Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Sex and Relationships

"Kids Are a Pain in the Ass": 40 Reasons to Abstain from Having Children

By Vanessa Richmond, The Tyee. Posted August 7, 2009.


People who don't have kids have more sex, more career success and a far smaller environment footprint than people who do.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Could it be that being childfree will ever be as legit as being a parent? That breeding could be seen as a choice: zero, one, two or even eight kids. Or even, like being gay, be seen as a matter of brain wiring, and not a sign of deviance or bad judgment.

Why does it matter? I get asked at least once a week whether I'm having kids. (My male friends don't, but that's another story). Other childless friends, who also get asked, say that when they answer that they can't have kids, that they've tried, that they've spent their retirement savings and house down payments on fertility treatments (and subjected themselves to hormone treatments, torturous procedures and endless needle jabs) people respond with awkwardness and pity, and emphatically tell them what else they must try.

But that's nothing like the friends who say they don't want to have kids. They're openly judged, even derided, then subjected to intense lobbying efforts and proselytizing.

When the thing is, even though there are great reasons to have kids, there are arguably far more reasons not to. In fact, it might be a better idea to be cautious towards people who want to breed, and actually grateful to the people who abstain (even though the desire to breed is understandable, of course). If childlessness (or "childfreeness," as it's now often referred to) were seen as a positive choice, and not an expected act or an essential part of female identity, everyone (including parents) would benefit.

The Childfree Buzz

Interest in the topic is breeding (sorry), like in [the popular Canadian magazine] Maclean's this week, for example. "The Case Against Having Kids," outlines extensive scientific, psychological and anthropological research that concludes childfreeness is a better choice for individuals and the planet.

But the most provocative and furor-inducing contribution on the topic is the book, No Kids: 40 Good Reasons Not to Have Children, by Corinne Maier, released last year in France and coming out this week in North America.

Maier, the mother of a 14- and 11-year-old says if she could make the choice again to have kids, she's "not sure" she would (inciting the most pernicious slur that can be slung at a woman, of course: "bad mother.") But she says that given her status as a mother, she feels compelled to speak out. If she were childless, she argues in the book, her offering would be dismissed as nothing more than the ranting of a bitter, childless woman.

In the introduction to Maier's manifesto, she says she was prompted to write No Kids after a conversation with friends (over several glasses of wine -- hey, this is France) who told her they felt like social deviants because they didn't want children. "It's acceptable for women to delay having a baby," she writes, "but to refuse to? No way!"

More Kids, Less Sex

But Maier says everyone should "take warning from France's example" of going from the least to the most fertile country in Europe. In France, raising the birth rate became an urgent national identity crusade, but has lead to nothing but negative results.

She writes: "The truth is the more your fecundity increases, the fewer there are of you who can call yourselves happy... Becoming a parent means giving up everything else: your life as a couple, your leisure time, your sex life, your friends, and if you're a woman, your career success."

Maier goes on to list 40 reasons to abstain from breeding, including the fact that childlessness means more sex. She says parents have less fun, fewer friends, and unhappier relationships. They have less money, less successful careers (especially women) and less time or energy to be creative or fulfilled. She says that parents today are held hostage by experts, and by the expectation that they be Superman or Superwoman at all times. "The education of children has become a sacrament: society demands of parents [that they be] always on call, smiling, attentive, teacherly and responsible." She says having children forces you into a life of conformity, and that kids are invariably disappointing. That you go from being a person and an individual to a bored slave. "Children are a pain in the ass."

Maier also argues, as many others do, that children are the worst thing we can do to the environment. "Listen, your marvelous babies have no future because every child born in a developed country is an ecological disaster for the whole planet."

Her conclusion: "Take the necessary precautions... the only solution is contraception."

Breeding Possibilities

Whether her manifesto will lead to a lower birthrate is debatable. But if her work somehow fertilizes the idea that breeding is an option, and that childlessness should be celebrated, it could lead to the birth of a whole new range of identity options and possibilities for women, men and the planet.

 


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: sex, environment, children, career, family, kids, breeding, childlessness, offspring

Tyee Contributing Editor Vanessa Richmond writes the Schlock and Awe column about popular culture and the media. She is also the former managing editor of the Tyee.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Parenthood is the capstone of mediocrity.
Posted by: Seppuku on Aug 7, 2009 12:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has always amused my when average people, especially women, try to aggrandize themselves with their kids. “Well, I might not be a Doctor/Lawyer/CEO/Astronaut but I’m a mother”.

My parents and extended family know better than to ask but, on occasion, I’ll get the “So when are you going to get married and have kids”. I then explain that last Thanksgiving, I climbed the Great Wall. This 4th of July, I was in Ankor Wat. I’m finishing my SCUBA certification to dive in the Great Barrier Reef. I recently earned my black belt in Hapkido. Let’s not forget that I get a night’s sleep without waking up to clean feces.

I suppose I’m hollow inside because I’m not pissing away the 27th year of my life dealing with ba-bas and blankies. Even if I become an accidental father, I will do nothing for that bastard but send in the minimum mandated child support, if that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are indeed hollow Posted by: foreverhope
» No, she is SMART Posted by: terradea42
» RE: You are indeed hollow Posted by: pjnaltykins
» RE: Parenthood is not mediocrity. Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Parenthood is not mediocrity. Posted by: esuriospiritus
» RE: Parenthood is not mediocrity. Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Parenthood is not mediocrity. Posted by: esuriospiritus
» RE: Parenthood is the capstone of mediocrity. Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» What crap Posted by: KrisLea
» RIGHT ON! Posted by: lupuslefou
» What Women Say Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: seppuku Posted by: Ramentime
Obviously there are women that should never have children
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 7, 2009 12:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our children are the future. Having children and being with them has brought more joy and satisfaction to me than any job or career, or any amount of dating, or sexual escapades and fantasies, or a gazillion lunches with girlfriends. I cherish every moment and memory.

I could easily give you 5000 examples of the happiness my children have brought to my life. If one's mentality and temperment are nurturing I highly recommend having children. Or you can look forward to putting a picture of your dog over your fireplace when you are old.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And so far as money goes Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: So explain why Posted by: batmagoo
» RE: my stupid ideas Posted by: batmagoo
» Well wasn't that shallow? Posted by: clvngodess
» You're right! Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: You're right! Posted by: MT512
The most selfish thing anyone could do...
Posted by: esuriospiritus on Aug 7, 2009 12:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is to completely ignore the state of the future the next generation will inherit and instead continue to obey the primal instinct of passing on your DNA. Really, if you must have children, at least adopt the ones that already exist. How terrible to knowingly dump all of today's problems on your own flesh and blood.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pathetic Post-Fem.
Posted by: Tobbias88 on Aug 7, 2009 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a sad selfish woman. If her mum had had that attitude we wouldn't have been listening to such demented snug ravings. This sort of crass niggardly feminism has utterly failed the nation - hence look where we are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You really are one sick pup Posted by: foreverhope
» Insults & facing the truth Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Insults & facing the truth Posted by: batmagoo
» RE: You really are one sick pup Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
Docent
Posted by: Docent on Aug 7, 2009 1:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's about time that someone told the truth about having kids. They're not for everyone and once they're here - you're stuck with them.
Perhaps in the future, people will be required to get specialized training and licenses to have them instead of just overpopulating the earth which has finite resources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Docent Posted by: hyemlich
» RE: Docent Posted by: qwertyu
The only thing better than having children is having grandchildren
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 7, 2009 1:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My infant son burst into the world with few labor pains and a beautiful smile on his face. The same smile I see 28 years later. He never cried for two hours till the nurse insisted on taking him to the nursery.

The memories of nursing my baby girl. She was the happiest baby the world has ever seen and now a beautiful young woman, accomplished, kind.

Watching my grandchildren being born, holding them, the many joys we've shared as a family, spending long summer days with them now, these are joys no amount of money can bring.

And who knows, down the road when I am gone to meet my ancestors, perhaps one of my off-spring will find a cure for AIDS or solve the crisis in the Middle East and make the world a safer place for all humanity or something else to make the world a better place than it is now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great Post! Posted by: AuditTheFed
» RE: Great Post! Posted by: foreverhope
» Where's the love? Posted by: AuditTheFed
» RE: Where's the love? Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: you are intolerant Posted by: qwertyu
» Trite Posted by: terradea42
» the original poster's drivel Posted by: foreverhope
» You asked Posted by: foreverhope
» More drivel Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: More drivel. I agree. Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: More drivel. I agree. Posted by: foreverhope
More pathetic rantings from a suicidal abortionist
Posted by: AuditTheFed on Aug 7, 2009 1:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When we stop having children, all of our social programs like Social Security and Medicare will go bankrupt. Again, Marxists show their total lack of honesty or economic understanding.

Why do Marxists hate children so much?

Is it because you're a failed loser and you resent the young and all their potential?

Is it because you hate God and all of His miraculous creations?

Is it because you're ugly and no one wants to breed with you?

Honestly, given the choice between hanging out with happy, innocent children, who just want to laugh and play or hanging out with angry, bitter leftists who just want to bitch and moan... the choice is clear.

If you really want to reduce your carbon footprint and save the world, do us all a favor and hang yourself.

Go abort yourself, you worthless loser.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So true Posted by: Hiroak
» ...Wow. Posted by: esuriospiritus
» Speaking of one-balled abortions Posted by: GuitarBill
» I'm a Marxist Posted by: Robba29
» Why do "Marxists" hate children? Posted by: Steven Wanzell
» I hope your day gets better. Posted by: Tom Tele
This is just backwards.
Posted by: uncertain on Aug 7, 2009 1:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, I'm not the biggest fan of breeding. I personally think that there's far too many people in the world, and it seems that it's really just idiots getting together and making even more idiots. (There oughta be a law, and all that...)

Having said that, the idea that you shouldn't have children is because you can have more SEX (among other things) is just circular reasoning. Not only is the articles title indicative of the author's intent, but there's an entire section devoted to the fact that you can have more SEX (among other things).

Is that the best reason? You can have SEX? SEX is the reason to live? SEX sells, so I see why SEX is featured in the article's title and SEX is SEX and SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX (among other things).

Is SEX all there is? Is that the end-all be-all of existence for people who think (and write) like this?

Is that what humanity has been reduced to? Everybody's just a big, walking, talking genital looking for a release somewhere? Everything everybody does revolves around SEX? Every choice they make is based on how much SEX it will get them? And SEX is good and SEX is fun and who doesn't like SEX and SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX.

(Among other things.)

People who spend all their time thinking about sex are emotionally crippled, backwards, evolutionary degenerates.

Just fucking die already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is just backwards. Posted by: Martin32
» What was it Plato said, Posted by: paulmagillsmith
» RE: This is just backwards. Posted by: Smiggsy
» RE: This is just backwards. Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: This is just backwards. Posted by: uncertain
» thank you uncertain... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: thank you uncertain... Posted by: Dysphoric1
» What ignorant hatefilled drivel! Posted by: chariotdrvr14
» RE: This is just backwards. Posted by: mr. joshua
Kids
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 7, 2009 2:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of it has to do with conformity, superficial reasons, motherly instincts and so on.

But hearing a conversation the other day reinforced another reason: Some people are afraid of being bored, disconnected and alienated. Not having children is cool when you're 25, and you want to party and build a career. But what about when you're 55, sitting home alone, and don't know what to do with yourself, because you have no kids to borrow your money, no grandkids to spoil, and all your friends and relatives have ditched you because they're occupied with their families?

It's a hole we've dug ourselves into. We've abandoned any sense of community in order to be with our families, and have left ourselves with no other way to feel connected than to make babies. Some of us are content being oddballs, hippies, the cool aunt, and so on. But I think most people are so afraid of staring at the wall and being kicked out of the club that they will spare no effort or expense to pump a few out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That is so not true! Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Kids Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
She ignores the most important part:
Posted by: clresu on Aug 7, 2009 2:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as people we grow more from loving someone than from anything else. This is the most important thing. Having a kid provides the easiest opportunity to do this . . . and this is why it might be said, "my kid's a blessing." The blessing is that you're given an opportunity to love . . completely and fully, no strings attached. We can only grow by loving . . . whether it's a kid or a whatever else.

I never planned on having a kid. In fact, I swore I'd never, ever, ever have a kid, but it just happened.

I also can't help but think of something a friend of mine said: "those who shouldn't procreate do, and those who should don't." I know I'm an exception to this, without doubt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "but it just happened." Posted by: DJC11
Missing the point
Posted by: Martin32 on Aug 7, 2009 2:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I and my partner have chosen not to have children, but I don't think the reasons given in this column meet the case. Also, if your friends give you that much hassle about your choice to not have children, my advice is get new friends. My friends are a mostly couples of a similar age to myself (early 30s), some with children and some without. We do not berate each other over our lifestyle choices! Then again, I suppose some of it's about respect. I don't generally refer to my friends as "breeders", or lecture them about pollution and overpopulation, or constantly tell them how annoying their kids are (they're not, by the way).
I've chosen not to have kids because I think that it's a huge responsibility that I'd rather not have. The real negatives of parenthood are the same as the positives - the emotional tie. The fears, anxieties and stresses that come with children's first visits to hospital, injuries, bullying, unhappiness, resentment of you as childhood adoration gives way to teenaged rebellion and so on. I want no part of that, and don't see the rewards as greater than the hardships. Many parents would disagree with me, and fair play to them. My own father, keen though he is to have grandchildren, understands fully my decision and supports it. It's a pity, because he would be a great Grandad - perhaps my brother will deal with that.
But I do feel that this generation is getting way too thin skinned when it comes to children. People complain about parents when their kids cry in public places or on public transport - give them a break! Small children will cry from time to time - it's not the end of the world. For the record, I can promise you that parents don't "tune it out". They just learn that they can't let their kids always get their way by crying.
And all this stuff about changing nappies and so on. Is it unpleasant? Yes, but it's no big deal. It's just a job that needs doing. As far as money goes, who cares? As long as you have enough to feed, clothe and shelter yourself and entertain/amuse yourself a little, you have enough.
I guess my rambling post is just building up to this really. We should all respect each other's choices about parenthood, as about anything else. But, for goodness' sake, don't base your choice on how much money you have, or how much extra sex you'll have. Look deep inside yourself, ask yourself if you really want to have children, and consider the real rewards and sacrifices of being a parent. Discuss it with your partner and find out what they really want. Then do what you want and live your life 100% the way you have chosen to. And if anyone belittles you for it, whatever your choice, ask yourself whether or not you need them in your life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your post is EXCELLENT! Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Your post is EXCELLENT! Posted by: Martin32
» RE: Your post is EXCELLENT! Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: Your post is EXCELLENT! Posted by: uncertain
» RE: Missing the point Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Missing the point Posted by: Martin32
Babies Suck
Posted by: RevolutionNet on Aug 7, 2009 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FREE AMERICA

NEGATIVE POPULATION GROWTH

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Zero Population Growth (ZPG) Posted by: paulmagillsmith
» NPG Posted by: socialpsych
» So then abort yourself! Posted by: AuditTheFed
» abort yourself! Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: abort yourself! Posted by: MT512
» RE: So then abort yourself! Posted by: qwertyu
...Wow.
Posted by: esuriospiritus on Aug 7, 2009 3:50 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought I'd clarified pretty well the first time when I said that I only hated people that claimed to be one thing (a follower of Christ) and acted otherwise (as in, lies, hate speech and fearmongering common among politicians of ALL stripes). If the only way you think you can overcome my points is by making huge generalizations and assumptions about the kind of person I am and what I believe when I've said nothing of the sort, the only thing you're doing is making yourself look incompetent.

I've tried to keep the conversation civil and without personal insult on my end up until now, and all I've received from you in return are ignorant assumptions that have little or no basis in reality ("It excludes the evil deeds of Jews and Muslims, who are very conservative on many issues, not to mention the crazy behavior of Easterners. Also, a lot of the pro-life, anti-gay Christians that you hate so much are not white; they're black and brown. Just look at Prop 8, passed by blacks and Latinos. Stop hating whites!" -- I've never seen anything so blatantly racist, ignorant and, if I may coin the term, religionist on this site.)

Next time, kindly either refrain from making personal attacks and massive generalizations or, better yet, don't bother responding at all. You've already proven yourself to be a pretty terrible conversationalist and debater and I'd hate for you to make any more of an idiot of yourself than you already have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ...Wow. Posted by: esuriospiritus
» RE: ...Wow. Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: ...Wow. Posted by: uncertain
A jaded perspective?
Posted by: cmagda on Aug 7, 2009 4:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm all for choice concerning most everything in one' life, that's a fundamental in a Democratic society. And yes, we have overpopulated our planet with ourselves, you included. I have heard many, and know some personally who are friends, that have abstained from having children for various reasons. However, I have also noticed that in the people I mention, endured a childhood that was not of their liking, and real at the thought the role they would take on, as if they would have to be like their parents in the manner they despised and resent. It's human to think this way when you have been mistreated as a child. But one must come to terms with their disfunction, and realize that many parents hold dear their experience as parents, would have it no other way, knowing full well what they have sacrificed in return. I was raised by my mother, and she made me a happy child. That was her gift to me. Her children were everything to her, and she would have it no other way. For the human race to be healthy, we need good parents, that's fundamental. So you see, it's OK for you to not want children, but I believe you see childhood and parenthood through a very distorted lens, and you are jaded in your perspective of both.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DrBob
Posted by: ProfBob on Aug 7, 2009 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a licensed family therapist and retired professor in the discilpine, I must note that the research in the area is clear. childless relationships are overwhelmingly more happy than those with children. About one of ten relationships is happier because of the children.
Then there is the problem some commentators have mentioned, the world's overpopulation. Might I suggest reading Book 6 of the free ebook series "And Gulliver Returns" (http://andgulliverreturns.info) for some positives and negatives regarding our psychological motivations, and Book 1 on the overpopulation problem.
If we are to be happy as individuals and if we are to survive in our world, intelligence must overcome our traditions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DrBob Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: DrBob Posted by: ProfBob
» RE: DrBob Posted by: PDJr
» RE: DrBob Posted by: ProfBob
What Non sense!
Posted by: ramanan50 on Aug 7, 2009 4:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even animals tend to nurture their offspring.
Everything in the world is a pain.Living itself is a pain.Shall we commit suicide?
You need people to live with, that is the basic instinct of gregariousness;also desire to propagate one's own is a basic instinct, granted by Nature, notwthstanding pseudo scientific researches.I can tell you of n number of my friends who happened to be girls, who ,in youth declared that marriage is a pain in the ass and children still worse, now, 30 years later admit they have money, had sex but yearn now for companionship and children.They can't get it now.Don't regret later.That is what Life is all about-face challenges and be happy,do not run away from responsibilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Non sense! Posted by: TheExpatriate
Hmmmmmm....
Posted by: Nebris on Aug 7, 2009 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder why the 'childfree' have such a compulsion to tell the world how fabulous their lives are without children?

I understand why those with children so often engage in the 'mirror behavior': their little darlings are ever present and active.

But what is that drives those that have no such stimuli? And to do so with such vigor? ['vigor' was the kindest word I could think of in this context]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hmmmmmm.... Posted by: SalB
The biggest pains in the ass?
Posted by: Beck on Aug 7, 2009 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The relationship police.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

budgeting for children
Posted by: littlepitcher on Aug 7, 2009 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of us had all the children we could afford. In my case, that was zero.

Some of us raise children on the job. Others spend 8 or more hours a day dealing with childish adults and bosses and are prohibited from teaching them or rearing them to adult behavior.

Many of us are married to childish husbands, and get our 16 hours of required childish behavior there.

Not every childless woman is as childless as she appears to be. We deal with infantile behavior all the time, and decided to set one, just one, boundary that the infantile don't like.

Too bad you all can't handle that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: budgeting for children Posted by: clvngodess
» On the other hand...... Posted by: CynicI
Or you could just grow up first.
Posted by: Obijuan on Aug 7, 2009 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author sounds like a whining child. I want, I want, I need, me me me.

You don't want to have kids, fine. But if you've never had kids, aren't any problems that causes you YOUR own FAULT.

If people bother you about it, grow up. Live with your choices. Get new friends. But don't whine about it.

Seriously, not having children because of the responsibility is a good reason. As nasty as you are about the kid thing, better not mix your gametes indeed.

The bottom line is surely that changing our society is going to take more than blogging and a bunch of people deciding not to have kids. It's going to take a new generation of free thinking intelligent children, who are brought up from a young age to understand how societies are manupulated, public opinion is controlled, the value of local economies, and understand all the terrible and dishonest aspects of war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Diversity
Posted by: Skeptic10 on Aug 7, 2009 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is when the Alternet is great: lots of passionate opinionated people letting it all hang out. I agree with much of what the author says and child free should not be stigmatized. I also know that you cannot replicate the love that gratuitously emanates from your child. And despite the fact that my son can be a royal pain in the ass I would not give him up voluntarily for any amount of fame, treasure, travel, friendship, sex, whatever. Selfish, sure, but as it has been said many times, the purest act for the environment that an individual could perform would be to kill him or herself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you!
Posted by: PeacefulSyl on Aug 7, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is so relieving to read an article like this. I'm 99.5% sure I never want to have kids and I get so sick of hearing "You'll change your mind" and how wonderful breeding is when I have no desire to do so. I enjoy my freedom and independence, and would never trade my lifestyle for the lifestyles of my friends who juggle family with the rest of their life. It's nice to have some validation into what I'm thinking and finally feel like I'm still a wonderful person even if I don't want children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» thank you, lightwing. n/m Posted by: kww355
My daughter is nine.....and awesome!
Posted by: Allstar Cookie on Aug 7, 2009 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To this day, my wife and I are as excited about her life as we were the second she was born. We wanted three.....we were lucky to have one.

Even though we both wanted children, when my wife was pregnant, I couldn't imagine my life with a child.......now I couldn't imagine my life without her.


Allstar Cookie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kids
Posted by: aztopping on Aug 7, 2009 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi,

Although the author cites helping the environment as one reason for not having children she puts it at the end of the article. Saving the environment and helping to reverse the damage we have already done to the earth through consumerism is the MOST important reason not to have children.

Reducing consumption is rarely given serious placement in stories about the environment or pollution. More is written about how technology can save us and reduce pollution. Reducing consumption is not something businesses want but it is the only way to protect our environment and the earth.

Consumption has created the problems we are dealing with today. To reduce consumption in the greatest way is to stop producing more humans. Zero population growth is a necessity that we as humans must begin practicing in order to reverse the damage to mother nature we have already made.

Jeff
Phoenix

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Smartest post so far Posted by: swells
We all have reproductive rights....
Posted by: Allstar Cookie on Aug 7, 2009 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and reproductive responsibilities.

So if you choose to bring children into the world...make sure you can take care of them.

If you choose to adopt...make sure you can take care of them.

If you don't want children....choose a contraceptive.


Allstar Cookie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

every 2 weeks
Posted by: sureshot45 on Aug 7, 2009 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there is an aritcle bashing mothers, parents, and people who have the desire to be parents.

couldnt even read the article after there are far more reasons 'arguably' to not have kids.

of course there are. depends on the person. this is not a huge question or debate for society as a whole, its up to each individual.

why dont we just sterilize the entire population and kill ourselves off? that way, we could save the whales, the trees, and stop using so many resources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: every 2 weeks Posted by: sureshot45
» RE: every 2 weeks Posted by: swells
Kids or no kids
Posted by: teel on Aug 7, 2009 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still try to wrap my head around the claim by people that it's somehow special to have babies.

Sweetheart, you squeezed one out. Women do it all the time. You're not special. Get over yourself. Your kid, not that special either, in fact from where I'm sitting it's just another one of those loud, smelly lumps.

Having babies is for people who a. don't have a single clue what they want to do with life or b. Are terrified of the prospect that they might, just might end up one of those loser-could'vebennmommies, single, 38 and with 2 good eggs left in her. So, when the chance presents itself you better believe there's going to be babies made.

My biggest problem with it all in honesty is that most parents are completely useless at it. They are paranoid, insensitive quakers who feel slighted whenever the opinions is expressed that perhaps little Johnny isn't the center of the galaxy after all. They build up veritable roadblocks in suburbia, lining the streets with cement blocks, road bumps, warning signs and speed restrictions because little Johnny well he might just venture out into the road and then the next president of america might be road kill.

They feed them jellybeans and cookie dough for lunch and blame genetics when the kids look like the michelin man around age five.

There's no transfer of knowledge anymore because mommy is busy either working 4 jobs to sustain life, or watching sex and the city in slow-mo to work out how Samantha ever did get her lashes that thick. You show me a 12 year old who knows how to boil an egg and I'll show you a leader in his age group. Parents cram in enough fear into their kids that they turn catatonic by the age of 9, stranger danger, health and safety, germs, bullies, pedophiles. Holy shit Johnny, bet you never knew living was this dangerous until psycho-mom told you eh? At the same time, the race is on to outdo little Debbie right next door. Oh yes, perfect hair, perfect grades, student council member, leader of the math club AND the swim team. Oh my, and such a pretty child too. Like George Carlin said, parents if you want to make you kids turn out okay then "leave them the F!"#¤ alone!". He suggested all kids should get 3 hrs a day daydreaming. Sounds a hell of a lot better to me.

But no, "parents" are happier to have them walk the tightrope of life, watching from the sidelines screaming all the way about how unacceptable and horrendous it would be if they fell down.

Good luck kids. Don't do what your idiot parents tell you to do.

Idiot parent, good luck too. At least don't have any more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kids or no kids Posted by: jaded
» Best.post.ever. Posted by: radiomorning
» RE: Kids or no kids Posted by: J_Mo
Ever noticed that couples w/o children look younger and are more intellectual
Posted by: xvictor on Aug 7, 2009 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
than those who have children. Those with kids age faster and are physically less in shape.

It takes a lot out of them to raise children, and I can plainly see that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jan
Posted by: DrJan on Aug 7, 2009 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who choose to be parents have a unique opportunity to influence the future, by raising kind, caring and educated kids. They also experience a bond that "childfree" people can't imagine (at least I couldn't before I became a mother at age 42). It's a lot of work, but most of us wouldn't change a thing. As for me, I'm happy to be not only a mom but a physician-attorney, and yes, it is possible to do it all!

Regarding the ecological footprint, the logical solution is adoption. You give a home to a homeless child who was brought into the world by someone else. For those who want to rear children, it's a win-win situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Britain To Put CCTV Cameras Inside Private Homes
Posted by: grosspointblank1986 on Aug 7, 2009 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/

By Charlie Sorrel - Wired Magazine Aug 3, 2009

As an ex-Brit, I’m well aware of the authorities’ love of surveillance and snooping, but even I, a pessimistic cynic, am amazed by the governments latest plan: to install Orwell’s telescreens in 20,000 homes.

£400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes. The government’s “children’s secretary” Ed Balls is behind the plan, which is aimed at problem, antisocial families. The idea is that, if a child has a more stable home life, he or she will be less likely to stray into crime and drugs.

It gets worse. The government is also maintaining a private army, incredibly not called “Thought Police”, which will “be sent round to carry out home checks,” according to the Sunday Express. And in a scheme which firmly cements the nation’s reputation as a “nanny state”, the kids and their families will be forced to sign “behavior contracts” which will “set out parents’ duties to ensure children behave and do their homework.”

And remember, this is the left-wing government. The Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, batting for the conservatives, thinks these plans are “too little, and too late,” implying that even more obtrusive work needs to be done. Rumors that a new detention center, named Room 101, is being constructed inside the Ministry of Love are unconfirmed.

UPDATE: Further research shows that the Express didn’t quite have all its facts straight. This scheme is active, and the numbers are fairly accurate (if estimated), but the mentions of actual cameras in people’s homes are exaggerated. The truth is that the scheme can take the most troublesome families out of their homes and move them, temporarily, to a neutral, government-run compound. Here they will be under 24-hour supervision. CCTV cameras are not specifically mentioned, not are they denied, but 24-hour “supervision” certainly doesn’t rule this out from the camera-loving Brits.

It remains, though, that this is still excessively intrusive into the private lives of citizens, cameras or not. I have added links to the source and also more reliable reports. Thanks to everyone who wrote in.

Sin Bins for Worst Families [Sunday Express. Thanks, Annaliza]
Government calls for tough family intervention to prevent youth crime [Home Office]

Sadly not from the Onion [Metafilter]

Family Intervention [Home Office/Respect.gov]

--------------------------------------------

Do You want this in your Home, Childless couples Won't have this worry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Generation Z
Posted by: ClassAct on Aug 7, 2009 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If one does not have an estate to leave one's children, if one's child would have to work for a living, then having a child is condemning it to servitude in this unacceptable class system. Having children is morally unacceptable for the child's future. If capitalism is to persist, it should be deprived of labor so that the wealthy are forced to offer their entire estates to have someone to tie their shoelaces.
If one feels deprived because of the need for a baby, I would suggest that her or she buy a doll instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Generation Z Posted by: jaded
» RE: Generation Z Posted by: ClassAct
» RE: Generation Z Posted by: jaded
» RE: Generation Z Posted by: ClassAct
» RE: Generation Z Posted by: jaded
Idiotic author ! I'm pro-life and I say get lost ! Children can be just as great companions in life!
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 7, 2009 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any rat bastard who wants to write anti-children articles needs to be sent for mental counseling ! Children can be great to have around and they can relieve the stress tensions and blood pressures of their parents. If the author doesn't like that, then she should keep her mouth shut tight !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Max, You're a Payne! Posted by: Steven Wanzell
Children are not unlike puppies
Posted by: xvictor on Aug 7, 2009 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Generally, most couples have children because other couples have children.....they feel that's the thing to do, right or wrong; ready or not. It's kinda like the proverbial 'keeping up with the Jones''.

That comes to mind owning dogs. Most folks own dogs because their neighbors own dogs.If the neighbor have a dog, they have to have a dog. Sometime ago, Porno for Pyros had a hit song regarding children who believe they are viewed nothing more than pampered puppies by their parents. And you can tell during their concerts the resounding chorus of approval from the audience that a nerve was struck with that one song.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some of the people who have children are truly stomach-turning!
Posted by: wireup on Aug 7, 2009 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I once had a female dog that I wanted to fix so that she would not have puppies. At the time I was living abroad, and as I sat in the waiting room of the vet's office, along with other patients, I started talking with them. Since my visit involved surgery, I was to be the last patient seen.

When the other people in the waiting room discovered why I was there...well, let's just say the s..t hit the fan. They came down on me. WHY was I going to make my dog incapable of bearing puppies. After all, she was FEMALE. It was her lot in life to bear puppies. I'm not kidding - that is what I was told!

Need I say more?

For those of you who think it is the fate of females - woman or dog - to bear children...

I say - TO HELL WITH YOU!

You have made the choice to bear the brats. Kindly accord me the same choice NOT to bear the brats!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Selfishness in a time of struggle.
Posted by: troubleinmind254 on Aug 7, 2009 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, I don't have kids, maybe one day I will. But one thing that can't be accepted, is this self-gratifying extremism of blaming personal or global problems on people who are at the receiving end of them. The article was like a reverse octomom rant, instead of popping out more kids without any thought or personal accountability, the article advances that one should live a sheltered materialized, me first mentality.

Whats next? a Brave new World of test tubes and soma? I know times are tough and expectations have fallen like a brick, but like the generation that was disillusioned in the aftermath of the sixties, do we have to devolve in the narcissistic mentality of the wife-swapping, cokeheaded and "liberated" seventies?

Quality schools, affordable and accessible day-care and a real single-payer healthcare, and honest guilt free sex education among other things are what is needed. The dialogue should be about growing nuturing communities, protecting the young and old, not a bourgeois minded us versus them worldview.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Kids Are a Pain in the Ass"....
Posted by: xvictor on Aug 7, 2009 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You'll get no argument from me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It amount to knowing oneself
Posted by: dimityrose on Aug 7, 2009 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so glad that woman and men are taking a serious look at reproducing. It is a serious job, not all glamourous like shown on t.v., with the stars having babies. Many woman raised in religious families did not know they had a choice. Even though my career was better than my husbands, I was the one to stop to raise children, then the children go away to lead their own lives, as it is to be and you are left to pick up the pieces of your life. I CAUTION all young woman to look at and question the talk of being a mother. It is alot of glamour talk, that only exist in a small glimpse, like any other job. Motherhood is making a factory out of woman for reproduction and a prisioner of emotion. It is like religion, if you know no different, you are okay. But if you get a glimpse of how it is better, you are forever a hostage of your raised beliefs. Be very careful cause the state needs more workers for the year 2020. You are the maker machine. Why do you think the state supports all the woman, in poverty who have child after child, we will need them for labor. If you are married it sounds so much more glamorous. I listen to new mothers comparing the designer clothes they buy or the latest books on behavior. Are they all following the same book? Are the children being programed to listen to certain commands so they will be perfect for soldiers? I guess I marvel at us pointing fingers at woman raising, child sucide terrorists, yet our men and woman are off to war before they can legally vote? "Your body is your temple," I was told, Yet you must have children!!! I do not know the statistics, but not having your own life is good for very few people and only for a short time. NOT A LIFETIME!! CHILDREN ARE A LIFETIME!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And when all the intelligent and liberal people quit having children
Posted by: cj0204 on Aug 7, 2009 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for good reasons, but still...
we will be left in a world populated by the Duggars and other right wing religious fanatics.
Horrifying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here is My Fear:
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Aug 7, 2009 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Intelligent, artistic, and ambitious people refuse to have children.

Bubba overruns his double-wide with twelve children; average IQ 85.

The movie Idiocracy deals with this subject in a comic way. But the ideas that underpin the movie are serious food for thought.

In the end, I support anyone's choice - be it to become parents, or to remain childless.

It's nobody's "duty" to have kids. I think we have been way too "fruitfull". We have not just "replenished the Earth", we have overrun it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

kb
Posted by: KAB on Aug 7, 2009 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Tis parents who are the selfish ones, overloading the environment and using government to force other people to pay for their brats. The average cost of school for grades 1-12 is about $150,000, mostly paid for by other people, not the parents who get tax breaks for over breeding. Other people pay for the roads soccer moms use to tote their brats to a soccer field paid for by other people. Breeding sightly below the replace rate is fine, but we are way beyond that, so its time to start making the over breeders pay for their mistakes.

As for having no kids, it is a great way to live. She was a teacher. I was a government bureaucrat. Not high paying jobs, but... No brats, no stress. We retired at age 54, after 41 vacation overseas. Now, having more money than we know what to do with, we travel luxury class and live at the world's top ski resort. No debt.

It costs about $17,000 a year to raise a kid to age 17, no college. Do the math for 2-3 kids and see what that adds up to at compound interest by the time you are 50. It's mind blowing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: kb Posted by: jaded
» Oh I am very smart Maxie Posted by: foreverhope
I am 21...
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford on Aug 7, 2009 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and I just got married two months ago. My wife and I have discussed this for several years. WE NEVER intend to have children. We've watched our friends from school become pregnant in countless instances. One by one, they're falling into the straight and narrow line of conformity by popping out progeny, and none of them can afford it.

I intend to get a vasectomy as soon as I can find a doctor willing to perform one on a 21 year old, which I find incredibly sad that they wouldn't, based on, "well don't you wanna have at least one kid first?" GAAA! NO! I'm not going to "regret it" down the road. I'm not going to want to freeze my sperm. I DON'T WANT KIDS, plain and simple, and if I ever DID, I'd be sure to ADOPT one, rather than burden the world with another mouth.

It's environmentally friendly, it saves money, it saves relationships, it saves the planet to not have to deal with another hungry mouth, chomping away at limited and over-stretched resources.

In all honesty, I wish I had never been born. Life is cruel and night impossibly difficult for someone just entering the job market. I have a B.A. but no parental assistance. I have no job because no one is hiring (no matter how skilled or unskilled) in the area I live in. Yet, my mother-in-law insists that my wife and I should have children. Wow, no. You know the only grandkids you'll get are from your pot smoking, drug dealing, jail-time-serving 19 year old son, not your upstanding 21 year old first born daughter.

Explain to me how having a child would benefit me in any way? And don't use the "o so precious memories" bullshit. I don't find children enjoyable at all. They're a burden in regards to time, energy, money, etc.

It's time for people to stop coming on this site and ridiculing those who say having children is irresponsible. You've had your say. Hell, you have your say every day, when co-workers, friends, and relatives ask newly wed couples if babies are in the works yet.

The answer is no. My wife and I will struggle to make ends meet for a long time to come. Even when we stabilize a few years from now (I hope), it'll still be difficult.

SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT! Stop popping out bald, stupid apes that consume resources and contribute to the rape and destruction of the earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I am 21... Posted by: jaded
» RE: I am 21... Posted by: Rusty Shackleford
» RE: I am 21... Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: I am 21... Posted by: jaded
» RE: I am 21... Posted by: Rusty Shackleford
» RE: I am 21... Posted by: jaded
» RE: Just adopt John Redcorn's son Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» I understand you, Rusty... Posted by: NoKidding
» Rusty: Posted by: qwertyu
Totally agree
Posted by: Stell on Aug 7, 2009 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a childfree woman, and I totally agree.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Totally agree Posted by: qwertyu
Anthony D'Auria
Posted by: Tony D on Aug 7, 2009 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author is either unaware or chooses to omit the obvious: that having children is a biological imperative. It is not something that can easily be controlled by the will. Our biology demands it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anthony D'Auria Posted by: cmaciain
My experience
Posted by: ZPaul on Aug 7, 2009 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My partner and I had 2 kids, a boy and a girl.
We were lucky. They turned out pretty darn good and are now responsible adults.
We love them very much and it has often been a joy to be with them; however, they were, at times a real pain in the ass, this is true.
After 2 kids, Neither of us wanted to press our luck any further, but not only because "kids are a pain in the ass". It's also the world. I don't want to bring any more kids into this world, the way it is. It's awful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I feel the same. Posted by: kateco2
Breeder Fallacies
Posted by: Quist on Aug 7, 2009 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everytime this subject comes up or the subject about overpopulation...I see the same fallacies being offered by the breeders.

BTW, my definition of "breeders" are individuals who never seriously question why people should have more than ONE child in this day and age, consistently apologize for out-of-control procreation, and/or totally ignore the problems caused by an ever growing human population.

Here are some of these stupid fallacies...

1. If your parents felt this way you would not be here. (Straw Man)
2. If you feel so strongly about overpopulation why don't you kill yourself. (Personal Attack, Appeal to Ridicule)
3. Having children is the most important thing we can do in our lives. (Appeal to Emotion, Hasty Generalization)
4. People who do not want children are SELFISH. (Ad Hominem)
5. Overpopulation is not a problem. (ignoring a Common Cause)
6. Having children makes me FEEL (fill in the blank), so this is why we should have children. (Appeal to Emotion, Straw Man)
7. You cannot understand because you do not have children. (Bandwagon, Genetic Fallacy)
8. You will never truly know love or (fill in the blank) unless you have YOUR own child/children. (Appeal to Emotion, Straw Man, Special Pleading)

...and the list goes on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Breeder Fallacies Posted by: jaded
» RE: Breeder Fallacies Posted by: ladyoracle
» RE: Breeder Fallacies Posted by: PDJr
A word about fertility clinics
Posted by: vertical on Aug 7, 2009 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you know a child concieved through IVF (In Vetro Fertilization) is over twice as likely as a conventionaly concieved child to be born with severe birth defects! IVF is the most common and sdafest procedure fertility clinics employ. For those of you who want to deny this the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet have both published studies corqaberating the danger. There are too many people on the planet, and there are plenty of children that need to be adopted. I know if my parents concieved me through a fertility clinic and I was born with birth defects I would hate them woith every fiber of my being because they woul;d be selfish, needy, irresponsible turds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No More Canada
Posted by: raycushing on Aug 7, 2009 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it were up to Canadians like the author of this article, there soon would be no more Canada. Immigrants in Canada are the only ones propelling the birthrate. Thank God (for Canada's sake) that immigrants (like me) aren't as short-sighted as the author of this article. I have two Canadian children and they are the joy of my life. Yes, they are a lot of hard work, especially because I have joint custody and do not rely on a woman to help with the parenting chores, but anything in life that is worthwhile is hard work. The best thing about being a parent is that it gives you the opportunity, day in and day out, to do things for other people (one's children, who qualify as "other people"). Virtually all Eastern and Western philosophical traditions extol the virtues of doing things for other people. This author has left that part of life out of her article entirely. Her myopia is sad to behold. And the wine-swilling woman who wrote in Maclean's magazine that she never should have had her adolescent children has hurt those children irreparably by saying such an insensitive thing in public. She should be ashamed of herself and some day she probably will be, if she ever puts down her glass of wine long enough to experience a moment of true wisdom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No More Canada Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: No More Canada Posted by: raycushing
» Moronic Troll Posted by: foreverhope
» LOL!! You are fallacious! YOU!! Posted by: foreverhope
» Get a life foreverhope. Posted by: Quist
Better to face up to the reality
Posted by: muzunguhowru on Aug 7, 2009 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of her feelings than to breed because of social pressure. I like children (including the two I fathered) just fine but believe they should be chosen and planned with seriousness of purpose and with full consideration of the time, expense, and enduring emotional commitment parenting requires.

Sadly many still breed for fun, fashion, or feminine/machismo self gratification. I am amazed at how smug and superior many parents are these days and how willing to impose themselves and their kids on others simply because they figured out where babies come from and acted on an impulse. These folks should be glad that there are people out there willing to work and pay taxes for schools, social services, and infrastructure they will never use while not adding to the societal burden themselves.

It's not like there is going to be any shortage of new human beings any time soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Such sanctimony
Posted by: CJC on Aug 7, 2009 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Choices about childbearing are not inherently "selfish" or "selfless" "foolish" or "virtuous."

No one should forget that they wouldn't be here making choices and ranting and raving if they had not been children once themselves.

We could have a similarly vituperative discourse about whether it was better for the environment or the future of the planet or more or less responsible to live in a city or in a suburb or in the country or off the grid.

How about starting out with a sense that life choices are complex and that most of us are doing the best we can? How about some mutual respect?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» mutual respect? Posted by: writer7
I couldn't disagree more
Posted by: Archie1954 on Aug 7, 2009 10:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with the point of this article. I have two sons, my sister and her husband opted to have no children as did my wife's sister and all of her three husbands. I find that my wife and I are by far the happier of the three couples. Sure my sister in law and her husband have an extremely active social life, travel a lot and indulge in their private pastimes, all things which we do also but not in the same frenzy as they do. In fact I've noticed that they love to come to our place to visit at least three times a week so they can enjoy their nephews. My sister who lives in another country visits us or we visit them for extended periods at least four times a year so they can enjoy the boys. My boys by the way are 26 and 24. I would not even like to think of how shallow my life would be without my kids. I find that I have become much more flexible in my thinking since the boys came into my life. My sister and my sister in law are quite set in their ways and it takes a lot of persuasion to get them to budge on anything. That in itself is enough reason to have children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some Men Too Would Really Like To Be Parents - and Would Make Brilliant Dads
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Aug 7, 2009 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A friend of ours just turned up on our doorstep to give us a present. We are going to see U2 next Friday with his New Girlfriend, he gave us U2's latest CD. I gave him Elbow's - who are the support band (not copies - the originals).

Mark is 38. For over 10 years, he was living with a girl, who simply didn't want to have children. They ended up like brother and sister - they still love each other - but not in a sexual way - and go out together once a month with friends for a meal.

Mark's new Girlfriend is totally lovelly - and they are very well suited...

But she doesn't want any more children - cos she already has two teenagers...

And while Mark was standing in our hall - he couldn't stay - this most beautiful 18 year old girl passed through our home - to go out the back gaarden - with our daughter and her friends...

And we all know he wants to be a Dad, and would be a Brilliant one because he is such a nice giving person

But sometimes its just not to be

You can't actually choose the people you fall in love with

It just happens - his new girlfriend is 10 years older than him

You simply don't meet people on the basis of whether or not they will be a good Baby machine.

Since deciding at the age of 32, that I really did want to have Children with my 28 Year Old Girlfriend who I had been living with for 5 years, and She Felt exactly the same....

We got married and had sex

It worked

Since then our lives have been filled with Children - though we only had two of our own.

Children are Completely Lovely

My Wife gave up her job in a Bank to become a Childminder.

It took a year for the Police, Social Services, and Private Investigators to check us out to see if we were suitable people to look after Children

I think we passed the test - because lots of the Kids my wife looked after as babies and older - keep coming back to visit us

My Wife was their Mum whilst their Real Mum was at work being a Hamster on a Wheel

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Brilliant Post! Posted by: foreverhope
» Wrong again. Posted by: Quist
» So glad you approve... Posted by: Steven Wanzell
group marriage
Posted by: maxsmart on Aug 7, 2009 11:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Less population is necessary for our eco-economically stressed 21st century and have a larger number of adults caring fro a smaller number of children would help take some of the pressure off. The growth economy of consumerism is environmentally unsustainable. But a group living model of biodiveristy of intimacy would create a much more flexible geodesic family structure of shared finances, child-rearing, homekeeping, intimacy, and protective from domestic abuse and addictive behaviors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Environmental Red Herring
Posted by: iatsebean on Aug 7, 2009 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every comment so far that bemoans the environmental impact of children and then brags about international travel is truly missing something. Almost every luxury/leisure travel habit is incredible wasteful. Air travel is one of biggest uses of fossil fuels around. Also, the leisure industry in most cases exploits labor and is dependent on those children for at least the years that they are willing to be abused for minimum wage. I understand that not having children is a valid choice, but lets not pretend that it's for some noble purpose when it's really more about being able to being able to spend your carbon offsets in one big trip to Aruba rather than spread them out over a year of caring for offspring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Parenthood for those with "nothing" to lose
Posted by: abrunvand on Aug 7, 2009 11:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She writes: "The truth is the more your fecundity increases, the fewer there are of you who can call yourselves happy... Becoming a parent means giving up everything else: your life as a couple, your leisure time, your sex life, your friends, and if you're a woman, your career success."

In other words, only us perpetually single women should have kids because we already have no sex life?

As a person who has neither, I really do object to the notion that "everything" worth having consists of a spouse and a career.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Ultimate Human Happiness Is Not Caring About Your Rolls Royce Or Your Dog or Cat
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Aug 7, 2009 12:09 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is about caring for another human being

Human beings talk to you and the Most Beautiful Conversation is between a Newborn Baby and Their Mum whilst Baby is suckling on Her Breast

Rolls Royces just give you a nice ride

Sometimes I wish I was a Woman

It must be the Most Beautiful Feeling In The World

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

parrotuya
Posted by: parrotuya on Aug 7, 2009 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only stupid people should refrain from having kids. That would make it a perfect world!

DOWn, baby, DOWn!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Breeder" is an unacceptable term
Posted by: raycushing on Aug 7, 2009 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Calling people who have children "breeders" is like calling gay people "faggots" and black people "niggers." It's unacceptable and should not be allowed in print.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Breeder" is PC Posted by: foreverhope
you people are really losing it
Posted by: kenhymes on Aug 7, 2009 12:35 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, life is completely unconnected to reproduction, it had nothign to do with your existence, you just popped out of your own head, and were not raised, bathed, fed, nurtured, comforted, funded. You must really be utterly out of touch with reality if you think that "kids are a pain in the ass and would ruin my life" is a legitimate point of view. Not everyone is going to have them, and it's stupid and thoughtless to glorify the process and make it a marker of social acceptability... BUT COME ON! It's like saying... food sucks. Air is annoying. Thinking is so tiresome. Having a heartbeat is just such a bother. Kids are part of life, or are you just going to filter them out of your reality? It's one thing to decide not to have them, or be unable to have them. It's another thing to be actively hostile to the existence of children. You people are fucking nuts, and you just keep demonstrating why no one takes any of this InterLeft garbage seriously. You really don't give a crap about anything except your own convenience, you're every bit as pathetic and consumeristic as the corporate shills you deride.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Life is So Unfair To Some Women
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Aug 7, 2009 12:44 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About 5 Years before We had Children ourselves

I found myself in this job

I wasn't recruited on the basis of my knowledge of women nor my social skills

But I was their immediate supervisor - both of them were completely brilliant at doing their technical jobs

One of them was 23, and was so determined not to have Children she had tried at the age of 21 to get sterilised - and was completely career focused....

Jeni was determined to be a Big Success - and she had done incredibly well - and even at the age of 23 - had applied for the job I got

But the Doctors refused to Sterilise Her

Elaine was 28, and had been in a stable marriage for 10 years - and was so desperate to have a Baby that she had gone through the IVF procedures several times - and actually got pregnant once - but it only lasted a few weeks and she lost the the Baby she wanted

Meanwhile Jeni went on a ski-ing holiday with her Boyfriend and forgot her contraceptive pills...

She told me - her boss at work - that she was pregnant and wasn't sure about how he would handle it

I said Don't Worry. I Know He Really Loves You and Will Be Delighted!

So after Her Maternity Leave,

(We all wanted her back)

She Came Back To Work - And Lasted less than ONE Day

She phoned home and Heard Her Baby Crying

And went Back To him

And Never Came Back To Work

Just Came Back With Her Lovely BABY

He Was So Much More Important Than Her Career

Baby Came First

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is wrong with you people???
Posted by: Johnism on Aug 7, 2009 1:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow! A writer writes an opinion piece and people are telling her to go kill herself? WTF??

Why are you people so sensitive to another person position. "she said kids are evil, I have kids, you should die"

Why do people continue to give a shit about what anyone else thinks? You act like the writer personally attacked you. Why?


I understand the writers frustration with people who think she should naturally want and need children. If you don't want to have children nobody should be trying to convince you your are wrong. And vice versa.

I have friends who don't have kids and should NEVER have children. I have friends who want children. I have friends that have children. I have friends who have children and wish they would not have. I don't judge any of them on their personal choice.

Stop wanting everyone to be just like you so you feel better about yourself. If you tell a person to go kill themselves because they have a different opinion then you should not be in charge of children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finally some reason from a parent who's actually been bold enough to think
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 7, 2009 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can't wait for the book. I've got two special needs kids and the medical costs every month alone are clobbering us (and we make supposedly "decent" money... 3% above local poverty but more than the national average--a wholly useless figure for all practical purposes). The emotional turmoil and adjustment to tough kids is brutal and bone crushing. Do we love them, absolutely. Do the "benefits" outweigh the hardship? Nope. Parenting we've discovered, ain't about cost-benefit analysis. Yes, we would do things differently knowing what we know now. But since we've got 'em we're in it for the long haul but NO WAY are we going to blow sunshine up anyone's ass and claim it's blissful or wonderful. It's HARD WORK every minute of every day and with kids whose conditions ensure they sleep 2-3 hours every 24, you get ZERO break. Especially when you cannot afford childcare, not even for an hour.

Purely for ecological reasons, people NEED to think of childfree as a good thing. No, it doesn't mean that you have to "binarize" the thing and thus say breeding is a BAD thing in order to say Childfree is GOOD. (that's classic 'Merkaaner bullshit stoopid and has to stop already). Ecologically breeding at this stage is a fool's errand (although some say 1 child per pair bond is probably a reasonable compromise).

Vanessa's premise however is a notable one. One that young people of breeding age ought to really think about and listen to their braver bolder elders who have something to say on this (that child-rearing is unmitigated hell no matter how you love your offspring and how hard you fight for them in this fucked up anti-child cult): don't do it, even if you think you can do it. Just don't.

And while you choose and we work harder on respecting you, just please, don't make life harder for the generation ahead of you who didn't realize just how much harder it is to live a life of pure, relentless, merciless hard work-to-exhaustion, without any rest or pause for 21 some odd years, in an owning-class feudalist society that deprives people of meaningful work and realistic incomes (especially if they've got kids).

Thanks, Vanessa, for pointing us to the book and for telling the truth, even if you don't personally know it from the breeder's side of things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My take
Posted by: whogrant on Aug 7, 2009 2:40 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Child Free
God Free
Free, period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Really?
Posted by: Robba29 on Aug 7, 2009 2:45 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This kind of BS is on here? Hey, let's not breed ourselves of existence! Better idea, those who don't want to have kids can shut the fuck up and let other people keep the human population going (within reason, I'll give you that), or, just shoot yourself so you leave less of a footprint faster. Seriously the stupidest article I have ever read here, and I love this site.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eally? Posted by: pizzmoe
» RE: eally? Posted by: Robba29
» RE: eally? Posted by: wireup
» RE: eally? Posted by: Robba29
Unmitigated Hate & Contempt For Women
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 7, 2009 3:03 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is so much hate spewing through this discussion, rabid hate that is breathtaking in its magnitude.

Hate towards children. Hate towards parents, mothers for the most part. We are breeders. We are compared to dogs that need neutering. General hate for women, contempt for our choices, contempt for our bodies. Hate towards society in general, hate and contempt. Hate for the world overall.

They think they are part of the solution with their mindless expressions of hate. They can't look into a child's innocent eyes, hear their laughs as blessings on this earth, they are hopelessly pitiful individuals.

Their hateful sort of poison is what makes the world the way it is. Judgemental and self-righteous and sactimonious beyond belief they accuse OTHERS of passing judgement on them! Talk about self-absorbed! No one is forcing them to give birth! Sweet Jesus! I pray to God they never do! There is plenty of birth control to go round these days. I hope they are stock piling it. Heaven help the future of our planet, the future of MOTHER EARTH, poisoned by their obscene rabid hatred.

I'd like to pity them but at the moment that isn't possible. They are sick and need help if they can be helped. I pity their mothers. I pray God protects any child that is unfortunate to come in contact with them.

Don't call us breeders. Call us bitches. Breeders is politically correct. Say what you mean.

They should wear a warning label in public.

DANGEROUS! Keep children well away!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So much contempt
Posted by: sometimeswistfuldad on Aug 7, 2009 3:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm really troubled by the contempt for children that's expressed in some of these comments. It's most obvious in the ones that refer to children with demeaning terms like "brats" and "smelly lumps". The people who left those comments were once brats and smelly lumps themselves. Yes, children are often a pain in the ass. As are clueless old people, smug and rigid middle-aged people, narcissistic young adults, and sulky teenagers. Yet somehow all these troublesome populations manage to add up to human life, which is really all we humans have got, and pretty great in a lot of ways. So let's try to have some respect and compassion for everybody, whether they have kids or not, and whatever stage of life they may be at. A good first step would be to stop acting like life is a contest in moral virtue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So much contempt Posted by: wireup
» RE: So much contempt Posted by: Ramentime
So...don't have kids
Posted by: jesme on Aug 7, 2009 3:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't mind. You have my permission. Obviously, the human race would cease to exist if everybody thought this way. The economy would grind to a halt, and most of the pleasures that are so dear to you would be unavailable, as there'd be nobody around to provide them. But of course, there are always folks like me who want to reproduce, and who'll ensure that the human race keeps plugging along.

Understand I have no quarrel with those who don't want to have kids. There are certainly people who shouldn't be allowed within a country mile of a child; no doubt you're one of them. But urging your attitude upon others, as if it were a grand principle, is simple-minded silliness. You don't want to have kids? Don't. And then have the good sense to be grateful to those of us who do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In England Its Perfectly O.K. For Beautiful Sexy Teenage Girls To Have Gay Boyfriends
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Aug 7, 2009 3:35 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw them all - the teenage boys and the girls right at the bottom of our garden

And I saw my daughter with the most outrageous dress on that she wouldn't be seen dead in - except one of her boyfriends who is almost certainly gay said you have just got to wear this....

And she did - she looked like a ballerina with an outrageously coloured dress - that only a gay boy could think of and design

It doesn't mean our daughter is gay

She too is an artist

And so they have all gone off to a fancy dress party

Now if you don't have kids you have got to do this stuff yourself.....

And I would look really silly as a ballerina

Our 18 year old Daughter looks and is completely BEAUTIFUL

At the G20 Protests she went straight to the Front By Herself - with No Fear at All - Like She Was a Professional Photographer

And Took The Most Amazing Photographs

Illustrating The Theme She Had Been Given For Part of Her Photography "A" Level

DISCORD

I Guess She Didn't Like Being Arrested and Having Her DNA Extracted when she was 15 Years Old for doing absolutely nothing Wrong

And Thought - I Will Take Some Pictures Of The POLICE

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Forever Anal (retentive)! Posted by: Steven Wanzell
» "Tartarus" Posted by: Steven Wanzell
Parenthood and Childfree are both great choices
Posted by: snuggadee on Aug 7, 2009 3:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People (commenters) kill me with their need for extremes.

In order to be happily childfree, you do not have to label parenthood as mediocrity.

In order to be happily a parent, you do not have to label childfree people as hollow or selfish.

I am currently childfree but plan to have 2 kids when I'm ready, only, and solely, because I really happen to like kids. Alot.

My sister doesn't want kids of her own. She's never connected with the "Oh so cute!" thing. I like the person my sister is and how committed she is to her accomplishments. I don't think less of her for not wanting kids, and she has never said a negative thing about my desire to have kids one day.

Why can't you all respect each other's perspectives?

Cameron Diaz is right: we don't need everyone to have a kid. We are lucky that in this day and age, child-having can be 100% choice. Our survival does not depend on having a brood. But if we want a kid, and fertility is on our side, if we want one, we can do that, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OOps, I'm the dumbass!
Posted by: bbq on Aug 7, 2009 4:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was reading the first comment, written by a man. But, I agree with the writer. I am childless, and glad for it. A person like me has no business having kids. Besides, I don't believe in daycare, I see no need to birth kids I am not going to raise. That's the way it is nowadays, birth 'em, take 'em to daycare at 6 weeks and let them do all the supposedly good stuff- the first steps are taken there, potty-training happens there, heck, even religion happens there. Parents nowadays actually have very little to do in their kids lives. Why bother, except for the TOTALLY selfish reason of having someone to take care of you when you're old. Which doesn't hold water- walk into the closest nursing home and ask 10 residents the last time one of their children visited. And, do this BEFORE you decide to have any. It will help you make up your mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember Ann Landers' study? 70% is a pretty big chunk
Posted by: bbq on Aug 7, 2009 4:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A poll done in the 70's indicated that 70% of parents, if they had it to do over again, would choose NOT to have kids. Jsut because you parents got lured into the trap of "you don't know what you are missing", don't try to pull me in, I know EXACTLY what I am missing. That's why I'm missing it.

http://childfreenews.
blogspot.com/2006/10/
childfree-news-and-like-it-is-revisit.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I love my daughter with all my heart
Posted by: EinMD on Aug 7, 2009 4:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But yes, some times she's a pain in the ass. A good portion of the time, really. I no longer get to be a kid myself. I -have- to be an adult because I have this little girl who's depending on me to turn her into a decent person some day. Everything I do, I have to keep her future in my mind. I don't get to stay out late and party every night. I don't get to hang out with the boys as much. I don't get to drive to Las Vegas on a lark. Because she's my responsibility. One I gladly accept.

But ultimately when she gets all excited when I walk in the door and yells "Daddy!" or gives me a hug or tells me she loves me none of that matters.

Don't like kids? Don't have them. It's really just that simple. I don't fault anyone for not wanting to have kids. I don't expect people to give me shit for having them either. All those child-free people? If you regret it in 30 years or in 30 years realize it was the best decision you ever made? I don't give a damn. I could care less. Your decision is your own. Just like my decision was my own. We both gotta live with it.

I'm not some hero. I'm not a President or a Pope. Nobody's ever going to write a book about me. My DNA will live on if only in part, diluted over the centuries maybe, but still existing. With luck, a hundred years from now when nothing remains of me and nobody who ever even heard of me is still alive and nobody even remembers me enough to give a rats ass that I ever walked this earth my DNA will likely be floating around out there. That's the closest thing we temporary creatures get to immortality. I've filled the biological imperative for every living member of a species - continue the species. I'm fine with that.

And if my daughter turns out to be a decent human being who can make the world slightly better for having lived in it. So much the better. The world's got billions of assholes in it. But very few people who are actually worth the space and resources they take up. Humans are petty creatures. They consume. They destroy. They cheat and steal. They hate. They exploit. They treat their fellow man like garbage. They believe in nonsense mythologies to give their empty lives meaning.

The only way our species will get beyond this state is if it continues. That's good enough for me. If that's not your thing? That's ok too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So She's Just Got Back With Her Friends
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Aug 7, 2009 5:19 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And is Cooking Toast

And I say I haven't seen you dressed like that since the age of 7

You look really sweet

And She says yes Dad and tries to disappear

Tony

I think the Professor has got it wrong

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pedophile scaremongering? Posted by: foreverhope
The point is choice
Posted by: pizzmoe on Aug 7, 2009 6:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The scary violent losers who are commenting aside, I think the point is that people/couples who have made a conscious choice to not have children are usually looked at as if there was something wrong with them, and that just isnt the case. Having children may be a wonderful thing, but how many were born due to a mistake, a night at the bar, forgot the birth control, etc. It isnt always a beautiful moment, and what could be worse than an unwanted child?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Out! Out! Everybody Out!
Posted by: Steven Wanzell on Aug 7, 2009 11:18 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over thirty years ago, I came out as a predominately gay man. Since then, I've sometimes thought that despite the grave inconveniences of being part of a despised and misunderstood minority with few good role models, there was still an advantage the hetero majority could never scoff at or enjoy.

But as times have changed, so have the roles of women, prompting a whole new realm of self-identity for all of us. The former "witch", "lesbo", etc. is now the independent woman, who may well be het., homo, or bisexual.

But in the hetero-preferred suburban environs of the US, I've noted the narrow vernacular allowed, mostly for women. The independent married woman (and man), who say openly they don't want kids, is a shock and a multi-level threat to this suffocating conformity.

So - go! Go(!) all yee heteros...flee!...Flee the shackles of cleaning up baby spew! Rage! Rage(!) against the toxic green baby-doo...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're an idiot. Posted by: Robba29
» Where's your sense of humor? Posted by: Steven Wanzell
Evolution will ensure that overbreeding continues.
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com on Aug 8, 2009 12:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of you who are smart enough to realize that overbreeding leads to overpopulation, which leads to a Malthusian catastrophe in the near future see it as common sense to not breed.

This means that only the morons, such as foreverhope, will breed, and they will pass on their inability to see what's wrong with it. In other words, foreverhope's stupidity is an "evolutionary advantage", in the strictest Darwinian meaning of that phrase.

A few generations from now, after the population has dropped to sustainable levels (through war, famine, and disease— not voluntary depopulation), the remaining human population (assuming there is one) is more likely to consist of foreverhope's stupid offspring, than the nonexistent offspring of people who aren't stupid. Therefore, the entire human race will be much stupider in the future than it is today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Child free...
Posted by: teddy on Aug 8, 2009 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is best. Parenthood/motherhood does not confer moral superiority, though many people imagine it does. In fact, today we don't need the added environmental and social burden of more children.

Unfortunately, women are expected to become mothers, all claims of "personal choice" notwithstanding. As the writer points out, at that point, every other aspect of a woman's personal existence is sacrificed to her role as mother - even today. Who needs that?

A pet is a much better option. If you're longing for "pure love", get a dog. Most dogs don't want flashy cars or college educations. (though one did graduate somewhere)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOGIC VS. RETARDS
Posted by: CBleichner on Aug 8, 2009 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every logical person who is commenting on this article... this is why only stupid people are breeding... these tards don't have any ability to understand why having children is wrong. You can try to explain it to them in the most logical way possible, and they'll still get offended as if breeding is who they are. I would give up all the joys in the world... even if my child popped out with a million dollars in his/her hands... I still wouldn't have children. No one believes that people should stop breeding completely. We're not idiots. But I would rather not pollute the earth with another child... which is what I consider you, myself, and any offspring I could have to be... pure pollution, than have any joy of raising a child or carrying on my own blood/family. It's pure selfishness to believe that it's your duty to have children, without even taking a second to consider why it could be wrong. I think this is yet another topic where religion completely fails to use any form of common sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DCFairbank
Posted by: DCFairbank on Aug 8, 2009 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Society’s opinion of those who choose not to have children is that they are peculiar, selfish and misguided in some way. I am a female physician who has had to fight tooth and nail to achieve what I have in my career. One of the main reasons for the difficulties I have encountered is that I have had many serious illnesses. I have had numerous brain surgeries due to a brain tumor that has recurred several times and also have epilepsy. I have always been focused on being a physician, not for financial gain but to alleviate the suffering of others who are ill. My career gives me enormous fulfillment and I am lucky to be able to reduce the distress of others in this capacity. I have been married and am now divorced. I am thankful that no children were born from that union mainly because this would have been unfair to them. Even if I did not have serious medical problems that would make it dangerous for me to carry a pregnancy to term and would probably preclude my ability to do so, it is still highly unlikely that I would have children. And, I am frankly tired of people telling me that my “biological clock is ticking”.

My friends who have had children clearly made the right choice for them and I do not criticize them for this in the way I am criticized for my choice. Their children bring them a great deal of joy and I am happy for them. I am offended by remarks from those who judge me and suggest that I am not doing what a woman “should” by choosing not to procreate. While attending a high school reunion, I was treated like an oddity. The portrayal of choosing not to breed as being “selfish” really does not make any sense to me. Our planet is overpopulated and there are so many children who are unwanted as it is. The human race has been compared to a virus and I believe that idea warrants some thought. However, the notion of breeding as a way to pass on one’s DNA is, in fact, selfish. Having a fear that we will be alone and alienated when we get older and that we should have offspring in order to avoid this is incredibly self-serving and has nothing to do with the future or well-being of the children.

I have felt this way for a long time and I am very pleased that Vanessa Richmond had the inspiration to write this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DCFairbank Posted by: qwertyu
Fatuity Not Limited to Fascists
Posted by: Group Captain Lionel Mandrake on Aug 8, 2009 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Children are gold." This Russian saying is true. People without children always seem to think they're doing fabulously serious things, but it's of course very very rare that anyone needs to be so accomplished that they must forget that life itself is far more important than any pursuit they might undertake. Be careful of becoming trite or trivial.

Of course, it's not "necessary" to have children, nor "moral" either, and having children doesn't confer any status at all-- although some societies are dying of inanition because they've made raising children so expensive or difficult (Europe, Japan). Obviously, a parent is necessary to a child and it's quite an important position to be in--being so necessary to someone, a child-- perhaps the greatest position to hold in the world. I wonder if so accomplished a person as the writer of the article will ever become so important, even to even one other individual, as a parent is to a child?

In fact, children are the reward parents get. They're the great secret, the difference between people. It's a matter of psychological development and maturity. I'm sorry that children don't matter to some people, to a great many people, because that's a judgment by those people on their own selfish and self-centered existence, isn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I want a puppy
Posted by: thedevil666 on Aug 8, 2009 11:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a man and I can have children as long as I can get it up and shoot it out so maybe I have a biased perspective but I just turned thirty and am happy to not have any children to take care of. I have been riding my bicycle through the Americas for almost the last two years. I am happily unemployed. When I eventually return to the U.S., I think I will spend a bunch of money on musical instruments and start a band. I love the fact that I have the freedom to pursue activities that I love since I don't have any responsibilities to anyone but myself.

I am an only child who was raised by a single mother because my father was a hopeless drug addict. I am grateful to my mother for the sacrifices she made but I can't help but feel that her life would have been more fulfilling if she didn't have to raise me by herself. Not only did she make career sacrifices but she never remarried or even ended up in a long-term relationship because I was a difficult child to be around. I was ornery, stubborn, and mean.

Being the child of a convict, it is a small miracle that I managed to graduate from college and have never been arrested. The statistics related to children of prisoners are very depressing.

As a man, I consider it my duty to participate in contraceptive decisions just as much as the woman. I will never expect a woman to take birth control pills just because I like sex better without a condom. I wear a condom every time because I will be damned if I have an unplanned child. If I ever have a child, it will be planned and it will be my only one because I will have a vasectomy immediately afterward. I will love my one child and teach it everything that I can. If I need more cute things in my house, I'll get a puppy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I want a puppy Posted by: qwertyu
I Do Not Think that the Desire Not to....
Posted by: qwertyu on Aug 8, 2009 6:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
have kids is biologically inherent, at least not in all of us childless people.

When i was a little kid, I played with dolls and I wanted to adopt 50 kids. I am now married and because my childhood was very abusive, I am not having children because I do not think I had a good parental model.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Question for Those of You Trashing Child-Free By Choice People
Posted by: qwertyu on Aug 8, 2009 7:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are you so insecure? Why do you rail against people for making these decisions for themselves? Why do you call us selfish?

Selfish is having kids and being a bad parent. Selfish is feeling threatened by those who choose not to have kids and attacking them because you obviously feel threatened.

This life decisions is like interracial dating or where to live or where to work: It's a FRIGGIN' CHOICE. If you would not make it for yourself, fine, but if you were truly happy in your own life, you wouldn't feel the need to attack others for their personal decisions which are none of your damned business anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is way out in left field.
Posted by: re:mcd.'s on Aug 8, 2009 8:02 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole topic seems way out in left field. What does this have to do with anything?
So, based on the stuff I have been reading here lately, we are supposed to smoke pot and not have kids? So, now people with children are "mediocre". Perhaps, people without them were afraid of the responsibility that children bring, non? Are you too busy shopping at the outlet mall for overpriced stuff too, to have kids? Just curious, I'm getting too old for all this debate. Goodnight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why, Oh, Why...
Posted by: Lily H. on Aug 8, 2009 9:27 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...do we have to hear from these childfree whiners about how oppressed and put upon they are when they declare to one another and the rest of society that they've decided NOT to have children? Many years prior to my having children, I was undecided about having a family and communicated to others who asked, "It's MY business when I'll have children, but when I decide, you'll be the first to know" and that was that.
I didn't lie awake nights giving a damn what anyone else thought of my choices, and I was a young married woman in my 20's.

I deliberately stayed away from the prying questions, and let my heart answer for myself when I wanted to, NOT when others thought I should.
I also had NO quibbles about those who didn't have children, and if that's the choice they wish to make, then all power to them. Ironic the mother/author of this "40 Reasons to NOT Have Children" children will soon read her book and learn about what Mommy's been thinking of them all their lives. I'd love to be the fly on the wall in that household!
And Seppuku, future potential sperm donor, I hope if you DO have the bad luck of fathering any children in the future, you will be as cavalier in your attitude after they are born as you are currently. Check back with us later, would you?
I can wholly understand your choices are yours to make, and hold every right for those to make them, but I will add one more addendum to those who'd make this world a child-free planet and follow in your suit: When you're in your old age, and languishing in that nursing home you will most assuredly occupy, who do you think will be coming into your room, bringing you your meals and fluffing up your pillows? Yep, those "pain-in-the-ass" kids your ilk have been slamming all of your lives. What's sadder yet, is many of those old coots will positively develop relationships with them as if they were their OWN children, and treat them as the lost kids they never had.

For those parents like the author who deems kids a "pain-in-the-ass", dollars to doughnuts her own mother probably said that about HER between gin rummy games with the girls and swilling that fifth she hid in the upstairs commode next to her hamper. I'm no saint, and I'm sure at any time I can recall, I've muttered that same phrase myself from time to time during my child-raising years.
I'm afraid what we have here is yet another example of baby-boomers and their subsequent generations whining about why, oh why isn't this child-raising stuff more FUN than WORK, and why am I stuck with this shitty, thankless job? You mean I CAN'T still be myself AND haul around a couple of rug-rats, too? Boo hoo! Having children is a full-on life changing event, and not thinking about what's in store before tackling it will certainly leave those who haven't bothered beforehand into expressing bitterness like the many above posters.
No one said having children would be a 24/7/365 trip to Disneyland, and anyone who may have thought it WOULD be, is sadly mistaken. But if you're looking to those children to give something to your life you don't already have, you're barking up the wrong tree.
People who think like this are two-dimensional in their thinking, that they can't integrate themselves alongside of the realm of parenthood have a few issues they probably need working on. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that parents are any better emotionally equipped, it's just that many of the issues raised here appear to be that of mostly self-identity, rather than commitment.
I would NEVER coerce anyone to have children if they don't want to, and fully reserve the right to allow one to choose whatever life choices they make.
Just please, get over yourselves, DROP those high-school sounding friends who keep insisting on pushing their agenda in your faces, and live your best life, as Oprah says...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wasn't for us
Posted by: Eric.Arthur.Blair on Aug 9, 2009 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When my wife and I decided to marry, we also decided that parenthood was not for us. She had been the victim of child abuse and I just plain don't like kids. The decision turned out for the best, as four and a half years of marriage ended in my becoming a widower, thankfully not with a child to support. It would have been unfair all around, as I am barely able to make ends meet for myself, much less an offspring who would now be entering teenage years. My mother often told me she thought I would make a really good dad and I always disagreed. This is one time I'm really glad I didn't listen to her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FYI, the child-free (as we have been labeled) are the minority that keeps the (your) planet...
Posted by: Quist on Aug 9, 2009 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...a little less crowded, polluted, noisy, utilized, toxic, and hectic.

BTW, many of us child-free individuals also make as many, if not more, choices in our individual lives to also help with problems caused by human impact as our procreating couterparts. Not having children (by a certain population...NOT ALL PEOPLE) or having less children (one or two) has one of the largest impact on helping many of our social, resource, pollution, potable water, food supply, and environmental problems and/or shortages.

Again, we are the extreme minority in the U.S. and globally, so I find it pathetic and laughable that you think we are picking on all of you people who have chosen to procreate. Please stop your whining and attacks and actually offer some rational, reasonable, logical, critical and intelligent discussions and arguments about procreation, nurtuing, population impacts, and overpopulation.

BTW, MOST of us do not have any issues with children, procreation and parents...our issues are with CHOICE and OVERPOPULATION (the ever growing population impact upon society, environment, health, infrastructure, food supplies, potable water, pollution, and resources). So...stop with the stupid and fallacious arguments that MOST of us "child-free" individuals HATE children, procreation, and people!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry but I find this enviromental pomposity
Posted by: chariotdrvr14 on Aug 9, 2009 3:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, you're probably right about the need to lessen our enviromental impact on the world and future generations.
And it is true that they with fewer kids have more lifestyle choices and spare time.
And money.

But none of that compares to the love one can have between them and their offspring.
Maybe your self righteousness gives you the same special warmth... and remembers your birthdays.
I suppose if I didn't have kids I might feel the same as you. I do care about the enviroment and all. But, care about it in the way that I'm concerned over what I'm leaving my kids ...and maybe grandkids.
I don't live for the earth.
I live this life and I try to enjoy it. And part of the journey of discovery has been what I've learned about myself while trying to raise kids and deal with unresolved issues from my own childhood so that I don't have to pass it on my own kids.
Doesn't make me better or worse than anyone else... it's just part of what I'm going through in the this life. I cannot imagine my life without my kids. They don't define who I am as a person, I do plenty enough besides being a father. But when the thought comes up about things that I might have done differently or had they gone differently, sure, I'd be living a much wealthier life, ...but if I imagine it without those in my life now, I don't think I'd want it.
Am I filling the planet with more people ? Yeah, ...but THEY are why I'm here and why I care about the planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Okay, Quist...
Posted by: Lily H. on Aug 9, 2009 6:18 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You may have a good argument on the environmental standpoint, all right, but the other arguments are just arguments, and just the opinions on the "better sex", "better career" issues -- remember the lead-in sentence to the article?

Read my post again, please. I don't have any quibbles with those who choose to not have kids, BUT find problematic with many here who have tied their choices in with emotional issues they are still battling and objectify their life choices based on unbalanced thinking. That is all I'm offering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great, another f*cking article bolstering the right-wing!
Posted by: paulyarbles on Aug 10, 2009 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great, another f*cking article bolstering the right-wing! When are these silly people with their oh-so-radical agendas going to realize that attacking parenthood, marriage, etc. is not a winning strategy for progressive change? This is why so many in America are turned off by progressive politics. It's infested with knuckleheads who, for their own twisted psychological reasons, want to destroy what most people feel are the most important institutions and relationships in this world.

Maybe the plutocrats will thank Vanessa Richmond some day for driving away some potential supporters of progressive change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vanessa Richmond must be a Right-Wing Plant
Posted by: paulyarbles on Aug 10, 2009 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You've really hit on the sine non qua of human happiness, Vanessa. A professed love of human kind in general with no responsibility to any individual human being. What a totalitarian creep show you desire!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dad
Posted by: sopomike on Aug 10, 2009 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
at times i just feel like strangling them they are bigger than me so im just screwed .should have gotten them before the got to 180 lbs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

tobyg
Posted by: Toby on Aug 11, 2009 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow! what a lot of bitterness and bile has been spilled on this thread! who would have thought that having children, the most natural of processes, would have engendered such venom? Is it really so difficult to just respect other people's choices, shrug and say whatever? As for all this demonizing of children, that is just sick and twisted.I was born the only son into a very old family.It was assumed I would carry on the line. I wanted to. I believed it was an inheritance of good genetics, values and traditions worth preserving and handing on. However, as I am gay man, it was not to be. I like kids. I spent over 30 years as a teacher and certainly wouldn't have if I didn't like kids. As for all that about changing diapers - not a problem. I did that for over a year for my former partner when he was dying of AIDS in '95. It wasn't pleasant of course but it had to be done and it wasn't that big a deal. My parents were kind, loving people who gave me what I needed, not necessarily what I wanted, and let me play and develop pretty much according to my own desires. They certainly let me have what George Carlin advised - time to daydream. I would have liked to do for a child what they did for me. As time has gone on, four gay boys in their late teens have attached themselves to my present partner (of 15 wonderful years) and myself - adopting us as surrogate father figures. I get the late night crisis phone calls, the term papers to edit, the long conversations about the meaning of life, the college visits, the terrible "teen angst" depression jags amplified by their issues of adjusting to being gay in a still hostile world.We've been through some difficult and even frightening times together but they are all turning out very well indeed. They are all smart and gifted, true - but much more important - they all have kind and caring hearts. I have published books, been given awards, seen much of the world and even been applauded by crowds but no happiness nor any award in my life can compare to the father's day card that said "thanks dad, for always being there for me.I love you" Clearly many posters on this thread will deride me for being merely sentimental but those boys, though none of my blood is in them, will indeed carry on something of what my own ancestors gave me - perhaps the best of it. Regret the kids in my life? Never. I am more grateful for what they have given me than I could ever express.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All the reasons for having kids are selfish ones
Posted by: verdulo on Aug 11, 2009 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is funny how so many people justify having kids by saying how wonderful they are. Don't they realize that they are describing how kids benefit THEM, not society at large, not the kids themselves. I am a mom myself, and I love being a parent. But I don't pretend to be benefiting anyone but myself. If I was truly unselfish I would be off helping others like Mother Theresa did, instead of raising kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It has to go both ways
Posted by: frantaylor on Aug 11, 2009 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If nobody had any kids then humanity has no future.

If everyone had kids then humanity has no future.

The only way it works is that there are different opinions and people take different approaches.

Your parents had children, it's kind of hard to argue against that.

Accept that people are different, this is our saving grace. If we all thought and behaved the same, we would have gone extinct long ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

*sigh*
Posted by: Phe on Aug 11, 2009 12:48 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you think the world is overpopulated, sterilize yourself, get a DNR and live out your life. There are plenty of uninhabited place son earth that all of you could go far away from any human reproduction.

The world has been overpopulated for 100 years, if only access to a safe and legal abortion was so readily available back then , any of you wouldnt even be here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Phe, the child-free (as we have been labeled) are the minority that keeps the (your) planet...
Posted by: Quist on Aug 11, 2009 2:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...a little less crowded, polluted, noisy, utilized, toxic, and hectic.

BTW, many of us child-free individuals also make as many, if not more, choices in our individual lives to also help with problems caused by human impact as our procreating couterparts. Not having children (by a certain population...NOT ALL PEOPLE) or having less children (one or two) has one of the largest impacts on helping many of our social, resource, pollution, potable water, food supply, and environmental problems and/or shortages.

Again, we are the extreme minority in the U.S. and globally, so I find it pathetic and laughable that you think we are picking on all of you people who have chosen to procreate. Please stop your whining and attacks and actually offer some rational, reasonable, logical, critical and intelligent discussions and arguments about procreation, nurtuing, population impacts, and overpopulation.

BTW, MOST of us do not have any issues with children, procreation and parents...our issues are with CHOICE and OVERPOPULATION (the ever growing population impact upon society, environment, health, infrastructure, food supplies, potable water, pollution, and resources). So...stop with the stupid and fallacious arguments that MOST of us "child-free" individuals HATE children, procreation, and people...and that we think that no one should ever have children!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stupid Liberals.
Posted by: goodyweaver on Aug 11, 2009 9:44 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, my general response to this article is that people who don't want kids certainly shouldn't be pressured to have kids. Having children should never be a "given" for anyone. I have 4 children, from a 15 year old to a 3 month old, and some days I feel like pulling out my hair. Sometimes I think I am completely insane for spending my day listening to irrational screaming and cleaning up other peoples' poo. But when they're cute, they're so freaking cute, so yeah, they win.

But I digress.

I used to live in a commune, and have been involved with various other "progressive" groups through the years, and I've always been struck by this intense anti-kid thing that exists in liberal circles. It's like it's cool to a)dislike children, b)point out how people with children are killing the planet, and c)point out how great "I" am for choosing to not "pollute" the earth by reproducing.

What's also struck me over and over again, however, is the absolute certainty that conservatives, right-wingers, and social regressives are reproducing like mad. Not only are they reproducing their DNA, they're reproducing their social attitudes. I remember years ago in a sociology course, researchers found that in the vast majority of cases, adults tend to adopt the political and social views of their parents (regardless of any teen rebellion). So it seems to me that if we as progressives decide that it's "evil" to reproduce out of some misguided belief that doing so will somehow "save the earth," we can kiss the future of this planet goodbye as the progressives of the future (what remains of them) find themselves massively outnumbered by a bunch of religious nutbags who believe that god is a man, women should keep their mouths shut, the earth is ours to decimate, and science is Satan's way of tricking us into hell.

Again, I'm not saying that everyone should have kids. But people who WANT kids shouldn't be swayed by the absurd idea that not reproducing will save the world. It won't. Have kids if you want - and then teach them to garden, to consume ethically, to participate in their communities, to oppose war and government violence, to tear down social hierarchy and stratification, to become liberated from patriarchy... Because if the folks with those beliefs don't pass them on, be sure that the conservatives will be more than happy to take up the space they leave with their own babies. And it won't be pretty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stupid Liberals. Posted by: qwertyu
Lets all kill ourselves so we don't tax the environment!
Posted by: Sawyer on Aug 11, 2009 10:54 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally have kids or not. Who cares, but yes people judge us all the time no matter what we do that isn't what "they" are doing. Like I believe in Ti and Do were from the creator crew of this planet so I'm a kook because I think religions including atheism are illusions, but to say having kids causes a big environmental footprint is like saying we wish none of us exist so then why not just all kill ourselves so we won't leave any footprints. Illusions abound and I'm busting them left and right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nike dunk slum
Posted by: itouch backup on Aug 12, 2009 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MKV to XVID Converter||MKV to PS3 Converter both are brili tools for mkv convertible videos.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't this interesting?
Posted by: pjnaltykins on Aug 15, 2009 7:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, duh, for one thing, we ALL were kids once. Too bad some of these haters' parents didn't have their same attitude.

If the right-to-lifers had their way, every single baby, no matter how terrible of a life it would be born into, MUST be saved. Even rape victims, and incest victims are somehow expected to have this child, when they did not have the freeedom to have a child BY CHOICE. I see birth control as an extremely important way for us to curb having more kids than we could are for.

Of course, abortion should be the very last resort, but I am all for the mornign after pill for emergencies.

Seriously, we must all be allowed the freedom to decide if we want to become parents, that's how it should be. Ask all the unwanted kids whose parents abuse and neglect them daily for ruining their life, how they feel? I've been in that kid's tattered shoes, it affects a person for the rest of their life. I didn't think I would ever want to have kids. Now I'm 48 and have 2. Love them to pieces!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Lion and the mouse
Posted by: blitzmesser on Aug 15, 2009 7:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A mouse was boasting to the Lion about the many children she had. "And how many do you have?" she asked the Lion.

"Only one, but that one is a LION," he replied.
(Quality over quantity. Get it?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I HAVE LONG BELIEVED...
Posted by: AZLBRAX07 on Aug 16, 2009 4:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that children are the strongest possible argument for birth-control and abortion...

...and that Yuppie children are the strongest possible argument for forced sterilization!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I HAVE LONG BELIEVED... Posted by: qwertyu
» RE: I HAVE LONG BELIEVED... Posted by: AZLBRAX07
It's called jealousy
Posted by: antonius116 on Aug 19, 2009 12:37 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who have children may be jealous of those who are child free because they wish they could be as selfish. They may regret making the choice of having children because they are a huge responsibility, and now wish they were as wise as their childless peers??

Imagine all your money being spent on you? Imagine being able to come and go as you please, and sleep with anyone you want (for those who are still single). Sounds like easy street to me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's called jealousy Posted by: AZLBRAX07
Rights vs. Priveleges: Part 1
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Aug 20, 2009 1:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can parents on this forum prove childfree people prevented you from having children or forced you to believe or act like people who don’t want children? Will any amount of arguing from either side affect our ability to make the same choices? Please show us how you weren’t allowed to procreate.

Progressives argue we need to raise more children to outnumber conservatives. Illegal practices by conservatives, where electronic or hardcopy votes are not counted, converted or double counted as conservative votes, or having more children raised by progressives won’t solve illegal practices. Not every progressive eligible to vote will exercise the civil right or obligation, so when will procreation to outnumber the opposition ever be the answer?

The issues surrounding population growth some believe have forced a change in perspective, but it’s more complicated than choosing to procreate. Would today’s overpopulation argument be different if it were fifty or one hundred years ago? How many people constitute “overpopulation?”

Racism, sexism and slavery have existed for thousands of years and few would argue improvements, while difficult to measure and being inconsistent at best, have occurred more often in recent times. However, views on procreation vs. adoption have changed little, understandably in part because population and environmental changes to the planet are relatively recent.

Acting or reacting locally to global changes can be difficult when faced with increasing hardships, and who can argue successfully that procreation is a (completely) selfless act, especially in these tough times? Can anyone disagree with the legal right to procreate vs. adopt? There are no laws prohibiting procreation that I know of; and China’s restrictive policies-one child per family-is not the same.

Financial incentives to procreate, in Russia and certain European countries, indicate dwindling populations. Instead of adoption or immigration, these countries would rather increase their “indigenous” populations. Can the adopt-vs.-procreate group include immigration and/or adoption in their argument for not increasing the overall vs. local population?

First World countries are losing jobs, which correlates with the recent reduction in birth rates for Americans. Fifty years ago we had how many fewer people, and at the time who among us said we didn’t have enough people? A planet with fewer people scares governments that rely on taxation, militaries that depend on soldiers, corporations that need our disposable income and religions that needs its members to survive.

Can anyone be a member of a religious group and refuse to have children? Please provide specific examples and links. The rest of us are teetering on the edge of submission and compliance; childfree people are in the minority and are misunderstood, under appreciated and attacked as being different.

The widespread disagreement as to how many people should be alive at any given time rarely addresses voluntary changes to our lifestyles and behaviors before changes to our planet force us to change.

Exactly how and when we change are what’s in dispute. You can believe your choice to procreate vs. adopt is a solution vs. an adaptation to your environment. Will you consider this reaction lacks flexibility in the face of adversity?

Childfree people advocate changes that consider adoption as the alternative to procreation, and adoption in theory won’t be as necessary as it is now; when more people adopt, fewer adoptions will be available, and procreation will continue as it always has.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rights vs. Priveleges: Part 2
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Aug 20, 2009 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The overpopulation arguments posit we may suffer food shortages, malnutrition and starvation, but isn’t that the daily plight of more than a billion people? AlterNet readers already know about these possibilities, some or most of us have altered our lifestyles to a point, reducing our environmental footprint, but still procreate vs. adopt.

As First Worlders, billions of people less fortunate than ourselves consume far fewer resources and produce less garbage and pollution than we do. Even with a reduced ecological footprint, clearly we take more from the planet than Third Worlders.

Bringing a First World child into the world when you could have adopted is the distinction childfree people are trying to make. How is it not selfish to bring more children into the world when there are so many children and teenagers that want to be adopted, both in America and across the globe?

I read that within a year, the planet will sustain 7,000,000,000 lives. Conservatives have argued against overpopulation. They argue against another point of contention, global warming, saying that for every article supporting global warming, they can find an article supporting the opposite viewpoint. They believe the planet and technology can sustain us and this fits well with people who aren’t concerned with climate change, overpopulation (however you define the term), resources, pollution…fill in your particular concern, or lack of concern, here.

Even some who agree global warming exists and write about fearing for their young child’s ability to survive also knew the conditions they brought their children into were bad and will get worse, so why procreate? Isn’t that one definition of selfishness?

Kids cost money, so you should be able to afford adoption. Adoption policies are tougher than procreation but does this mean people should first consider being mature and stable enough emotionally and financially to meet adoption standards?

Why not adopt older children, teenagers, or someone with physical challenges that are in some other way disabled? Isn’t there a chance procreating can result in disabled offspring; if procreationists are willing to take that chance with their own offspring, why not commit to adopting the disabled instead? Isn’t refusing to adopt another form of selfishness?

And while I don’t disagree with the belief having children changes a person’s life priorities, the same mindset can occur without having children. People that lack priorities should not rely on procreation to change their priorities and having such a narrow and limited perspective completely disregards the life priorities and needs of others who have the same right to a certain quality of life.

Parents who regret being parents shouldn’t be an argument to convince others not to have children. The responsibility to provide emotional and financial support doesn’t have to end when a child turns 18. Unintended pregnancies, people who lie to their partners or to themselves saying they want children, and people that think they want children but later regret the decision are examples where the idea and the commitment involved are at odds.

Should people not procreate until they’re older, get an education, reduce their debt, and learn what they really want in life, which may only be realized later in life? “Much wisdom is gained from the process of raising children.” Much wisdom is gained in monasteries, but how many procreationists value wisdom in its many forms? Wisdom can be gained from pain and hardship, is this what allows procreationists to attain “wisdom”?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rights vs. Priveleges: Part 3
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Aug 20, 2009 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Taking the path of least resistance does little to help you evolve.” You can evolve without having children, and, having children doesn’t guarantee you will evolve. The choice not to have children isn’t always shallow; you can be a shallow parent, or does being a parent always make you less shallow? The answer is no.

And why, if someone doesn’t want children, would you suggest they should? People that don’t want children shouldn’t raise children they do not want. That argument doesn’t make sense and children shouldn’t be a parent’s experiment to attempt being more evolved or less shallow.

If there is a severe reduction in the population, women will not be considered goddesses. They have to decide for themselves what they want out of life, and to hold the planet hostage to a woman’s ability to give birth reminds me of men who held the planet hostage to greed, if we’re talking stereotypes.

If it takes a man to oppress others, women included, we’re back to where we started, men oppressing the planet and it’s inhabitants…but not without women’s permission or participation. How will you raise girls and boys to be good to each other and the planet?

Theory sounds good (in theory) and if it’s true women cherish their children more than their husbands (no argument required) there’s no guarantee children will grow up to love or even take care of their parents, so love, in whatever form, can be one sided, unpredictable and lost.

My mother lives with me and we share expenses. I will take care of her the best I can but the reality-based truth is children will have to work. Having someone related to you that is available and capable of taking care of an aging or ailing parent while working is difficult if not impossible at some point in that parent’s life.

I believe in socialized health care and state-subsidized long-term care, because without it, children as adults cannot afford to take care of their parents’ many needs when round-the-clock care eventually is required.

Relationships can be damaged by the very events that brought people together. What breaks up more marriages than any other factor: Money. What causes more bankruptcies than any other factor: Health care costs. Without money and universal health care, how can people expect to survive as couples?

Men: Get married and go into debt for your marriage, mortgage, credit cards and car loans. Add student loans, if applicable. Procreate. Increase your debts to pay for all the above. Next, lose your job. Find yourself in foreclosure and/or bankruptcy. Prepare yourself for divorce, alimony, and child support.

Women: Get married and find yourself eligible for Social Security benefits, even if you don’t have children, so long as you were married at least nine months and still married at the time of your husband’s death. Divorced women married at least ten years are eligible for Social Security on the ex-husband’s record if they are unmarried at the time they become eligible for Social Security.

Men and Women: If you have children, you can receive Social Security income even though you never paid into it, are no longer married, or if your offspring are disabled.

The reason is children are innocent, so parents, consider childfree people who work are paying for Social Security benefits certain parents never paid into themselves. How can anyone say childfree people are selfish when we pay for some of your children’s Social Security benefits?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rights vs. Priveleges: Part 4
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Aug 20, 2009 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the other hand or aside from that point of view, can single mothers afford daycare and healthcare while they work? Why not create a system that nurtures the right to procreate without expecting a woman must be married or their children have a father?

Would it be better to have a system that supported single mothers, even single women or men who are gay and want to adopt? Why do some people pass judgment on parents who have children but don’t want or need the other biological parent in their lives?

Women who choose to use a sperm bank instead of getting more involved with a man for his sperm would be better than the state forcing stupid or careless men to pay for child support for a child he did not want. I am in favor of child support, but women who want children and don’t want or need a man should have more options than manipulating a man in order to have a child.

On the subject of vasectomies: Becoming an “accidental father” doesn’t make sense when a man can get a vasectomy. Men, if you don’t want kids, don’t have sex, but if you are stupid or careless enough to have sex and risk getting a woman pregnant, first get a vasectomy.

To say “…my children were conceived in spite of birth control” means that man didn’t get a (viable) vasectomy, or relied on some lesser means of contraception. Anything less than “100% effective” isn’t contraception, yet men and women continue to rely on pills and devices. There are reversible vasectomy procedures so there is no excuse not to have a vasectomy if you believe in using contraception.

On the subject of fetal endangerment: If a woman decides to knowingly increase the chances her child will have birth defects, through in vitro fertilization, smoking, refusing genetic counseling, should society pay for higher health care costs? Yes children are innocent, but where is the legislation supporting childbirth within any guidelines, be it counseling, or coupling later in life (as disorders and dangers increase with age for both sexes)? It seems anyone can have a baby with known risk factors and the rest of society is forced to accommodate?

Unfortunately, children are expensive, and some women would rather rely on a man to take care of her, the plan being to have a child and not have to work in some dead-end job. Some women have children from multiple partners and collect child support that may or may not be spent in full on the children.

Some women spend the child support money on their newest boyfriend, kids be damned, so why haven’t I heard variations on these scenarios where women have all these freedoms related to having children but few to none of the drawbacks?

A woman can have an abortion or give her child up for adoption, but a man has no legal say in either scenario so they need to keep their sperm away from legal situations that can ruin their lives.

Back to immigration: Instead of procreation, why not adopt and allow more immigrants into First World countries? A system cannot survive without its citizens. Having access to jobs, housing, healthcare, education, and long-term care, paid by equitable taxation with representation, would provide for all the above.

But no, people would rather procreate vs. adopt, fight legal immigration, integration and diversity, with an increasing disparity of income levels, and those less fortunate, innocent children included, will suffer the consequences. Socialism is still a bad word in this country in part because citizens in socialist countries pay higher taxes but they are paying for and receiving all the aforementioned benefits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rights vs. Priveleges: Part 5
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Aug 20, 2009 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Socialist nations don’t have large enough populations to make their system work but refuse to allow immigrants to contribute to the system. There has to be a combination of goals that would allow everyone access, and in every country there will always be those less fortunate, but when we live in a country that doesn’t even care about insuring innocent children, what hope do we have for the rest of us?

“…perhaps one of my off-spring will find a cure for AIDS…” Perhaps not. Perhaps they will be like Hitler or Stalin. You see how this type of thinking can lead to an outcome you cannot count on? Instead, you might be more convincing if you used statistics to say perhaps they won’t be any better or worse than the majority of us, but if they grow up in America, they will consume more resources than Third Worlders will. Perhaps your offspring will grow up to have many more American consumers of their own that grow up to have many more American consumers of their own and so on, and so on. Perhaps, perhaps not.

As to what children can grow up to do, I give back to the community by not bringing more children into an already overburdened planet. Procreationists cannot successfully argue against that, no matter whether they bring happiness to others or work legal cases pro bono.

There are fewer and fewer social services due to the overwhelming number of people in need. And why rate your offspring by mainstream accomplishments? Can’t a child grow up to be a gas station attendant and still be happy?

To all those parents that love football games, I love the fact parents don’t care enough to keep their children out of competitive sports, there are other ways to learn about teamwork and get exercise than to risk death or permanent injury. Why is every football player that breaks their neck a hero, because they survived their parents’ wishes? Sure, walking across the street has a statistical danger relative to playing football, but only one is done out of (relative) necessity.

Do the math, it doesn’t add up in anyone’s favor to say I brought good to the world by my offspring doing good, there’s too many do gooders that need help and not enough do gooders to do it. You would argue we need more people to cover this shortage? It is the (relative) size of any population that brings them down to the level of the poor and poorer and poorest.

And to those that think “…alternet's overall obsession with sex…” you must be reading articles I am not familiar with or have it all wrong. Concepts like not having children, women’s rights and the porn debate will always have at least two sides. AlterNet allows readers to think outside of mainstream media and religious doctrine.

If you believe AlterNet is obsessed with sex, it is you that owns the problem. Besides, each article has a title and should be clear enough it’s a subject you are not interested in, so don’t click on it. And while you are at it, you are free to turn the TV or radio channels, put down a book or magazine, and don’t visit an art exhibit.

I trust you are getting the idea. There is still such a thing as freedom of speech, and no one is forcing you to read these articles. Why tell us you are tuning out, just do it. The first amendment is lost on people like you, yet you freely rant with obvious ignorance of your rights and forget to distance yourself when necessary.

Your opinion may not fit in well with the majority of AlterNet readers but you are welcome to read mainstream media. There’s much more in life to do than complaining about something that you already knew existed on this website.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rights vs. Priveleges: Part 6
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Aug 20, 2009 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it’s true the more educated a woman is the less likely she will have children, then I am even more supportive of education, either way in fact, but women aren’t being taught alternatives to “traditional” ways of thinking. When people read “obsession with sex” into AlterNet’s purpose, why won’t you simply stop reading those types of articles instead of articles “…slowly turning me away from the site…”?

Obviously, life isn’t all about sex, and AlterNet isn’t all about sex either. Sex isn’t all about procreation and sex doesn’t always result in pregnancy. People that argue sex is only for procreation, whether gene theories or Biblical mandates, don’t understand two things: Not every man or woman is fertile, their genetic “purpose” can result in offspring who are infertile, so why force the interpretation that our genes always create life?

And second, biblical scholars can’t agree upon the meaning of 1 Timothy, chapter 2, verses 11-15: “(11) Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. (12) But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. (13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve (there’s a second version in Genesis where Adam and Eve were created at the same time); (14) and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: (15) but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.”

Some Biblical scholars then reinterpret verse 15 to say the author (inspired by God) is not advocating all women must bear children, but that all should simply live “lives of faith, love, holiness, and modesty.” Why fabricate an interpretation that appears to contradict this verse? I can’t agree with any of these passages, but let’s move on to the book of Revelation.

The 144,000 in this passage are all male virgins (Rev 14:4). You will recall from the last passage that they were Jews, twelve thousand each from a given tribe (Rev 7:4-8). Furthermore, if we include another passage in Revelation, we may note that they were beheaded (Rev 20:4). So the 144,000 consist exclusively of celibate Jewish males without heads.

If heaven is reserved for a limited number of celibate Jewish males (without heads) what hope is there for rest of us, never mind the women? Indeed these are absolutely sexist passages, no matter how you interpret them, and women in Christianity are out of luck when it comes to salvation, depending upon which passage you believe in, because you can’t believe both books can you, or either book for that matter?

Last but not least, in the first chapter of Genesis: (22) And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

If humans were told by God to multiply, but multiply to the point we are directly responsible for the destruction of untold numbers of species, are we therefore held accountable by God for destroying creatures of the air and sea?

(26) Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Does man having dominion as sanctioned by God mean we can destroy that which we have dominion over? Dominion, in 1 Timothy, allows men to have dominion over women.

Conflicting, contradictory, sexist and destructive, the Bible has much to offer men and little to offer women, at least women with minds of their own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rights vs. Priveleges: Part 7
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Aug 20, 2009 1:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And now some more quotes from posters on the forum with my responses:

“…as people we grow more from loving someone than from anything else.”
There are many other ways to grow than procreating someone for you to love. And to all procreationists, don’t feel people like me are missing out or feel sorry for us. Your emotions are entirely wasted on people who disagree with you. I don’t feel sorry for another person’s need to procreate, nor do I feel I am missing out.

“…those that are narcissistic will not procreate and create more narcissists”
This doesn’t make any sense, if narcissists don’t procreate, how can they create more narcissists?

“Hate and fear on the other hand have to CONTINUALLY be recreated for it to survive”
This is no different than love needing to be recreated for it to survive.

And while it can seem easier to love than to hate, love isn’t always easy, or, you haven’t been tested to the extremes most people aren’t used to if you live in a First World country. Try living in dirt poverty for a year or ten years, removed from all your expected conveniences and see how well you cope.

Now, imagine people that grew up in these circumstances, they are statistically happier than the rest of us, why, because they aren’t tied to possessions and luxuries we take for granted and are burdened by, both in obsession and affordability. You may think you don’t take your life or children for granted, but you have not been tested hard enough. Yes, life is rough, but not in comparison to Third Worlders.

Why not move to a Third World country to prove you don’t take love and charity for granted? You consume more than they do, had children that do the same, and of course you think childfree people are narcissists, but refuse or can’t see your own narcissism. By the way, if you procreate vs. adopt, you are more of a narcissist than I am by wanting children that are from your loins more than wanting adoptable children who need you more than you need them.

Show me where I’m wrong and while you’re at it, read or read 33 reasons not to procreate. There are at least 33 reasons not to procreate.
VHEMT
Scroll about one page down to see the table.

If you think people with children are less narcissistic than people who don’t want children, there at least 33 reasons not to have children, and people that feel they’re missing something can always baby sit or go abroad and help entire villages full of children.

These 33 reasons are actually 33 reasons people like you are more selfish than people like me, that is if you choose to procreate vs. adopt and that has been the thrust of my message all along. Adopt why don’t you, and stop labeling childfree people as selfish. Parents care about theirs and themselves, forgetting the burden they’re imposing on the rest of us.

“…the purest act for the environment that an individual could perform would be to kill him or herself.”
We are not telling you to kill yourself or your offspring, you imply if we care enough about our impact on the environment we should kill ourselves. Are you saying your right to procreate doesn’t affect the same right I have to exist?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rights vs. Priveleges: Part 8
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Aug 20, 2009 1:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To people that say “Abort yourself!” Why don’t you believe in my right to live? I don’t expect you to harm your offspring by killing them, or by killing yourself, depriving them of their parent(s), so why say such things when we all have the same right to live? I wouldn’t say you should abort or otherwise kill yourself or your family.

I have no children, you and many others have one or more. You don’t see the world as overpopulated, polluted, and short on resources. So your plan is to have your children inherit less than you did? When are procreationists going to determine their offspring are being dealt ever-increasing hardships? That sounds selfish to me, what you want as parents, love and relationships, comes at the expense or to the detriment of your offspring.

People that say I’ll change my mind are self-deluding. That’s like me telling them they’ll become like me and either stop having children, or not have any children, or regret having had children.

There’s no use making positive remarks about animals either, as compared to humans. You might want to give examples, because I can counter with my own: Chimps kill and eat other chimps, some male baboons rape younger females and have incestuous sex, lions leave the group they were raised in, enter another group and kill the offspring from other males.

What do people like you say to the idea there are 1,500 species of animals that have gay and bisexual behaviors? It’s faulty thinking to compare humans to animals when there are acts in the animal kingdom that would shame most people, and I’m not talking about homosexuality.

A major difference between any animal and humans living in most societies is we imprison or kill humans that rape or kill other humans. Are animals amoral? You can’t impose human morality on animals any more than you can compare animal behaviors to humans, in either a positive or negative way.

To say a childfree person was somehow convinced by their parents not to want children cannot be the entire truth. I was never told by my parents to get married or have children nor was I told I shouldn’t get married nor have children. The decision should be yours to make and parents don’t need to program you in either direction. People don’t have to grow up with divorce, abuse, or cynicism to choose not to have children.

To imply that people who don’t want children had to have had a bad childhood must also believe having a good or great childhood will always result in wanting children, and that isn’t true (either).

I’ve noticed those who label childfree people as narcissistic, greedy or egotistical do not respond to those who believe adoption vs. procreation can satisfy both the need to have children and reduce their impact on the planet.

The author of the article mentions the environment but those who label our kind as narcissistic, greedy or egotistical never address these issues and possible solutions. This is only more delusional thinking from people with narrow minds and a limited perspective. Your agenda is clear but your thinking is muddled.

I did learn at an early age, and not from my parents, that the world has a finite amount of resources, our numbers are growing and not decreasing (lower birth rates aren’t decreasing the total population), and pollution as a result of population must end up somewhere. I reasoned more of us living on the planet isn’t necessarily better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rights vs. Priveleges: Part 9
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Aug 20, 2009 1:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why can’t procreationists look beyond their own needs and see the impact they are having on the planet instead of making excuses? Yes, love your children, I wouldn’t want it any other way, and do what you want, we’re not forcing you to do anything.

People that think mothers aren’t special are wrong because their children think their mothers are special and would you want it any other way? Parents that like children probably like their children more than other parent’s children, it makes more sense, and your children are more special to you than someone else’s.

When it comes to the population debate, don’t blame us for your lack of math skills. Who hasn’t heard the world’s population can fit in Texas, or Rhode Island, or any other small easily defined landmass? This is supposed to show we have so much more land than people but it’s not population density that is the issue in First World countries, it’s total consumption / production per capita.

The other argument is we have enough food to feed the world’s population, it’s only a matter of politics, production and distribution. The food described would be simple crops, and we’d have to stop feeding these crops to animals for our meat consumption, stop using these crops to create biodiesel for our vehicles, and stop ourselves from using these crops to create junk food that we over consume.

“Say your prayers” implies prayer solves the problem or any problem. I’ll need more than anecdotal reasoning. Please provide links to science-based studies and not links to places like Bob Jones University!

“These folks should be glad that there are people out there willing to work and pay taxes for schools, social services, and infrastructure they will never use while not adding to the societal burden themselves.”

And another comment: “You don't want to have kids? Don't. And then have the good sense to be grateful to those of us who do.”

Agreed, and to both of you, would you thank for me any of your sons and daughters who went to war, who died or were tortured or had limbs blown off so I wouldn’t have to experience a lack of faith in what they were fighting for? I will be paying with my tax dollars for their war efforts and survivor benefits. I also paid with my tax dollars any babies with birth defects born to soldier families, so you’re welcome for that too.

I would like to directly thank all the Black and Chinese slaves that died while building railroads my mom enjoyed traveling on last summer. You can thank me for the Social Security taxes I paid into so that some of your daughters can procreate and if needed, live off Social Security without having paid into it themselves. You can also thank me for state and federal taxes I paid into so poor people can get Medicaid benefits.

Don’t get too emotional on me, it was my pleasure, because I realize even though I don’t procreate, the system (somewhat in theory and mostly in practice) provides for both of us if we ever need it or lose our status in society.

Are you still looking down on me? First look at yourselves. Your attempts to reason show you don’t know what you’re talking about and are overly sensitive and remain ignorant on subjects you tried to present on the forum. At least I don’t subscribe to religious, sexist and racist beliefs that oppress people like you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rights vs. Priveleges: Part 10
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Aug 20, 2009 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“No one should forget that they wouldn't be here making choices and ranting and raving if they had not been children once themselves.” Your comment is beside the point and irrelevant. It’s a given we were all once children, but it is not relevant to the debate.

“…lets not pretend that it's for some noble purpose when it's really more about being able to being able to spend your carbon offsets in one big trip to Aruba rather than spread them out over a year of caring for offspring.”
Believe what you want, but not every childfree person does this, I live within my means and do not waste my money or resources. You probably recycle; I can go one better and say I don’t have offspring and my ecological footprint has to be less than parents that try to defend themselves by attacking us in this forum. Besides, how many parents use airlines? Isn’t that a double whammy against your comment? Try not to defend such ignorance by making these types of comments, otherwise your attempt at arrogance would be lost on people who value critical thinking over absurd statements.

“As a person who has neither, I really do object to the notion that "everything" worth having consists of a spouse and a career.” Excellent comment in its simplicity.

“…happiness is quite subjective and it would be quite arrogant to think that you know what "ultimate human happiness" truly is.”
It just goes to show some procreationists think their happiness is better than our version of happiness.

“If you tell a person to go kill themselves because they have a different opinion then you should not be in charge of children.” Agreed.

“If you have the right to make the choice to reproduce, then I have the same right to make the choice NOT to reproduce.”
Agreed.

“Why bother, except for the TOTALLY selfish reason of having someone to take care of you when you're old. Which doesn't hold water-walk into the closest nursing home and ask 10 residents the last time one of their children visited. And, do this BEFORE you decide to have any. It will help you make up your mind.”
While there are exceptions to your observation, it won’t convince procreationists to change because they refuse to believe in or think about these observations. Their beliefs are tied to their faith; they are unable (therefore unwilling) to question how or whether their beliefs oppress or negatively affect others, or the planet.

“People surveyed who said if they had the chance to do it all over again said they wouldn’t have children.”
While I don’t want to disagree with this survey, are surveys taken mostly by those most interested in expressing negative opinions? Cheating on your significant other? Survey results range from somewhere around 10% to over 75%, depending on the survey, so be careful when quoting surveys.

Also, you can find a survey that says unmarried couples have more sex, and the opposite survey result that married couples have more sex than unmarried couples. Who is right? Who is paying for the survey and how were the questions framed?

“Selfish is having kids and being a bad parent. Selfish is feeling threatened by those who choose not to have kids and attacking them because you obviously feel threatened.”
Agreed.

“…the Earth can exist just fine without you, your children, myself, or humanity...but WE cannot exist without the Earth, now or in any near future.”
Agreed.

“Ignoring or wishing the problems away does not actually make them go away.”
Agreed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rights vs. Priveleges: Part 11
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Aug 20, 2009 1:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“It is funny how so many people justify having kids by saying how wonderful they are. Don't they realize that they are describing how kids benefit THEM, not society at large, not the kids themselves. I am a mom myself, and I love being a parent. But I don't pretend to be benefiting anyone but myself. If I was truly unselfish I would be off helping others like Mother Theresa did, instead of raising kids.”
Agreed, in part. Mother Theresa refused pain medication for the poor people she was “treating” but when she needed medical attention, she flew to England and America for medical care on the same donations intended for those poor people.

Mother Theresa also received donations from one of the Keating Five (Wall Street scandal that scammed investors) and when the story became public, she refused to return the donations she got from the Keating Five, money stolen from poor people. Saint indeed.

“I have never heard one person say, I really really wanted to have children, but decided it was better for the planet and everybody else that I didn't.”
Truer words of wisdom I have not heard before today.

“If capitalism is to persist, it should be deprived of labor so that the wealthy are forced to offer their entire estates to have someone to tie their shoelaces.”
Interesting concept, but I’m not sure how to give the deprived the basics, like food and water by forcing the sale of an estate. Who would buy this estate? Can we force one wealthy person to sell their estate and force the proceeds from another person wealthy enough to buy it? How would we convert the sale to cash so the poor could benefit?

“Any rat bastard who wants to write anti-children articles needs to be sent for mental counseling!”
Now, now, we didn’t force you to get mental counseling, but you first if you please. We can go together, but who will choose the counselor, a secular or spiritual one? One “educated” at Bob Jones University?

Enough said. Keep doing what you want, no one is stopping you, but don’t blame me for your excesses…

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I GET THE IMPRESSION... Posted by: AZLBRAX07
flyskyd
Posted by: sunrise1 on Sep 2, 2009 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice article, very helpful. thanks!!


------------

nike air

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

qdqee
Posted by: sunrise1 on Sep 3, 2009 1:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice article, very helpful. thanks!!


------------

nike air

[« Reply to this comment] [