the same, you are removed from the humanity genetic pool if you do not have childrens.

Is this good or bad? 

Well nobody knows...


Pablo


----------



## thedoc007 (Sep 6, 2014)

cchurchi said:


> Even if the Earth can sustain 50 billion people and still somehow leave some habitat for other species, the human race will still have to limit it's own numbers eventually. When that day comes, how will it be done? I can't see people voluntarily choosing to abstain from reproducing. The genetic drive is too strong, just ask the Janitor I work with.



It is already happening, and no legislation, or even moral arguments are needed. As families become wealthier, healthier, etc...they choose to have fewer children. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but the trend is extraordinarily clear: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth

Don't make it a problem either way...neither someone who wants kids, or someone who doesn't, is selfish (at least not based on that preference alone). It is an individual decision, and no one else's business either way.


----------



## gunga (Sep 6, 2014)

I have a child. May have another. Either way, I think it's an individual decision. "Selfish" really doesn't apply for me. If you want kids, great, if not, also fine. Not selfish to me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Candlepowerforums


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 6, 2014)

If given the option, most guys wouldn't have kids until they were nearly retired. See also: George Clooney


----------



## Str8stroke (Sep 7, 2014)

I will just add, the brat teens & bad kids you see out and about are a direct result of their upbringing. Not ALL behave this way. For example: my PreTeen isn't allowed to have a cell phone, email, FB or any of that "social media""!! Before anyone flames me, She has ANY book she wants, and I will buy her ANY musical instrument she ever asks for. Me & My wife both help with homework every night. We sit down to eat dinner every night with no TV's on and NO Cellphones at the table. So, she is spoiled....with love, but not a brat. And doing it this way in todays times is hard. 
My brother & his wife let their 16yo daughter have all that social network junk & a Iphone. At Thanksgiving dinner she was playing on that phone. I really was upset, but its not my problem. So I know how you feel when you see it. Of course its hard to describe the love & joy a child can bring. Its not for everyone. 

WAVE PARTICLE<>This is well said!



WAVE_PARTICLE said:


> Bringing children into the world is not for everyone, especially those who embrace the misconceptions of what raising a child is really about. I'm not saying that any of you fall into this category, because I don't know you. However, I have plenty of friends who convince themselves to not have children for all the wrong reasons (making a lotta money is one of them). And I have equal number of friends who HAVE children for all the wrong reasons (pressure from parents and friends is one of them).
> 
> The underlying truth to all this is the fact that having children is a LIFE-CHANGING decision. IT WILL ALTER YOUR LIFE. Period. There's nothing truer than this. If you have any self-doubt about having a child, don't have them. Children are not dice to gamble with. They are an investment that requires a lot of time, some money and most importantly, love. Lacking any one of these necessities will bring some hardship to the child. I am not saying you need to be rich to have children, however, if you know you cannot provide the basic necessities to the child, then you should think about not having them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Sep 12, 2014)

Neat thread revival.

34 now, still no kids, both my wife and I have taken permanent steps to keep that from happening. Nobody has butted into our lives to tell us we should have kids in many many years.

We ARE selfish. Kids are a pain. Some people think they're worth it, we don't. No regrets at all.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Sep 12, 2014)

I have two kids, totally understand both sides. Respect.


----------



## markr6 (Sep 13, 2014)

Wow this is a messed up thead. My takeaway is:

1. People defending NOT having kids = because they either can't have kids, are envious of others having fun with kids and starting a family or didn't meet their soul mate soon enough and there's no going back, short of adoption.

2. People defending HAVING kids = either because they truly wanted to start a family or it happened "accidentally" and they feel a need to push this as "normal" on everyone else.

Trouble from the start. Might as well start arguing which religion or political party is better :duck:


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Sep 16, 2014)

markr6 said:


> Wow this is a messed up thead. My takeaway is:
> 
> 1. People defending NOT having kids = because they either can't have kids, are envious of others having fun with kids and starting a family or didn't meet their soul mate soon enough and there's no going back, short of adoption.
> 
> ...



markr6,

Are you suggesting that procreation isn't normal? 

~ Chance


----------



## markr6 (Sep 16, 2014)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> markr6,
> 
> Are you suggesting that procreation isn't normal?
> 
> ~ Chance



LOL no, but I see it reads that way now that I take another look. But it was not my intention.


----------



## TEEJ (Sep 16, 2014)

The arguments I'm reading are not really cases for or against.

I can't see how its necessarily selfish, or, altruistic, to have kids or not have kids....its not the right question.

For example, is it selfish to want children, as, if YOU WANT the children, OR DON'T WANT the children, isn't that in your own best interests to get what you want?

If YOU WANT a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, is it selfish to have one?

If you DON'T WANT a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, is it selfish to NOT HAVE one?

How is NOT HAVING something selfish? Is HAVING ANYTHING selfish?





If you DON'T WANT children, isn't that in your own best interests to get what you want?

If you want children, is it selfless to give them your love and resources?

If you want dogs, is it selfless to give them your love and resources?


Is it selfish to give a dog love?

What about a goldfish?

A monkey?


Are zoo keepers all selfish, and prison guards all not selfish, because its PEOPLE in the cages? Can't there be selfish prison guards and selfless zookeepers and visa versa? 


What about public service? If you are not a policeman/fireman/first aide squad, etc, member, why are you not contributing your time and effort to the community? You could volunteer, but you're too selfish?

What if you give back in other ways, because you'd rather do fund raising for the Red Cross, or put away books at the library, etc, than fight fires? Are you selfish because you chose ANOTHER WAY TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY?

What if your INTERESTS involve stamp collecting, or flashlights, or just going to work every day is so draining, and it uses all your time, that you don't have time/energy to fight fires? 

Are you selfish?


IE: ANY action could be considered to be "selfish" if you WANT to do it, under that criteria, which would mean it was impossible to be altruistic (Because if you WANTED to help someone else, then you did it to make YOURSELF happy, and so forth). I personally think that's absurd...and, if you WANT to help others, THAT means you ARE altruistic. 

BUT, there may be THOUSANDS of ways to help others/contribute to society in an altruistic way...so, is skipping ONE of them selfish? 



_WHO_ gets to decide _WHAT_ a person's interests and mental energies should be invested in?

I think the PERSON should get to decide, because its THEIR LIFE. 


Saying a person is selfish because they skipped ONE of THOUSANDS of ways to be altruistic seems a bit ridiculous.


----------



## SCEMan (Sep 16, 2014)

When I was in my 30's in my first marriage, we decided we didn't want to have children. At the time, I didn't feel selfish, but since our motivation was to be able to spend all our free time on ourselves w/o distractions, in retrospect I can see this being the case. I've since remarried with two step kids that I've raised as my own for the last 20 years, and my biggest regret is not having shared their early years as a parent. Raising two kids through adulthood meant sacrificing my time to spend time with them, and for me it was well worth it. In many ways I feel I'm a less selfish person as a result of this experience.


----------



## Full Cream (Sep 21, 2014)

Greta, I couldn't agree more.!
"Once again, it seems that it all comes down to personal responsibility. As a society, we're losing it. And yes, we've become selfish because we expect everyone else in the world to be responsible for our so-called "choices" and "rights". It is our "choice" and our "right" to breed like bunnies and then expect others to provide the financial means to care for the results. 

We need a license to get married, a license to go fishing, a license to drive a car, a license to carry a gun, a license to operate a business, a license to practice medicine or law, a license to work... but no license to bring a child into this world. Sad... very, very sad... :shakehead " 


Slightly off topic but possibly too true in my opinion.... always makes me laugh still
*Joe Rogan - 'devolution of stupid people'

*


Here's a very simple way to look at our world
Take 100 acres fenced in, throw 10 rams and 200 ewes (gen Y, I'm talking about sheep)

- leave them alone and see how long it takes before they out breed their available resources to survive
- see how long it takes before disease and starvation kick in
- not a nice way to manage a population !!!

Very condensed version of our world, pity we cant see into the future on this one, but do we really need a 'crystal ball' or someone to enforce a limit on breeding?

Orrrrr just do nothing and maybe with any luck for all living things non human, a virus will break out...

Oh wait one just has.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Sep 21, 2014)

Yes, a very simple way, indeed. What's the population of Australia per square foot? :tinfoil:

~ Chance


----------



## RA40 (Sep 21, 2014)

I've been noticing that grand parents raise the kids while the mother and father work. The prices for homes and living costs necessitate two income families for those regions. On our street there are at least 4 grand parents doing this job and it isn't just the occasional day or two scattered in. These are 4-6 days per week. People talk about those without kids being selfish, plenty of parents are selfish to think that they pass along their parenting duties to those who have already raised their kids and now cannot pursue their retirement but are given the responsibility again.


----------



## Full Cream (Sep 21, 2014)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Yes, a very simple way, indeed. What's the population of Australia per square foot? :tinfoil:
> 
> ~ Chance



well without going into the long winded in depth analysis haha

In Australia, it is enough what ever it is. Most of our country is desert and not really inhabitable. Just look at it from satellite view, see all the brown in the middle, if people want to live there they can fill their boots


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Sep 21, 2014)

Full Cream said:


> well without going into the long winded in depth analysis haha
> 
> In Australia, it is enough what ever it is. Most of our country is desert and not really inhabitable. Just look at it from satellite view, see all the brown in the middle, if people want to live there they can fill their boots



What was the landscape/environment of the area now known as Israel like 75 years ago?

~ Chance


----------



## Taz80 (Sep 21, 2014)

RA40 said:


> I've been noticing that grand parents raise the kids while the mother and father work. The prices for homes and living costs necessitate two income families for those regions. On our street there are at least 4 grand parents doing this job and it isn't just the occasional day or two scattered in. These are 4-6 days per week. People talk about those without kids being selfish, plenty of parents are selfish to think that they pass along their parenting duties to those who have already raised their kids and now cannot pursue their retirement but are given the responsibility again.



In alot of cases its not selfish its the natural order of things. Back in the day extended family's lived together and supported each other. When the elderly couldn't work any more they stayed home and helped there so the younger ones could work. People need/want to feel useful and be needed, and looking after grandkids can provide that. It can also be rewarding.


----------



## Full Cream (Sep 22, 2014)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> What was the landscape/environment of the area now known as Israel like 75 years ago?
> 
> ~ Chance



Don't know. Are you suggesting it has been devastated by the human foot print or do you mean it is better now?
Look at how much land was clear felled to claim farm land to feed population growth, that is now waste land i.e. growing crops on rain forest poor soil.


Me laughing and cringing at Joe Rogan's take on devolution can also be seen everywhere. The people who have no place having more than one child are often the ones having 6 to claim welfare. A single parent here can earn more than a person working a 40hr/week job.

I just believe most REAL world issues are born out of humans over populating, greed and having no consideration of others.

I have nothing more to add apart from I am doing my bit to not add to the population numbers. Anyone judging my genes from this choice or my opinion....who cares 
That is all.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Sep 22, 2014)

Full Cream said:


> Don't know. Are you suggesting it has been devastated by the human foot print or do you mean it is better now?



I didn't suggest anything. I asked you a question, hoping you were willing to learn.

I believe most of humankind's suffering is the direct result of greed and having no consideration for others. One child (or less) per family isn't the solution. 

~ Chance


----------



## subwoofer (Sep 22, 2014)

Though this is a very old thread, it is interesting to catch up on it several years later to see how opinions are now.

I feel inspired to reply after recently seeing something that was so different and out of place it stood out a MILE....

I refer to a family I saw in my local supermarket. The children were calm and attentive of their father who was very aware of his charges. The children's father was incredibly considerate of other people in the shop and guided his children accordingly. The group was utterly charming and a shining example of a family 'working' together and being interested in each other. While experiencing this beautiful example of parenting it made me sad that this would stand out as such an exception.

A blanket rule of one child or less per family is not the answer. This would also completely remove sibling bonds and variety in family structure.

However the human race needs to become self limiting or we will destroy the Earth. What is the answer?

Being a personal choice, I agree 100% that prospective parents should be able to pay for all of their child's needs without any tax rebates or benefit of any kind. Just like taking out a mortgage, there should be an assessment of affordability made.

But whatever answer is found it will involve control over conception or termination of pregnancy. The human race as a whole is not self regulating in its behaviour so only government is going to be able to enforce policies like this.

With regards to selfishness, the only selfish decision is to have children. Only you (and your partner in this) have made the decision, not your unborn children. You are not doing society any favours, or in some other way adding to the greater good. So deciding to have children is entirely selfish and self indulgent. If parents could really come to terms with this fundamental fact, then they would see that everything that then follows is their choice, and should not expect any help or special considerations. We make our own beds and lie in them.

By saying this I'm not saying that having children is bad, but it is selfish in the true meaning of the word. Not having children is a personal choice and the reasons for this can vary from not being able to conceive, to positively choosing not to have a child. As the world's population is not on the verge of extinction, nor are we talking about war related 'doing your bit for your country' by bringing more cannon fodder into the world, I fail to see any way in which choosing not to have a child is selfish towards the rest of the population.


----------



## markr6 (Sep 22, 2014)

subwoofer said:


> However the human race needs to become self limiting or we will destroy the Earth. What is the answer?



Not to be a pessimist, but something will come along and wipe us out eventually. Who knows what or when.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Sep 22, 2014)

subwoofer said:


> However the human race needs to become self limiting or we will destroy the Earth.
> 
> With regards to selfishness, the only selfish decision is to have children. You are not doing society any favours, or in some other way adding to the greater good. So deciding to have children is entirely selfish and self indulgent.
> 
> By saying this I'm not saying that having children is bad, but it is selfish in the true meaning of the word.



Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I'm of the opinion everything quoted above is rubbish.

~ Chauncey Gardiner


----------



## subwoofer (Sep 23, 2014)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
> 
> I'm of the opinion everything quoted above is rubbish.
> 
> ~ Chauncey Gardiner



:laughing: Surely on a forum it is not necessary to say "In my Opinion" in every post? By the very nature of a discussion forum, every post is only the opinion of the author.

I never said anything was a fact. Everything I post is my opinion and nothing more 

By all means disagree, and add to the discussion. That is the joy of forums, sharing and comparing of ideas. IMO 

Tell me more about why you disagree.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Sep 23, 2014)

> With regards to selfishness, the only selfish decision is to have children. You are not doing society any favours, or in some other way adding to the greater good. So deciding to have children is entirely selfish and self indulgent.
> 
> By saying this I'm not saying that having children is bad, but it is selfish in the true meaning of the word.
> 
> Subwoofer



Who do think found any joy reading such nonsense? Are you truly so ignorant and dense as to not understand how offensive your statements were? You've added nothing to the discussion. All you've done was boldly state that people who've decided to raise a family are entirely selfish and self indulgent. Screw you!

~ Chance


----------



## subwoofer (Sep 23, 2014)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Who do think found any joy reading such nonsense? Are you truly so ignorant and dense as to not understand how offensive your statements were? You've added nothing to the discussion. All you've done was boldly state that people who've decided to raise a family are entirely selfish and self indulgent. Screw you!
> 
> ~ Chance



I have added an opinion (which you object to), so wouldn't call that 'nothing'.

I'm only pointing out that IMO the decision to have children is selfish by the definition of that word. Why does a person or couple decide to have children? Due to a basic instinct to reproduce, or not wanting to grow old alone and have children to look after them? Etc...etc...

All of the reasons are (in most cases) based on a personal desire ("I want"). So how can any of these reasons NOT be selfish when they are based on personal desire.

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick and are taking offence to a simple word. Words often get miss-associated, as in this case you are offended by my use of the word 'selfish', when by definition most of our decisions and actions are selfish. Take the word 'celebration', by miss-association most people think this is a positive enjoyable thing, but every funeral is a celebration, as it is simply marking an important event.

Children are the future of the human race, so it is vital that children are born. But truly and honestly, how many children are born out of selfless acts? IMO the answer is very few.


----------



## thedoc007 (Sep 23, 2014)

subwoofer said:


> However the human race needs to become self limiting or we will destroy the Earth. What is the answer?



This is already in progress. The answer is good health, education, and wealth. Those alarmist people who think population growth will destroy the world are simply ignorant of the facts. No legislation, or even moral arguments are needed. As families become wealthier, healthier, etc...they choose to have fewer children. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but the trend is extraordinarily clear: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosli...ulation_growth (re-posted from earlier in the thread, because clearly many people are not familiar with the data.)



subwoofer said:


> Being a personal choice, I agree 100% that prospective parents should be able to pay for all of their child's needs without any tax rebates or benefit of any kind. Just like taking out a mortgage, there should be an assessment of affordability made.



The main problem I have with this, is that this is VERY clear class prejudice. You're saying that Bill Gates is OK to have hundreds of children (or more) while someone who is struggling to make ends meet might not even be able to have one child. You are saying that a person (through no fault of their own, necessarily) is not entitled to make their own decision. I agree that having a child for the reason of collecting extra welfare is definitely a problem...but that just isn't the case for most people. And no one knows the future...what about someone who has a decent income, but loses their job, and is unable to provide for the children in the same way? Finances are one aspect of child-rearing, and certainly they should be considered, but to say that everyone must have enough money to pay for every eventuality, no matter what, for every child, is unrealistic, and very presumptuous on your part.



subwoofer said:


> But whatever answer is found it will involve control over conception or termination of pregnancy. The human race as a whole is not self regulating in its behaviour so only government is going to be able to enforce policies like this.



This is FACTUALLY incorrect. See the video above...many countries are ALREADY in population decline. People are self-regulating, with no government intervention, or high-handed moral compulsion. 



subwoofer said:


> With regards to selfishness, the only selfish decision is to have children. Only you (and your partner in this) have made the decision, not your unborn children. You are not doing society any favours, or in some other way adding to the greater good. So deciding to have children is entirely selfish and self indulgent.



Well, there are many ways in which children do benefit society. They provide jobs for daycare workers and teachers, who would otherwise have to find alternative employment. When they mature, they contribute to Social Security, and they pay for (at least part of) YOUR retirement. They come up with new inventions, that can make a HUGE impact of the future well-being of everyone in a society. To say that children don't add to the greater good in any way, is to say that humankind is an entirely negative force in the world. If you really believe that, I feel sorry for you.

Edit: As I was typing this last bit, you posted


subwoofer said:


> Children are the future of the human race, so it is vital that children are born.



So clearly, you do see SOME value in children. Your earlier post seemed to take a different view...


----------



## subwoofer (Sep 23, 2014)

Well, clearly this is a very touchy subject.

My comments are not intended to inflame or insult anyone. If you take it this way then perhaps your over defensiveness is a sign of something else.

In fact, my comments are really there to support the OP who appeared to be concerned about being considered 'selfish' for NOT having children. I was supporting the OP not attacking those with a different view.

I also don't pretend to be right or to have a full argument either way.


You accuse me of class prejudice. This is not true. In my view it is not the 'right' of anyone to have children if they expect others to foot the bill. Simple. Maybe to state it as I did with regards to affordability is wrong, and of course people lose their jobs and circumstances change, but fundamentally 'Do you have the 'right' to expect me to pay for your children?'

Facts? I never stated any, only opinion. There is an important difference. You are free to disagree. Disagreeing with others is something you do have a 'right' to. (and before you jump down my throat, I'm not even vaguely pretending to tell you what you can and can't do)

To address your point about today's children paying for MY retirement, IF ONLY! No I am paying for my own future. My taxes are paying for my place in this world and my pension contributions are paying for my retirement.

None of my posts belittle parents or take away from the benefits of the next generation for all human kind.

The entire point of my posts is to ask honestly, how many children are born out of the parent's desire to support the future of the human race, for the benefit of the human race and not themselves? How many children are born to parents who are selflessly devoting their lives to bringing up the next generation of doctors or engineers for the sake of the human race and not out of their own pride and desires? Really, be honest.

I have yet to meet any parent who did not have children 'to carry on the family name', or 'because they really wanted to' or other similar reasons. None of these seem selfless to me.

So all I have stated are my own opinions based on all of the parents I have ever met. More of an observation than anything else. As with anything, there are always exceptions and I am certain that there are many.

Also remember that there is a very big difference between the decision to have a child and the quality of parenting given to that child. I am not commenting on anyone's parenting.


----------



## thedoc007 (Sep 23, 2014)

subwoofer said:


> My comments are not intended to inflame or insult anyone. If you take it this way then perhaps your over defensiveness is a sign of something else.



Saying that you didn't intend to cause offense doesn't mean you won't. Speaking for myself, I wasn't offended...but clearly Chauncy was. You said "by all means disagree, and add to the discussion." So I did. I actually feel that more care should be taken when deciding to have children (I don't currently have, or plan to have children), but I draw the line at suggesting governments interfere with the private lives of citizens, unless ABSOLUTELY necessary. 



subwoofer said:


> You accuse me of class prejudice. This is not true. In my view it is not the 'right' of anyone to have children if they expect others to foot the bill. Simple. Maybe to state it as I did with regards to affordability is wrong, and of course people lose their jobs and circumstances change, but fundamentally 'Do you have the 'right' to expect me to I pay for your children?'



I continue to believe the argument you made is based on class prejudice. You argument, as stated, treats people differently based solely on economics. If that isn't class prejudice, I don't know what is. I'm not saying that you personally are prejudiced, but that IS what your argument implies. Perhaps just the wording needs to be changed, to more accurately reflect your views on the subject. But as written, it is difficult for me to see how to interpret it in any other way.

If someone is intentionally having children to increase their welfare income, that is one thing...I support efforts to limit people taking advantage of any system, whether it be welfare, or Medicare fraud, or Social Security, or (insert program here.) But let's not over-generalize, and end up pushing our beliefs on others. 



subwoofer said:


> To address your point about today's children paying for MY retirement, IF ONLY! No I am paying for my own future. My taxes are paying for my place in this world and my pension contributions are paying for my retirement.



Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. An individual's tax dollars are not squirreled away, to pay for one's own retirement when one gets there. The money is being spent right now, to support people who are already retired. When one retires, one's Social Security will be paid for by current workers, not from earlier contributions. So yes, if the UK has a similar system, childen will pay for part of your retirement. Lot of people don't realize that...but that is how the system often works. If your particular country does it differently, it is definitely the exception. I'm pretty sure the UK does work the same way, but correct me if I am wrong please...always willing to learn.



subwoofer said:


> None of my posts belittle parents or take away from the benefits of the next generation for all human kind.





subwoofer said:


> You are not doing society any favours, or in some other way adding to the greater good. So deciding to have children is entirely selfish and self indulgent.



Can't have it both ways.


----------



## subwoofer (Sep 23, 2014)

And it is a pity Chauncy was offended. Not my intention.

As stated I am supporting the thread's OP.

I still stand by my question "Do YOU have the right to EXPECT me to pay for YOUR children?" Nothing to do with class. Subsidised parenting is also a very complicated topic, and not one I wish to get into here.

You are right that governments do not manage money the way it should be, and this is why many are facing a pension crisis (the UK certainly is). That is why I have no faith in ever getting my pension from the government, and instead I am squirrelling it away in more than one private pension.

When you say "Can't have it both ways.", well actually IMO you can. I AM saying that the results of people deciding to have children might end up adding to the greater good, however IMO that result is mostly a happy accident rather than being based on the parents original intent or decision process (in my experience). So, as I intended those comments, they are not in conflict, as one was based around the reasons behind the decision, and one from the actual outcome.


----------



## thedoc007 (Sep 23, 2014)

subwoofer (and anyone else to whom this message applies), 

Just hoping to clear the air. I respect your opinion, and I think we actually agree more than we disagree. But I love to debate, especially on a controversial topic like this one. I just quoted your posts because they were handy...I'm not trying to single you out. Many other people have expressed similar opinions, earlier in the thread. You are also an outstanding contributor to this forum...I have read and enjoyed your reviews, and hope to continue doing so. 

As long as we keep it civilized, and don't let it interfere with "normal" CPF activities, this can be a fun thread. To best way I have found to refine one's own views, is to be exposed to differing views. Stay classy, my friends!


----------



## subwoofer (Sep 23, 2014)

thedoc007 said:


> subwoofer (and anyone else to whom this message applies),
> 
> Just hoping to clear the air. I respect your opinion, and I think we actually agree more than we disagree. But I love to debate, especially on a controversial topic like this one. I just quoted your posts because they were handy...I'm not trying to single you out. Many other people have expressed similar opinions, earlier in the thread. You are also an outstanding contributor to this forum...I have read and enjoyed your reviews, and hope to continue doing so.
> 
> As long as we keep it civilized, and don't let it interfere with "normal" CPF activities, this can be a fun thread. To best way I have found to refine one's own views, is to be exposed to differing views. Stay classy, my friends!



 I'm with you on that! A good bit of debating and experiencing differing views is what I love about forums.

I'm not afraid to be controversial, and enjoy a good 'discussion' 

I also hope that expressing a few opinions does not conflict with my other contributions to the forum. I'm a CPFer first and foremost and part of the community.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Sep 23, 2014)

They have a saying in Las Vegas Nevada, also known as Vegas or more defining Sin City. _What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. _I consider it a loathsome invitation and am hesitant to use it here. Nevertheless, for me, personally, what "happens" in this thread, stays in this thread. 

~ Chance


----------

