Why should I have children???

jaylee3

lisyloo wrote: »

I'm 46 (and female). When I was in my 20's I never wanted kids and was also convinced I'd never change my mind. I haven't and I don't regret it.


We've been able to do things because we don't have children - have a nice house, travel, have exciting hobbies like hot air ballooning, scuba diving etc. that most parents can't do. I believe my sub-conscious reasons are not having a happy childhood. The reason I conclude this is that my sister (47) and my 2 brothers (44 and 45) don't have any kids either. That's quite unusual for 4 people and more than a coincidence.
Whereas my cousins who had a happy unbringing all have kids.
This isn't a conscious thing but I do think it affects your outllook.

.

Why do people who have no children always insist that people with children don't have a 'life' and cannot do things that child-free couples do? Everyone I know with children does virtually everything that their childfree acquaintances do. Everyone I know with children still has a nice car, nice holidays, nice house. And believe it or not, having kids doesn't stop people scuba diving and hot air ballooning! :rotfl:

sulphate wrote: »

I'm pregnant with my first child and I don't understand this comment. I think the vast majority of women these days realise that they have a choice to have children or not.

That wordpress article was clearly written by someone too bitter about their own childhood and upbringing to present an unbiased view, it's funny and a bit ridiculous.

I would never question someone's choice not to have children because I'm not arrogant enough to just assume everyone wants the same things I do.

As for the whole "just adopt". I posted this on another thread a few days ago, but feel it's relevant here. Perhaps this is why many people don't go down that route.

From www.adoptionuk.org

This ^^^ When people say just adopt, it makes my blood boil, because they obviously have no idea whatso EVER how hard it is, and the hoops people have to jump through to adopt.

And I have to agree with many people on here that the wordpress article was disgusting, and clearly the rantings of a very bitter woman.

heartbreak_star wrote: »

Maybe I'm just jaded, and probably phrased myself badly!

I just remember a girl at my last workplace who refused to even entertain the idea of adopting because it "wouldn't be HER child because it wouldn't have HER and HER BOYFRIEND'S genetic material and that's the ONLY REASON to have a baby" *cue hysterics*. I've heard similar sentiments before while I was growing up, that an adopted child is somehow second-class.

I think this has coloured my view - having a baby PURELY to pass on your genetic material is selfish. Having a baby because you love your partner and want to bring a child into a loving environment isn't - though I still stick by the opinion that more people should consider adoption when planning a child

HBS x

There is nothing in the world selfish about wanting your own 'genetic' baby. And I would not think any more of people who adopt than people who have their own 'genetic' children. They are simply making different choices. I find it most bizarre that people say people who want their own genetic children rather than adopting, are selfish. That is a new one on me!

What's more, the majority of people having children are NOT doing it to 'pass on their genes;' they are doing it because they want a child for goodness sake!

alias*alibi wrote: »

I called you vile, self-obsessed and vain. My opinion hasn't changed. Not because of your choice of remaining child free but the utter carp you keep posting. Still; with all the money you will save remaining child free you might be able to afford a personality transplant to go with your cosmetic surgery when your 'youthful looks' start to fade. :cool:

:T:T:T

BunnieJ

I've been lurking on here for a while. I'm in a similar position to the OP (26, partner wants kids in the future, I'm not sure if I do). Why should you have children? There's no right or wrong answer.

If you want kid's and are able to have them, great. Have them. If you're not bothered about having kids, then don't. In my mind it seems that simple. A lot of carp had been posted on here about being "selfish", "irresponsible" and "vain" etc but it's your choice. Your decision. Your body. Do what YOU want to do.

Unfortunately that may mean splitting from your long term partner, or disappointing your family...so what?! It's your life and you have to be happy and do what you think is best for you. I certainly wouldn't want to bring a child into the world/adopt a child if I wasn't 100% sure I wanted kids. It's no good for you and no good for them.

We do need to face the fact that we are overpopulating the Earth, (I think David Attenborough made some comment on this and was shot down in disgust by many) but it's true. However calling people selfish for having/not having kids is pathetic.

Each to their own. Just don't have kids because you're "expected" to have them or to please a partner. Only do it if you know that you truly want kids.

[Deleted User]

Please stop peddling the 'overpopulated earth' line - the third world is doing that for us, not the western world. We don't even know the potential for the worlds capacity either.

The western world will depend heavily on immigration if it continues to decline it's birthrate. It is common to see that birthrates in countries drop as the education/standard of living of women increases.

Every biological organism is selfish. It's part of existing. If you aren't selfish then why don't you give all your money to others? Or only eat the bare minimum to survive? Even your own survival is selfish.

---

On a side note, there's a heavy pressure on families such as mine (i.e. Jewish ones) to have a few kids - because it's the only way to maintain the numbers of The Tribe. You are 'meant' to have 3 kids - two to replace you and one to 'grow' the number of Jewish children (since plenty of Jewish kids choose to marry non-Jews or not follow the religion)

cloudy-day

Newlyboughthouse wrote: »

*sigh* and as said in another of my previous posts, people will always procreate. It's just more women need to realise they have a CHOICE not to.

Maybe some women WANT to 'procreate'? Or have a family as normal people say.

You have your opinion and I respect that, but please respect others who do not agree with you, you come across as very rude and arrogant in your posts.

If you don't want children then don't have them - but don't continue to insult those who are happy with their life choices, and their lovely kids!

seven-day-weekend

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Please stop peddling the 'overpopulated earth' line - the third world is doing that for us, not the western world. We don't even know the potential for the worlds capacity either.

The western world will depend heavily on immigration if it continues to decline it's birthrate. It is common to see that birthrates in countries drop as the education/standard of living of women increases.

Every biological organism is selfish. It's part of existing. If you aren't selfish then why don't you give all your money to others? Or only eat the bare minimum to survive? Even your own survival is selfish.

---

On a side note, there's a heavy pressure on families such as mine (i.e. Jewish ones) to have a few kids - because it's the only way to maintain the numbers of The Tribe. You are 'meant' to have 3 kids - two to replace you and one to 'grow' the number of Jewish children (since plenty of Jewish kids choose to marry non-Jews or not follow the religion)

My Orthodox Jewish friend had two (boys). One has not married at all, but the other one married within the faith and has ten children. So I think as a family he has replaced his brother and himself and has six spares

jaylee3

cloudy-day wrote: »

Many some women WANT to 'procreate'? Or have a family as normal people say.

You have your opinion and I respect that, but please respect others who do not agree with you, you come across as very rude and arrogant in your posts.

If you don't want children then don't have them - but don't continue to insult those who are happy with their life choices, and their lovely kids!

This ^^^

Unfortunately, I guess people choosing to remain child free have had a bit of a rough ride with people telling them they're not normal, and they will regret it, and they won't know real love until they have their own children yada yada. And so they spend all their adult lives constantly defending their decision. And even by middle age, when they meet someone new, and they tell them they have no kids, there is an awkward silence. So I believe that by a certain age, they become very defensive - understandably.

However with some (not all) but some child free by choice people, that defensiveness has manifested into attacking and ridiculing people who do have children, and also being pretty mean about children in general.

They come out with every reason under the sun why their lives are 'better' because they are child free, and insist that mommies are all frumpy baby bores, and that they are horrible selfish self centred individuals because they have the temerity to want a child of their own! Some of the things I have heard some child free people say, range from ludicrous to extremely vitriolic.

As many have said on here, defend your right to not have children by all means, but don't be so vile about people who DO have them. People who do this come across as very bitter and vindictive. I am sure they are not, but when they rant and rave about parents and children in the manner that some child free people do; it makes them sound like that.

At the end of the day, everyone should be free to do whatever makes them happy; whether that is having 7 kids or having none.

stir_crazy

cloudy-day wrote: »

Maybe some women WANT to 'procreate'? Or have a family as normal people say.

You have your opinion and I respect that, but please respect others who do not agree with you, you come across as very rude and arrogant in your posts.

If you don't want children then don't have them - but don't continue to insult those who are happy with their life choices, and their lovely kids!

I agree with this post, people are free to make their own choices in life, and whilst I might not agree with some choices, it is not for me to force my own views and opinions on anyone else. It takes all sorts to make a world.

I myself am not planning on having children, for many reasons. All of my friends have now had children, which means that I dont get to see them as often as I did and that I have kiddie updates when I do hear from them. I couldnt be happier for them. I certainly don't feel that I've made the "better" choice (for want of a better word), but neither do I feel like I'm missing out.

FBaby

I am confused as to why considering genetics an important factor in the choice of becoming a parent is seen as such a terrible thing? Genetics do play a part in making our children, not just physically but their personality. It never became so obvious to me until I had my own children. Does this mean that I would never consider adopting? No at all, genetics are not everything but they are something. The two don't have to be exclusive.

The only selfish parents are those who give birth to children who have to go through the grief of being put for adoption and worse never experience the love of a parent not those who are not prepared to pick up for their mistake.

thorsoak

Low Birth Rates: Causes, Consequences and Remedies

Fears that the world's population was growing too large have given way to tumbling birth rates, but this too can bring about unwelcome changes

Not long ago a vocal concern was about high fertility in the world and a rapidly growing population. Remember the currently quiet zero population growth (ZPG) movement? The tide has turned since the worry now is about too few births and a falling population.
The reason for this shift in attitude is that over 80 countries have fewer births than required to replace the number of individuals who die each year. They need a large flow of immigrants each year just to prevent their populations from peaking and then declining. These low birth countries contain over 40 percent of the world's population, including every country in Western Europe, China, Japan, Russia, Poland and Canada, to name just a few. Birth rates in many other countries, including the United States, Mexico and Iran, are only a little above the level necessary to replace the number of deaths.
Scholars measure the level of fertility by the total fertility rate (TFR), which equals the average number of children born to women over their lifetimes. Countries with TFRs below the replacement level of about 2.1 fall into the low fertility camp. Essentially no countries were in this camp in 1970, but in each succeeding decade many additional countries fell below replacement levels. Moreover, and this is important, in not a single country has the TFR ever risen above replacement once it fell below.
As late as the beginning of this century, demographers and others were predicting a rapid growth in world population to over 11 billion by the year 2050. The rapid emergence of low fertility in so many countries has already made these forecasts obsolete. Populations forecasts now assume much lower future fertility levels, but even the present consensus that world population will be about 9.5 billion by mid-century may be too high as fertility continues to fall rapidly in poorer countries.
There is growing discussion in many low fertility countries about the negative consequences of having fewer young persons, and the prospects, already a reality in Germany, Japan, Russia and a few other countries with low immigration levels, of declining populations. In richer countries, retirement incomes and medical care of the elderly are largely financed by taxes on the younger working population. Low birth rates eventually lead to fewer men and women of working ages, and hence a smaller tax base to finance social security payments, unless the fewer children born have sufficiently greater amounts invested in their education and other human capital.
Although potential difficulties in financing social security benefits are receiving the most attention, other negative effects of low birth rates may be of equal or greater importance. Low fertility reduces the rate of scientific and other innovations since innovations mainly come from younger individuals. Younger individuals are also generally more adaptable, which is why new industries, like high-tech startups, generally attract younger workers who are not yet committed to older and declining industries.
The great majority of countries have had growing populations during the past 250 years as world population grew at unprecedented rates. Yet ever since Malthus wrote his great work on the harmful effects of population growth on incomes, group after group has opposed high fertility and growing populations as bad for the world's food supply, standard of living and environment, including local and global pollution.
However, these possible negative effects of larger populations have to be weighed against the sizable benefits from more people. These benefits include a larger number of young persons who, as mentioned, are more likely to innovate, such as coming up with more efficient ways to grow food, and pay for the benefits to retired men and women. A bigger population also increases the demand for new drugs, software, social networking and other innovations that have increasing returns to the scale of demand.
To be sure, if higher birth rates lead to lesser education and other human capital investments in each child, they may result in lower, not higher, per capita incomes. Malthus' fear of lower per capita incomes explains his strong opposition to high birth rates. However, the rapid growth in world population during past 250 years has been accompanied by unprecedented high per capita incomes all over the world. Whatever the Malthusian negative effects of greater population, they have been dominated by factors that raised per capita incomes, including the benefits of increasing returns and other advantages from having a larger population.
China is seriously considering either greatly modifying or completely abandoning its one-child policy because of its effects on the number of young persons and population decline. A while back, France instituted a generous and expensive system of financial support to families that have two or more births. Germany, Japan, South Korea, Russia and other countries are discussing and sometimes implementing similar child support programs.
Whether a subsidy is justified depends on whether the benefits from more births and a larger population, including the benefits to the families having children, exceed the cost of encouraging births, such as the budgetary costs to governments of a child support program, potentially greater environmental damage and the like. Even if, as I firmly believe, that on the whole greater population in the modern world has more benefits than costs, one has to recognize that programs to stimulate births are expensive, aside from simply ending birth suppression policies, as in China's one-child regulatory policy.
For example, to cut the gap in half between Germany's actual TFR of about 1.4 and a replacement level of fertility of 2.1 requires a 25 percent increase in the number of births. Yet such a large increase in fertility has not been achieved by any past fertility subsidy programs, even expensive ones, presumably because children are so costly to raise in the money, time and energy of parents. A more modest 10 to 15 percent growth in fertility might be achievable with generous and expensive programs, as in France. Perhaps a full benefit cost analysis would show that such a program is warranted, but the jury on this is still out.

The author, Gary Becker, is a professor of economics and sociology at the University of Chicago and a professor at the Booth School of Business

Carmina-Piranha_2

Liz3yy wrote: »

I would also add that even if I did want children it wouldn't be recommended that I did - I'm very short and have a small pelvis so delivery would be difficult, not to mention I have blood pressure issues and Moderately zero pain tolerance. I once attempted having a copper coil fitted but the pain from the procedure made me pass out - my GP didn't even get the coil in before the cramping got too much, she said the pain I felt was akin to labour pains! I'm not going through that for anyone

I take valium beforehand :T It's worth the pain for the 4-5 years a mirena coil gives me. It's more than contraception for me, it sorts out most of my endometriosis pain too.

The first time I had a coil fitted though, my friend who was waiting outside thought I was in labour, I was screaming so much, and the doctor referred me to the hospital to get it put in there.