It seems like the underlying issue behind people's anger over this is the atomization of our culture. Most of us, with or without children, are living in little bubbles, and we don't want anyone else to pop them.

But obviously, there are hugely important exceptions to the categories represented in the piece: many people can't have children for reasons they don't control, either physiology or the lack of a suitable partner. Also, many have children without truly having consented to the process, whether as a result of rape, or simply social coercion. Focusing on those who see themselves as in control of their choices is not very helpful to resolving the difficulties of those who are not so lucky, on either side of this social divide.

There is not enough community, not enough shared responsibility across kinship lines. This makes nuclear families selfish and smug, and makes single people lonely and disengaged. It also perpetuates the blindness to institutionalized suffering that is the hallmark of our culture. We need to reform our small, local institutions to foster acceptance of different choices, and to offer inclusion and support for those who have little choice in their way of life.

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

If people choose not to have children, then fine, that's their perogative. As someone who has chosen to be a parent (and for the record - lest the "child-free" should begin grinding their teeth - my wife and I do control our children in public), I have found that having children is damn hard work but it brings its own rewards. Having said that, I would never push my lifestyle choice on a non-parent because, let's face it, your heart has to be in it.

However, this whole child-free movement raises more disturbing issues for me, namely, whatever happened to "society"? Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once declared that there was no such thing as society. I take that to mean that she thinks people don't share a common responsibility for one another - that somehow we can share the same land but we don't have to go out of our way to take care of our fellow citizens. In this respect she seems to share common ground with the militantly child-free, by which I mean those who use nasty nicknames such as "crotch dropping" (what a disgusting way to refer to a human being) and take petty delight in parking in spaces reserved for children and parents at the supermarket.

With respect to the child-free, children are the next generation, and our society (long may it remain cohesive) recognizes this through everything from public education and tax breaks to daycare, play groups, child-friendly restaurants and so on. Just because you choose not to have children doesn't mean we, too, must throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As if being a parent weren't hard enough (and I'm not complaining - I made a conscious decision to have them), as parents we also have to cope with the legions of do-gooders who want to tell us how to raise them, right-wingers who want to restrict what our children are taught in school and the child-haters who want us to hide our children away until they've grown up.

So, c'mon, let's have some appreciation for children and those who choose to raise them -- or at the very least, some tolerance for the sake of society as a whole.

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

Like the first commentator, I've got the impression that an important root of the whole 'childfree' debate is the unilateral emphasis in about all of Western (US/European) society on the nuclear family. I'm also convinced that - while the choice not to become a parent is a legitimate one - having children is not a choice like any other. Children are a responsibility that cannot be downplayed. Therefore, I do not in the least object if my colleague - who is a mother of two - asks me to take over certain tasks. After all, being childfree does provide one with more time of one's own - a luxury situation compared to the situation that parents find themselves in.

The main problem with working parents is that working mothers tend to get the bulk of the burden shifted on their shoulders compared to working fathers. This, in my opinion, is a far larger issue than the perceived inequality between working parents and their childfree colleagues. Fortunately, I'm seeing enough examples in my own environment of healthy, broadminded parenting without living in a bubble - and with *both* parents taking their own fair share of the load.

For the record, I'm childfree myself but also the grateful godmother of two young ladies (two years and six monts old respectively) who live with their parents in a community living project - not much chance of living in a bubble there!

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

At age 23, married with a stepdaughter, the thought of being pregnant (hammered into us girls growing up as something never to let happen, and difficult to shed that feeling that it was wrong somehow), going through labor and committing my time to something demanding and messy was not appealing at all so I got my tubes tied. Satisfied with that for the two years I was actually married and the several years afterwards, and not getting why people thought having children was exciting, I did an about face when I met my current husband and took the plunge. I got the surgery reversed and now have four sons, ages 6-15.

One cannot know the strong feelings for your children and the satisfaction unless you have them. Sorry, I do not think it's the same for stepchildren--and I have one. There is a physical connection to your children that you have to experience in order to know why people want you to have children so badly.

I have changed so much as a person in too many ways to go into that I just would not have done had the motivation not been there from my children. I have become a much more tolerant person, the messiness of children is not offensive to me any more and I truly look at the world completely differently. This is the hardest, stressful and most wonderful thing I have done with my life. I think it's an important experience to take us outside of ourselves and connect with others in society in a way that just doesn't happen otherwise.

That said, I wouldn't expect someone to adopt a puppy just because I might like dogs. No one can walk in our shoes but us. Parenthood is too difficult and important of a job to take on if you don't want to for whatever reason. The children deserve to have parents who want them and are prepared for the sacrifices. I would have been an awful parent if I had had my children before I was ready. I know this about myself. I am not a patient person and mixed with my own immaturity at the time, it would have been a disaster, not to insinuate that is the same about other people. I applaud those who realize it's not for them and are honest about it. There are a lot of experiences that we all miss out on--can't do everything in the world.

I don't think we should waste time trying to convince people who don't want the job to take it on. MYOB.

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

Motherhood, which I entered with great trepidation, made me a better person and a happier one as well. Nevertheless, I think the parents of this nation divide toward two extremes: those who struggle to provide their kids with even the basic necessities of life (and some who have given up entirely) and, on the other hand, those who raise children in a Darwinian attempt to raise the best and most indulged kids on the planet and expect us all to applaud them. I suspect it is this latter group that annoys the childless; they certainly get on my nerves.

What I'd like to see is that we look upon every child born in this country as a national asset, deserving of support and attention, decent housing, good medical care and a first-rate education. I wish some of these childless people would involve themselves with the already-born but neglected children who form a sort of national underground. Maybe that would demonstrate that it's possible to nurture without going on an ego trip and help them work through some of their resentment.

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

I'm the middle child of a large family, and from a very early age, knew I did not want to have children. I've made many decisions in my life, some good, some bad, but one I have never regretted was having a hysterectomy when I was 25. Was it a selfish decision? Quite probably - the idea of taking on the responsibility of a child gave me the willies. And THAT is precisely why I made the right decision. Does society really want people to have children when they are not fully committed to that level of responsibility? I should hope not. At 50, I am happy in my life, happy that my siblings are surrounded by their offspring, and happy that I am not.

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

I'm childfree. Although I had some confusion around the issue when I was young (inculcated by being surrounded by families with children; I knew of NO childless families), I'm confident I made the right choice for myself. My wife of 15 years feels the same way, though she never had any of the confusion I experienced. And fortunately we have a solid community of childfree friends who are also confident they have made the right choice, for various reasons.

One issue that really hasn't been touched on here is the world we are leaving our children to face. If you think the world is chaotic now, wait 50 or 100 years: More war, more famine, more environmental degradation, overpopulation, less and less security and quality of life. I see a very dark cloud over the future of our species, and part of my choice to remain childless is based on the belief that it is selfish to have children when the future we leave them will be so awful.

Of course, some of the breeders among us will say that today's children are also the future of the race, and so being childfree is irresponsible. I have had people tell me that I would make a great parent, and bemoan my choice. But while it is true that good parenting might make for a better future society, I think the negatives outweigh the positives.

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

Childfree is the new gay?

I can do better things for the world than parent a child I wouldn't be interested in having in the first place.

Contribute where you can with the best you can and let the rest blather on.

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

I don't have kids. It was my choice when I was young and married to a man that I supported through undergrad and graduate school (and who left me when he finished school and I wanted to get pregnant) and it was my choice when for many years I was single (and VERY grateful not to have a biological link to my exhusband and his family). It's also my choice now that I've married a man that I love very much. We were in our later 40's when we married, and that's just too late to start raising kids.

My mother, upon meeting other seniors for the first time, is often asked "How many grandchildren do you have?" She's much more militant than I am. For many years her response was "None -- and I'm thankful because neither of my children are married." Some folks got the pointiness of her comment.

Sure, there are times when I just don't want to be around other people's children. On the other hand, I've been an outspoken proponent of more funding for public education, especially for arts and music in schools. Pro-Life folks really piss me off when they whine about all the dead babies, then decry welfare mothers. Hey Mrs. Businessowner, what are YOU doing to support better public education? How many single mothers do you employ? Do they have health insurance?

Until we get our priorities straight as a Nation and craft a National health care strategy that covers everyone, a public education strategy that inspires educators and kids and effectively educates (eral education, not pseudoscience), and support businesses that provide jobs that pay a decent wage, why oh why is anyone upset that some folks aren't breeding?

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

With privacy rights slipping, it may be possible for BIG BROTHER to convict couples if their record shows that they underwent "abortion" just to stay child-free.

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

I like kids... other people's kids. I don't really want to have any myself. Does that make me selfish? No. Would I be justified in referring to people as "breeders" or whatever? No.

People without children have a LOT of freedom they would otherwise lack. If that's their choice, nobody should criticize them for it. Nor should they criticize those who choose to have children and trade personal freedom for the joys of parenthood. How simple is that?

I doubt most of these Internet tough guys would ever call somebody a bad name to their face. Discussion forums are like the unrestrained id of the internet, people's views and language inevitably polarize as they gradually forget they are talking to other real people. Ergo, you can only place so much significance on things you read in them.

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

As a fiercely progressive and pro-child liberal, I read this article (and the ensuing discussion) with great interest.

I don't think it helps the child-free cause when they use insulting epithets like "crotch dropping" or "semen demon" to describe a human being they find personally repulsive. How different is that from "nigger" or "cameljockey" or "slope"?

I also suspect that the majority of these people consider themselves progressive liberals, in favor of socialized medicine and higher taxes for the rich (because they can afford it), as I do. Yet they bellyache about feeling obligated to work longer hours than a person with children. Guess what? You've got free time to spare; you can afford the extra time to take up the slack.

Every single item mentioned is one of practicality, not some "conspiracy of the breeders." Pregnant women have legitimate right to the preferential parking due to the temporary physical impediments to movement. See my comments above about people without children working longer hours. And having children is a significant financial commitment; the contribution a parent has made to the perpetuation of our species and society deserves a modest tax break in my opinion.

I support a business' right to create a child-free environment for its customers (as detailed in a NYT article a few months ago). But, just as "child haters" are in the minority of the child-free community, so are irresponsible parents in the minority. Despite what you may think, I see a lot more well-behaved kids in public than poorly-behaved.

There is also the issue of common sense. A friend recently had the audacity to complain about noisy children at an opening night showing of the Narnia movie. An early evening show of a childrens' movie, on opening night! Did he expect the theater to be empty?

I think it would behoove the child-free (especially those who claim liberal values) to examine the parallels between their prejuces and those of their opponents. Again, the name-calling doesn't help.

I respect the choice of the child-free; I certainly acknowledge that actual "child haters" are in the minority. I would actively discourage anyone from attempting to marginalize the child-free lifestyle. However, as one who plans to have at least one child with my wife in my lifetime, I think MY choice deserves the same respect and understanding.

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

Make no mistake about it - the personal decision to remain childfree is just that - a personal decision. It is amazing how many people find that a lack of children in someone else's life somehow is a character defect, not to mention very threatening. It is no such thing. Our consumer culture pushes reproduction for obvious reasons and the Christian fundies have an anti-humanistic agenda that marches right along with that. One just does'nt need children to justify thier existence - the world is over populated, not under populated. We need to be very careful about defining norms in terms of the view of man + woman = children = "normal" = ideal standard. That is an equation for repression and exclusion and as progressives, we should be very leery of labeling the childfree as minorities or freaks worthy of comment. That just panders to the Christian neo nazis out there, who feel that a woman is just worth her womb and nothing more.

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

Why does everything have to become a "movement?" As far as our society being "kid-centric," that's ridiculous. In fact it is far from it. We celebrate children when it is convenient. A lot depends on where you live. If you live in the suburbs, expect the culture to be more child-centered. That's just life. Frankly I would like to see our society being MORE child-centered. I have a suspicion that a lot of the "child free" types are the same ones who bitch when a colleague needs time off because of sick kids.

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

Wow I had no idea there were actually movements for those that desire to remain childfree.

I am 36, female and decided very young I wasn't having kids. I think we're way too overpopulated as it is and I enjoy being free. If that's a crime than so be it. My parents never pressure me and are busy with 12 grandchildren from my siblings, and even if they didn't they have always allowed me to be my own person.

It seems that the philosphy many parents have and our govt. propogates is that having children....regardless of whether you are mentally fit or financially capable...is more admirable than if you chose to go it alone and devoted your life to other lofty causes. A childless scientist who invents life-saving drugs is less worthy than anyone who is a parent. That's the kind of mentality we have today in America.

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

Can someone explain to me why is it selfish to not want children? I think if you have 2 or more children you are the ones that are selfish. It means less food for another child and you add to the already overpopulated planet where they will use more resources and pollute.

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

Most comments on this list are redramatizing the tension between adults who don't have children and those who do.

The parents feel that thier choice to breed is being dissed by the child-free. People are using really conservative arguments, economically speaking, to goad those without children.

Personally, I never played with baby dolls as a child, but went straight to Barbie; I sometimes held other people's children and cooed over them, but for the most part, I found those fragile, wriggling things disturbing and absolutely never said I wanted to have children; I didn't (and don't) even want to get married, because really I don't want my life to in any way be associated with "family values."

Still, I support other people's choices to reproduce; one of my best friends is the mother of an amazing little girl. I respect the work my friend and her husband have done in raising her.

As far as working longer hours because one is childfree, well, yes, but we also have better chances of advancing in our jobs than mothers, who statistically put children before career. That isn't discrimination, but it's giving more responsibility to the employee who has more time and energy to devote to the job. And of course, parents who don't let children interfere with work should not be discriminated against.

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

One thing I noticed that was not mentioned, is that those who are child-free are the only ones not contributing to the population bomb. Of course, children are necessary, civilization would quickly come to a halt without them, but the world's population is skyrocketing, to a toxic degree.

The article mentioned that those most likely to be child-free are well-educated professionals. It's ironic because to progress as a society, these are the people we need more of.

As was mentioned, there is a wide range of child free. Some of those quoted sound like officious child haters. The step mother mentioned certainly fits my definition of "child free". She didn't supply sperm or egg to create a child. She did not notch the population up. That she is involved in a family is fine.

I'm kid-free myself. Mostly because the woman I chose to marry, proved to be infertile. I had to choose between my desire for children and the vows I had taken. But even before we knew that, there was debate on the pros and cons of the issue. After it was proven, we both ended up finding ways to get our kid-fixes, volunteering at the Boys and Girls Club or working with Soap Box Derby.

It's a strange issue, because it cannot be yes or no. We must have kids to continue. But we cannot have too many. Deciding who has how many should never be up the the government as it is in China. But somehow the right balance must be found. I'm not sure if our society has a good mechanism for doing that.

I think that our culture is way too child-centric as if bible based "family values" is the only way to organize things. Those, like Jesus, who choose not to have children, should be honored too.

I think groups like No-Kidding miss the big picture. If they are helping the child-free, they should work to provide more for old-age. Medical insurance, burial insurance etc. One of the real benefits of children for people is that as you get older, you are more likely to have people who care for you and are willing to help you, if you have raised them. Until a similar structure is formed for the child-free, fewer people will opt for the benefits of helping stop overpopulation.

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

I have wondered if under other circumstances I would have chosen to have a child despite programming that encouraged me to get my tubes tied (a decision that after 7 years I still feel very good about). I see US culture as exceptionally child-unfriendly. Lack of adequate public space in many places has made childhood for many seem like a shut-in lifestyle. Private property is off-limits for those wishing to explore nature as I did as a child (though I was chased off property too on numerous occassions), while TV, computers, and video games control and pollute young minds. In Europe and Latin America, with ample public spaces and vibrant street life, I have witnessed far more families in the streets, and young children out on their own, non-chaperoned. If the built-environment itself cared more about children than corporate need for sprawl I might have been more inclined to have wanted to bring a child into the world.

But the most basic reason I feel it is so difficult for parents and children, even beyond horrid healthcare, is the expectation for one or two parents to take on all the burden of childraising. My mother-friend from Africa tells me how being a mother in her culture was easiest in the early years, because extended family and friends shared so much of what was not viewed as a "burden" while the mother was given ample time on her own. Here, all of the responsibility is placed on parents or babysitters and day care people they must pay, and so the child can more easily become a burden. And now we are at a point where even the "nuclear" family is becoming obsolete.

Maybe in a different society even those of us who don't feel inclined to have children might make the choice, but unfortunately one of the toughest jobs just keeps getting tougher. But as a "child-free" person, I'd rather help out parents I know when I can and be a positive influence on their little ones than feel "persecuted" and spend time on another "movement" of those who have time enough for such pursuits.

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

It really burns me that our culture has set forth the notion that parenthood somehow legitimizes giving up on oneself. That (in a perfect world, where she has a choice about it) a woman with talent and imagination can decide that she is tired of making an effort-- that she would rather just assert the sanctity of her biological imperitave and force the world to take care of her. Force the world to smile as we tolerate the burden both her absence and her progeny creates.

Until reading this article I had no idea there was such a box to be put into as "childfree"-- but it certainly suits my point of view. My wife and I don't want kids, in spite of the fact that most people we know inisist we would make excellent parents. But our children are our careers, and they require just as much patience and nurturing as any drooling, clubfooted, noisy little precious toddler.

To those who paint a picture of people like us being selfish or anti-social, I would point out that by choosing to not procreate is actually enhancing our contribution to society by a) not diluting our efforts between trying to earn a living and properly raise a human being, b) not creating yet another drain on our world's resources for the simple & arrogant reason that the fruit of my loins is somehow the most important mouth to feed out of 5 billion people, and c) not retreating from the world to create some foul-smelling spawn hive; to actually go out and interact with interesting and creative people.

I have seen too many of my vital, intelligent, creative friends succumb to this pressure and turn away from the beauty they could have created in favor of inulging themselves in narcisstic self-propogation... As if letting their biology run amok and living with the consequences took more discipline than living a rational and contemplative life and making contributions to the world that mattered to somebody other than myself.

And the icing on the cake is that this gender role is considered the trump card for many women. You can see if in how they conduct their lives, that sense that oh well, if this doesn't work out, I can always get preggers and not have to worry about it anymore. Oops! Sorry, guess you'll have to take care of me now, sucker! A fine way to express a desire for equality.

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

Some people want kids. Others don't. Why can't that just be alright? Why is it something people want to fight about?

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

"I'm sure they're more than happy to collect the Social Security benefits from couples who do have children who grow up to be contributing members of society."
Well, yeah. On the other hand, don't we pay taxes for schools for other people's kids?
As for Europe being more child-friendly... well, that depends on where you are. Walking a strollers on the sidewalks of Rome or Florence is hell. Parking for pregnant women? Pleease. Forget about libraries with kids sections. Restaurants are seldom child-friendly (and that is a blessing according to many). Child care on the job? Forget it. Then again, there is (mostly) a better welfare state, with paid leave and state health insurance. So, it's a mixed blessing. I know: I lived there for 35 years.

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

"I have friends that I can't see anymore because my idea of a good time isn't going to Chuck E. Cheese's."

I guess some people like the place, but I've been to (up)Chuck E. Cheese with my kids. . .years ago, and I still get the sweats thinking about it. Speaking personally, eternity in Chuck E. Cheese would be fitting punishment for the seventh circle of hell. . .

Seriously – why do some people remain childless? Let's see: In my city, millions of people create permanent gridlock, nobody can get anywhere, and in other cities around the world the situation is worse; 300 million people in America and climbing; over six BILLION people world wide, heading for 10 to 20 billion, and already taxing to the breaking point every support system that planet Earth has to offer. We're fouling our nest to the point that we are, for the first time in our history, seriously considering whether we on Earth will even HAVE a nest in the next generation or two. Hell, we can't even find enough places to bury our crap. And still we make more people and look down on those who don't. Oh, yeah – and in America today the single biggest predictor for bankruptcy and poverty is having children. Our "child-loving" society is now structured so that very few can afford to raise them, while that society offers little to no real support, like, for example, subsidized child care for workers or paid education through college, as in Europe. Treating the childfree as pariahs under these conditions borders on insanity.

Those people who want children so badly should "live-and-let-live," do the world a favor, save some lives that are already here, and adopt.

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

Parenting does not just imply a responsibility to a child, but also to the larger community.

"Family values," "put children first"-- and all these public relations campaigns designed to tell us that our family is of MUCH more important than other people-- are just another way of promoting our culture of greed. Americans have interpreted this sanctioning of family as excusing and even legitimizing their baser impulses. What kind of baser impulses?

1. Overspending. My child must get everything he wants, NOW. Not buying is bad parenting because it might cause disappointment--and no child should EVER have to deal with not thinking that s/he is the center of the universe.

2. MY CHILD (not "children") first. These parents want to protect their kids from all of the "negative" parts of chldhood that make us mature adults--disappointment, sometimes embarrassment, having to compromise with others, not always getting what you want. These parents are the first to complain about teachers/coaches, to insist that everyone who participates in a contest should be treated as if his/her half-assed project is just as good as those who really worked. These parents come to community meetings to argue that THEY shouldn't have a tax increase to fund public schools because THEIR kids go to elite private schools.

3. Bad parenting can be fixed by $$$. These parents enroll their kids in so many activities that the kids never develop critical thinking or artistic skill. These kids can't deal with frustration or boredom. NEWSFLASH: being bored MAY just make junior figure out how to entertain himself (and for those of you about to insist Junior will then hold up a liquor store, who's the negative child-hater here?). I teach a summer class for kids. It meets at 1:00 p.m., and at least a third of every class has been made up of kids who are already on their second or third "activity" for that day when they arrive. They are exhausted and have nothing creative to bring to the table--they prefer to let the cruise director announce the next activity.

Yes, this is JUST the kind of behavior that will lead to a brighter future for America: overindulged kids who have been raised to value selfishness.

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

Once again I'm amazed by the views on Alternet. The sheer lack of compassion shown by those non-parents out there is truly bewlidering. Way to go readers - I'm sure the world will be a lovely place by this time next week with those attitudes.

Anyway, from my experiance here's why people call those who chose to do without: 'selfish'.

- Because you are a product of millions upon millions of life forms all struggling to survive, from your mother down to iddy biddy bacteria. For you to simply decide to ignore that passage of life, to some, smells a little selfish.

- Because you've enjoyed what I've no doubt you yourself have referred to as the gift of life. Perhaps sharing that gift with another set of atoms and molecules would be a nice thing to do.

- Because in 40 years you'll be relying on someone elses children to help you in your old age (from pensions to wiping your botty)

- Because the reasons tend to be, as shown above, 'because I don't want to.' Maybe you like long walks in the park or early nights with your spouse - I don't know. All I do know is that you've picked you over something else.

- Because having a child should be a truly giving experiance and you've chosen not to give. Another person with little understanding of the rigidity of logic might mistake that for selfishness. It's their loss in this case, I know.

Personally, I don't care what other people do (as long as it doesn't hurt me). I don't actually see people as selfish for not having kids. I do see them as ignorant however, given we're animals and all, for daring to complain about the fact they've gone against the tide and they are surprised the water is pushing against them.

Animals have babies. Live with it - not sulk about it.

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

I am a childfree woman, recently sterilized at 25. I realize bearing children is an intensely personal issue, and I agree that this decision sould be respected by those on both sides of the fence.

My feeling is that there are indeed so many multitudes on this fragile, finite planet that as a species, humans can certainly afford to leave the demanding, tiresome job of childrearing to those who really desire it. I understand what an important responsibility it is–I see how my parents sacrificed for me. I hope that I can earn enough to give my parents a comfortable retirement. while saving for my own.

I am not a "child-hater," and I try not to use crude names when referring to anyone in our society. In my large extended family, I try to be a positive mentor for my younger cousins. I hope to be a good aunt to any of my sister's potential kids.

I feel that we are best served when viewing ALL members of the next generation as our heirs, not just our own biological offspring. We are running out of oil, clean air and water, as well as space for anyone to live in. Our species is in overshoot–without fossil fuels and oil-based fertilizer, the earth is estimated to only be able to support about 2 billion humans. Not to mention that children's toxic PVC toys will never degrade, and the mountains of waste created by disposable diapers, Lunchables, etc. Global warming threatens this generation immediately, and I shudder to think of the toxic legacy we are leaving for future generations.

Unfortunate economic circumstances in this country have put working parents between a rock and a hard place–spend $700 a week on childcare, or quit a job to raise the kids yourself? Choose between retirement or college educations for the twins? I think a lot of people have kids only because they think they are supposed to, then end up regretting it later. I've seen many friends with disintegrating marriages, out-of-control kids and serious depression issues because of too many kids too fast.

In my opinion, nothing says love like voluntary sterilization.

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

I am absolutely stunned by the venom spewing form both sides on this debate.... I do not have kids, but certainly want to father a child at some point. If you want to have kids in this society then by all means have them. Getting bent out of shape at folks who decide otherwise is a waste of time. I support anyones decision to not have kids. Usually there are a multitude of reasons why and I respect anyones reasons. I know that out of my family I will probably be the only one who procreates, but that is not why I want to be a dad.
Life is an unbelievable journey and it is the ultimate gift. If you think you would be a bad parent do not have kids. If you know that you have other fish to fry dont have kids.
In closing I am pretty surprised that this article got the most response (of the articles I have read) today. How are you folks who cry revolution going to revolt if you cant even separate your differences over child rearing?

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

"If you want to have kids in this society then by all means have them. Getting bent out of shape at folks who decide otherwise is a waste of time."

Yeah crusty, you're right. Just be sure when you do have a kid, that you give your wife plenty of good loving, private time and foot rubs!

My only real problem with the whole debate is that there is a definite environmental component–we simply cannot afford to keep consuming resources at such a breakneck pace. I am pro-child in the sense that I believe in the right of a person to grow up and live in a world free of pesticides, contaminated food & water, dirty asthma-causing air and other toxic substances. I also believe in the right of non-human animals to live in undeveloped habitats. Anyone reproducing beyond the replacement rate (2 kids per couple) should forfeit their tax breaks.

All I can say is if you plan to be a parent, really try to make the world a better place for everyone's kids, not just your own.

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

I have to do it:

The "not enough food argument" - total bollocks. There's enough food, just not enough political will to distribute fairly.

The "we work longer hours" argument - I don't even see this as true, from my life experience.. but let's say it IS. That also means that you get the promotions faster. AND let's face it, the 'longer hours' part only means for paid work. Parents work 24/7 for 18 odd years.

The "there are too many people" argument - not really. There's a LOT of land out there.

The "this world sucks" argument. - It always HAS sucked, but, according to my grandfather who lived through WWII and the depression - every part of life is better now than it was back in the day

The "parents are creating great greedy soul-sucking monsters" argument - are YOU a soul-sucking consumption machine? Not all parents want the entire toy-r-us stock in their homes.

Now the other side..

The "but kids give meaning to your life" argument - utter tripe. If you had no meaning, kids are not going to manufacture it.

The "being childless is selfish" argument - in what way? Because the child-free don't have to change diapers and they get to stay our late for weeks at a time or put extra effort into their carreers? It's not selfishness that's spotted.. it's envy on the part of parents who HAVE given up so many freedoms.

The "you owe it to your community" argument. - Oh yeah, just what we need - people who don't want to have kids having kids. This sounds like a pro-life argument to me, and it gives me the heebie-jeebies.

and that's it in a nutshell. Nobody is right to force their opinion on this onto anyone else!!! It's a personal preference, akin to arguing whether or not blondes have more fun!

:)

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

"the planet groans everytime it registers another birth" Paul Simon

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

It seems that much too often people have a need for validation in the form of having other people believe as they do. So those who don't want children may denigrate those who do and vice versa, as if a different decision makes one or the other "wrong."

In fact, there are benefits and drawbacks to any major decision in life. Selfishness is perhaps a matter of relativity. If a person has children in order to ensure that he or she has someone to care for him or her in later life, that can be construed as selfish. If a person just really loves kids and has 6 or 8 of them, that's also probably incredibly selfish considering the state of the ecology. But if a person decides not to have children, it doesn't matter what the motive is. There will not be a damaged child of parents who had a baby for the "wrong" reason. Selfishness is irrelevant for the child-free - at least in this context.

I would have loved about 8 kids myself. My family is child oriented, and I am a product of that attitude. But I believe that no one should ever, ever have a child without a true desire for a family. And I only had 2 because, in spite of what I wanted, I believe that each person only has the "right" to reproduce himself or herself one time. This is not a religious attitude, but a pragmatic one. I believe the earth is too crowded, resources are too scarce, and a certain restraint is required.

All too often, we judge who we are by the things we hate or don't want to do. (People who don't like sports or don't like opera, for example, seem to think that these dislikes are virtues.) Being childfree or bearing children should not be a matter of virtue. The childfree who call parents "crotch droppers" or whatever are turning their childfree choice into a virtue, as parents are if they denigrate the decision not to have children.

One of the odd things about some people who don't have children and seem to dislike children so much is that they appear to forget that they were children once themselves. It's not like they sprang fully grown from the head of a greek god. They should have a certain respect for children as small human beings, not as some kind of alien intruders. (This obviously does not apply to all the childfree.)

(continued in next post)

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

In any case, our culture is a strange mix of child-centered and child-neglectful. Many anti-abortionists seem to think life ends at birth; they want to ensure that all children have a chance to be born, but not necessarily a chance for a quality life. Our schools are neglected, day care is underfunded and under-appreciated as a career. Teachers are often held in contempt as if their choice was second best ("those who can do, those who can't teach").

And, finally, there are undoubtedly places where children are not, and should not, be welcome. Bars, adult entertainment centers, and other inappropriate venues are some examples. But to say that children should not be in restaurants or planes or other public places is somewhat arrogant. If you don't want to be around children, eat at home. Kids are human beings. All adults were once children. All human beings should have standards of public behavior including adults. But we are a society, and society of necessity includes children. They are the next generation, they will inherit our norms and customs, they will form their values and behavioral guidelines from our treatment of them and of each other.

Tolerance, self-fulfillment, and an understanding that we are all in this together are needed for this issue, just as they are in most aspects of life.

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

Something that no one's discussed is the fact that many of the most spiritual people in history, people who have changed the way humanity thought about itself (like Jesus, Saint Paul, and Buddha), were people who renounced family and said that you'd live a happier, freer life if you didn't get married or have kids. Jesus said that people who were really devoted to God would be "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven." Saint Paul says in 1 Corinithians chapter 7 that "those who marry experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that," and advises people not to get married in light of an "impending distress" coming upon the world. A book that didn't make it into the Bible, the Acts of Thomas, says that most children are stupid, evil, or demon-possessed, and that people who abstain from having them will dwell in peace and tranquility, with "spiritual children" that are much more satisfying. If the founders of Christianity - not to mention Buddhism - say that having kids isn't worth it, then who am I to disagree? How's that for "family values?"

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

Kids are a huge responsibility. Why does our society encourage indiscriminant breeding? A 16-year-old mother can get on welfare and get craploads of money by squirting out baby after baby. I understand the desire to help those in need, but sometimes those people abuse the charity of others.

Babies are fine and good when the couple (yes, couple) are financially and emotionally stable and have planned on the baby. Too often, these babies are unplanned for and unwanted. It's unfair to all involved, especially the child.

I'd rather see the unwanted embryo aborted than born into a world where it will likely be neglected and abused.

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

"One cannot know the strong feelings for your children and the satisfaction unless you have them. There is a physical connection to your children that you have to experience in order to know why people want you to have children so badly." Every single person I know with kids says this. Its a trick, to suck you in. They want you to be miserable as well. "It will change your life" is another one. Yes, I KNOW it will change my life, that's why I'm NOT having kids. Not to mention that the world is a terrible, scary place that keeps getting worse every single day. I certainly wouldn't want to be a child in the world today.

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

My wife of 35 years in September and I decided when I was 35 and she was 30 that we were not interested in having children.

I have heard the arguments people with children make that their children will pay my social security when I retire childless. For that I thank them.

Now, I would like their thanks for the enormous contribution I have made in both income and property taxes that went to the education of those children so they can have good jobs and pay lots of social security taxes when I retire.

My wife and I, much to the annoyance of some of our acquaintances with children, see ourselves as a complete family.

Not speaking for my wife, I can say without reservation I am very glad I chose not to have children. I have not missed the experience one whit.

I have observed among many of the folks I know who are parents they seem to not have had any choices when it came to procreation. The sad thing to me is that since they bowed to some sort of pressure to have those children, now they are letting other people raise them. Almost as soon as their children are out of the womb they are in day care so the parents (?) can resume their pre-child activities.

Odd behavior to me...

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

Now I'm gonna go to my room and cry.

I hope you're happy.

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

It saddens me a bit to see such a divide here, but I can understand why as it's an emotional issue for both sides. I think both parents and people who choose not to have children can positively contribute to society and have an important role to play in it. Parents have the extremely important job of raising the next generation, a generation that will one day contribute to society and benefit the generations that came before them and the generations who will come after. People who decide not to have children free up resources for the children of the people who do, and can contribute positively to the society in which the children grow up by contributing to education, health care, the government, arts and entertainment, and science with their money, time, or career (of course, parents can make such contributions as well). Giving people the choice as to whether or not to have children ensures that, in many cases, the people who do have children really want it and have their hearts in it. In this way, parents, children, and childfree adults can co-exist quite peacefully :)

That being said, I agree with comments others have made that there are a good deal of people out there who don't really have a choice in the matter, and we should focus on alleviating and perhaps even eliminating the underlying social problems associated with it, so that everyone can make a choice that they're happy and comfortable with.

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

If these pro-"everyone be fertile!" people really care about the children themselves, then why do they wish for people who do not want them to have them? I mean, these people who don't want kids MIGHT be good parents, but why risk it when there are enough bad parents who wanted kids in the first place?

Yes, yes, it makes sense biologically to reproduce. But I can't help but think it's somewhat selfish to want to have a child for purely emotional reasons. Why create a new child to love when there are so many children out there who need love and care so desperately? I think we should become parents for the sake of the children, not for our own emotional satisfaction. I'm not advocating everyone only adopting, but wouldn't it help if people with multiple children decided to adopt one or two?

(Yes, it would!)

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

Whine,whine,whine."They get more tax cuts than I do, they get better parking spaces...."You don't have kids? Good for you.Now quit whining and get on with your supposedly perfect lives!

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

If people do not want to have kids that is just survival of the fittest in action, even though they might think it is intellegent design.

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

I decided at some point in college that I didn't want kids. I don't regret that. I do regret that that decision has sentenced me to being a life-long bachelor. I wish I had had access to the internet and computer dating 20 years ago. Maybe I would have been able to connect with an equally committed woman then. My parents never have really said anything about my decision to be child-free. I never mentioned it overtly until I was in my 30's, but I'm the crazy black sheep liberal in the family anyway. My younger brother makes fun of me sometimes (Stepfather to two, biological Father to one), but then he's barely above water financially.

You know, I pay into a retirement plan that supports current retirees, and future employees will pay into my retirement (if the companies and the neo-con fascists don't do away with just about all retirement plans). I work a lot of hours and save significantly more money than probably 90% of all Americans (no Beamer or latte machines for me). So, I don't have any qualms about future workers suppoting me. In older culture communities this same function is accomplished by the entire community supporting and revering the aged, a process that we seem to keep forgetting.

I agree that there are too many people in the world, and I resent being called selfish by people who have kids they expect the rest of the world to support. I don't have a problem with working sometimes to give those with families a day off. I would just as soon work Christmas, since I really don't have anywhere else to go (being an Atheist as well - hey I'm a triple threat to the fundis - Godless, Commie [not] and Child-free, take that you fascist bastards!) I know that I'm at the top of the list of the thought police when they start coming to take away the dissenters.

I think one of the best ads for remaining childfree is the 3 part "Frontline" running this week called "Country Boys", about a couple of typical, dysfunctional, white-trash teenage boys in rural KY that are headed for lives of alcholism, poverty, early marriage and lots of equally dysfunctional, parasitic kids. The one kids Father is an unemployed, alcoholic with terminal Cirrhosis, lives in a trailer; and the other lives with a Grandmother because his Father murdered his stripper Stepmother (on-stage, no-less!), and then shot himself. These are the very people who need to breed less.

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

I support the personal freedom to choose whether or not to have children, but consider the current and near future circumstance that Japan is facing: currently, the population is seeing a decreasing number of birth rates due to this same modern mentality of having few or no children amongst young urban singles and professionals. At the same time, Japanese are living longer, due to the good health habits of it's culture; health usually is more important to those of a higher income and education. This creates a social problem, where there eventually will not be enough of a young workforce to support the hordes of aging Japanese. This is applicable to our own urban situation, where modern young professionals, usually of higher income, are choosing to remain childfree. This means the religious, undereducated poor are reproducing at faster rates than the educated, which has obvious future social reprocussions. I would just like to point this out as a consideration, I currently am 26 and have no children, yet feel it is my social responsibility to have at least one child who I can support and educate. I do agree with waiting longer, but I also think it is important for those who can afford to educate and support healthy new intellectuals to do so for our futures' sake.

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

If you don't want children, you won't be a good parent. Period. And unwanted children become unhappy people. Period again. So why not applaud those who know they don't want the responsibility and choose to opt out of parenting? I'm a new and happy mom, but I believe we should be patting the child-free on the back rather than pressuring them into something that would be bad for everybody.

This is but one of the many things anti-abortion people just don't get about humanity: Until (if ever) you want a child, you're not doing any favors to society (or the child, or God, or whoever) by creating a life that you, in your heart, do not want to care for. Parenting is damn hard work, and if you're not thoroughly committed, you simply won't have the patience, kindness, discipline, or sense of humor you need to raise another human being.

And yet: for that bit of appreciation, I expect some reciprocation from the child-free for my efforts as a parent. Yes, they still need to pay taxes for public education. Yes, they have to try and understand why I need flex time, as I also to work my ass off at my job, to give my kid extra care when he needs it. It's called a civilized, educated society. And it depends on that very kind of quid pro quo and tolerance.

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

"Glenn says of the childfree, 'If that's somebody's choice, that's certainly their prerogative,' but then quickly adds, 'I'm sure they're more than happy to collect the Social Security benefits from couples who do have children who grow up to be contributing members of society.'"

Funny. Being in a childfree marriage, I always felt that the people with children are "more than happy" to let my spouse and me work longer hours, pay higher taxes, and subsidize their children's education to ease their procreation.

Seriously, the conflict is one of commitment vs. obligation. Obligation is something that can be forced upon people externally. Commitment is something that comes from inside -- it is much deeper and stronger.

Many in this society are brought up to believe that, whether they are suited or not, they simply must marry and procreate because that is their obligation. Many of these people view any other "choice" as an easy way out -- like ducking an obligation.

Some people choose to have children and make that choice after serious reflection and weighing of the consequences. They are truly committed to the responsibilities of raising children, not out of some external societal or religious obligation, but because they have internally come to terms with accepting the responsibilities.

Their are also people, like me, who have seriously weighed the consequences of having children given our own goals, strengths, and weaknesses. I made a childfree choice not because of selfishness or any dislike for children, but for similar reasons that I would choose not to perform brain surgery on my best friend.

What this entire conflict points to is the schism that separates this country today. The religious, fundamentalist right wing is trying to force everyone to "live up to your obligations" under the guise of "family values" -- as long as it's the fundies definition of obligations and family values we're forcing on everyone. Those who promote and undertake such obligations are most hostile to those who make other choices.

Liberals and progressives, however, are aware that commitment does not come easily. One must fight for it and agonize over it. Choice is far from the easy way out. Of course, it would be simplistic to say that we should ignore all of our obligations. We should, however, be extremely wary of the agenda of those promoting them.

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

There was a time when being childfree was perfectly respectable ... as long as you didn't marry. Being a confirmed old bachelor or a maiden aunt was perfectly fine - and I suspect that many individuals who wanted to be childfree and had some control (i.e., were not forced into marriage) chose this route as the only one available. What has changed is that individuals who are married can now be childfree much more easily. Sometimes it seems to me there is resentment of childfree couples because they get to have all the "fun" of marriage without the responsibility of parenting. A "spinster" who is childfree or a woman who marries late in life (after she can no longer have children) is somehow more acceptable than a woman who married young and has never had children.

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

I am very grateful to be a woman in this country, at this time in history, and be able to choose sterilization. I am glad that people are beginning to realize that a "3.5 kids, suburban house, minivan and indebted" version of the American dream is not an obligation. And honestly, it is a matter of committment versus obligation.

And a lot of my male friends have secretly confided that they don't/didn't want kids, but only caved in to appease their wives/girlfriends. A few are divorced. My boyfriend's co-workers are envious that he can "skip this obligation."

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

Childfree can absolutely influence future intellectual generations through adoption, fostering, mentoring, teaching, etc. I had many great teachers - guitar, karate, history - and they influenced how I thought at a level close to my parents', and the family status of my mentors was certainly irrelelvant to me.

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

I'm not having kids. About a year into our marriage, my husband and I looked at each other and said, "Why exactly do people have kids?" So we took a poll of all our friends and family: "Why did you decide to have children?" The most popular answer was, "There wasn't really any choice about it, we didn't plan on it, but we're glad they're here now." The second-most popular answer was, "I don't know, because you're supposed to, I guess. But we're really glad they're here now."

I didn't really feel any need to have my own little bundle of joy, but if my husband wanted one, I'd certainly be on board with starting a family. But it turns out he felt the same way. So with neither one of us really feeling the biological or psychological urge to procreate, we decided to take the radical step to NOT have children. I mean, really, why should we? We're Westerners -- we're already using more than our allotted share of the Earth's resources. Why bring along another person to use up even more. Neither one of us managed to follow the proscribed conservative plan of avoiding poverty through financial inheritence, so we would not be able to provide our children with all the things they'd really need to compete at high levels in this day and age, no matter how much we sacrificed. And neither one of us is royalty, a genius or anything special, so it's not like our genetic line really needs passing on to a next generation.

The argument I hear the most for having children goes something like this, "I never knew what a rich and rewarding experience having children would provide." Well, I don't doubt that. But experiences are subjective, and those people have no way to understanding how rich and rewarding my life is for not having children. It's not better, not worse, just different and that can be equally good.

Not having children gives me the opportunity to do more for my community than I could if I had them. I give what money I can to children's programs and scholarships. I happily pay higher taxes that will ensure better schools and benefits for children in the inner city where I live. I watch out for the kids on my street, babysit for neighbors and relatives, volunteer for programs for families, and try to keep in my what I want to leave for the next generation. I adore children. And they don't have to be mine for me to love. That's what not having children has given me.

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

My husband and I made a choice to have one child and I am happy about it, but there are very few restaurants in which children under 10 belong. Since I was a stay-at-home mom, I can count on both hands the number of times we went out to dinner when my son was under 18, and believe me, young children with heedless parents were not a plus to the experience. I don't understand why childfree is an issue anyway, if you don't want children, both the children and you are better off without. I remember back when I went to my first "women's lib" meetings in 1969, hearing women saying their mothers didn't want to stay home and take care of children, and I wondered why their mothers even bothered getting married. In my family, at least, there were women who never married, and one of them even became a state representative (in the 1950s, you know, when women didn't have any power).

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

People tend to make almost any decision for at least partially selfish reasons. Parenting is a huge responsibility and I would surmise a vast majority are not having a child for selfish reasons. Childfree people should be given the same benefit of the doubt.

I do see some parents as selfish when they are having 3, 4, 5 children when there are many needy kids out there who could use some of these parents' resources.

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

"Smith, who's currently earning her master's degree in religious studies, says the idea of not bearing children is in direct conflict with the Bible."

I consider the Bible to be a badly written collection of fiction stories. I refuse to have children just because of the Bible.

"Pope John Paul II openly condemned married couples who choose not to reproduce..."

I'm not Catholic, so I don't have to obey the Pope. Besides, how could an old man who never even MET me possibly know what's best for my life?

"'I'm sure they're more than happy to collect the Social Security benefits from couples who do have children who grow up to be contributing members of society.'"

And I'm sure childed people are more than happy that most people pay property taxes that go to pay for public schools - even those who don't have kids.

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

I wholemindedly agree with LeeAnnG's statement a while back:

But if a person decides not to have children, it doesn't matter what the motive is. There will not be a damaged child of parents who had a baby for the "wrong" reason.

Absolutely. Unless one considers oneself perfect and omniscient, the possibility of procreation being the "wrong choice" is a definite possibility. Given this reality and the virtue of personal responsibility, a virtuous person will not seek to have other human beings (the children) bear the burden of one's own mistakes.

If my decision to get vasectomized and remain childfree ever turns out to be "the wrong choice" I shall still sleep better than I would if I had forced the burden of my mistake onto the innocent shoulders of my potential children.

As it turned out, since my vasectomy at 27, I have since learned that my family history has bipolar disorder on my mother's side, and I recently suffered cardiac arrest (at the age of 36, and while taking care of my heart on a treadmill at the gym) due to genetically determined hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. If I had died (and I sure as hell almost did) I wouldn't have left any orphans. I have a metal defibrillator implanted in my chest, but I have a clear conscience.

Stand up like Atlas, lay down for the surgeon, break the cycle, and bear your own burdens (rhyme unintentional.) You'll sleep better at night, for you never know what destructive genes you may be carrying. To borrow from my favorite author, the peace of mind and "The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours."

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

Childfree people also lament what they feel is preferential treatment given to those with kids. Debra Mollen is an assistant professor of psychology at Texas Women's University, and conducted an extensive study on childfree women. She found many of her subjects were expected to work longer hours than co-workers who were mothers.

"Pregnant women get preferential parking, those without children are expected to work longer hours, people with children get tax breaks," Mollen says. "There's social sanctioning for having children."

This reminds me of a place I worked once where the CEO was a smoker, so smokers were allowed to take more breaks than the rest of us. I used to pretend I was a smoker to get the breaks. Ironically, our work was involved with cancer research.

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

and keep your nose out of other people's lives.

I'm 53 with at least 2 probably inherited health problems, and a third one that may be related, plus a nice very rare cancer that MAY relate to some of the other stuff. If they weren't inherited, they're genetic mutations. So, WHY do people think it's appropriate to tell me that if i'd had kids, they'd be there to help me now that i'm ill and need help? More people with the same illnesses are gonna help me? Yeah, right. I'm having enough trouble caring for my 80 year old mother, who is in fair health. WHY would you want to condemn a child you love to spending all their adult life/time with their OWN family caring for you with no financial recompense when there are people that do the same thing and get paid for it? Would you expect your child to give up their job to care for you? If so, it's a good thing you had children, since other forms of slavery are illegal.

And, for the LAST time world, if I thought that having kids was the only thing to "complete me as a woman," that ship sailed when my mother took the DES so she could have the second child that her body was not yet ready for. After all, she was 'getting on' at age 26, and only had one child. How DARE she?

Children are a privilige and a responsibility, not a right or a duty. Grow up, all of you, and mind your own business!

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

I don't know if this is relevent but I managed to father three kids. I travelled the world and took em with me. I put them through the best schools that money could buy and they all got their degrees. None of them ever contact me, none have produced any offspring, in fact two of em don't even have my name any more. I wasn't a bad dad. I played the games and spent a lot of time with them in their formative years. I married again and my now wife had one child now 25 who has no wish to "settle down". So... with no prospect of any cuddly grandchildren to dote over, I now have a great marriage and now a small dog. I can relate to those who don't want kids and seeing my own previous family life in perspective I have to wonder why I bothered!

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

With all due respect, I believe people who must have kids nowadays are the ones who are selfish, the world is already over populated, how much do they think the earth will take before she takes humans out of the equation? The thing is they don't think about it, are driven only by low level biological impulses and religious dogma, not spirituality.
Think about it, then think about how many kids live in poverty, are born in places where they haven't the food or water to live. Yes, we can provide a better life for kids here, with all the designer clothes, video games etc. that child labourers make so we can complain about how tough it is here in the western culture of over consumption while the children of this generation are spolied, diabetic and obese- ugggh! I won't bring a child into this mess, have known it since I was a young woman at 17, I am 45 now. Things have not gotten any better in the world. If a child comes into my life by some other means, so be it, but I don't need to have one to be more of a woman.
If everyone skipped one round of birthing, the world would get a little easier for those who struggle every day for food and water. If people with kids would take good care of them, show them Nature and help them appreciate life's delicate balance, that would be good too, but do they? I don't think so. I don't appreciate being looked down upon because I made a deeply personal and spiritual choice to not bring a baby into this world. Thank you for acknowledging people like me. I am not a child hater, I love kids, and always find there are plenty who need love and attention without birthing my own.

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

The answer to the question I've pondered since around age 12 - why aren't fundies content to live their familycentric Christian lives and not feel they have to change the way others live, right down to their most intimate choices regarding prevention of conception, has finally come, courtesy of the fabulous site, Theocracy Watch. Dominionism is a doctrine/dogma espoused by various Christian denominations, particularly the more radical Baptists and Pentecostals, which revolves around the notion that the Second Coming will not occur until the world is being governed by Biblical law and not secular law. In other words, in their eyes, our lifestyles, which affect the tides of public policy, are going to cause them to miss out on their Rapture.

It all makes sense to me now, and also terrifies me. I believe in a dynamic relationship with God as opposed to a static, rigid and unchanging one. In my eyes, the message changes with time. "Be fruitful, multiply" worked in Jesus Christ's time. In 2006, "Be frugal, waste not the gift of Life" is the message God - or whatever singularity and plurality exist as the highest power of the metaverse - has transmitted to me. I think perhaps I am not alone here. It might even be hardwired into our genes: the widespread acceptance of homosexuality in just about every community other than the Dominionists seems to speak to this idea. When resources are thin and the population is thick, don't make more population. I cannot grasp how this could possibly be construed as selfish, or failing to contribute to society. Sometimes a contribution takes the form of NOT contributing to a problem, but instead a solution.

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

"Oh Really? How do you know we have free time to spare? Have you ever asked? Have you ever took into consideration the problems you create when you or any of the other working parents out there shove your work off on a childfree coworker without any thought or consideration on how the demands that this extra work will make on their time? By your flippant comment obvious not. Do you think we have no lives of our own? Do you think we have no spouses, parents, friends, interests, hobbies, or outside activities? Do you think we just spend our working lives serving YOU- the almightily child creator, who lives to be second class citizens in the workplace, and should 24/7/365 (366 during leap years) stop, drop and roll when you need to someone to do your job for you, while you take the credit for the work done, and of course…. get the paycheck for the work we did for you?

I spent seven years working with selfish, manipulative people like you who thought that just because they had kids, the workplace, and myself, the only childfree worker in the office “owed them something.” In my stupid desperation to fit in, I bought into their “you can afford the extra time to take up the slack” mentality and ended up ruining my health, as well as my first marriage, and caused considerable damage to family relationships because of the 55 hour plus work weeks, plus weekends I ended up working. Lots of “extra work” got shoved off on me by working parent coworkers who had your pathetic mentality – and flippantly thought that because of my child free status “I had free time to spare, and I could afford the extra time to take up their slack.” and refused to acknowledge the stress and tension they caused in my personal life; like you …..they only cared about themselves.
Well. Reality check….
YOU are not better than me.
I can NOT afford the extra time to pick up your slack.
I have a life of my own.
I am entitled to a life of my own.
Since I did not participate in my “life” in your choice to have children, I have no obligation to do your job for you. I have no obligation to pick up your slack. You do not deserve credit for the work I do for you. On that note, you should not get paid for the work we childfree do for you.

So the next time you callously shove your work off on your childfree co worker, think about something else besides yourself.

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

It's not that I (we) direct our anger toward those with children, it's that we object to anyone presuming that they have a RIGHT to expect us to take up their slack, regardless of whether they have children or are just lazy. Our time is no less valuable than yours, am I right?

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

What's the problem? People who do not want to have children should not have children. The world does not need any more unwanted children. True, some reluctant parents may 'get over it' in time, but many don't.

Most of my aunts and uncles are bitter, uneducated, and mean. Their children, my cousins, are bitter, uneducated, and mean. Many of them are criminals. Half of them are already dead. The other half of them are parents, bad parents, lording their inherited bitterness over their battered progeny.

I am a kid-loving 46 year old, childfree, man in a stable, long-term, monogamous relationship. I have never been political about my childfree-ness. I have simply just never wanted children.

Again, why would this be a problem?

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

I have always viewed my two children as a wonderful guilty pleasure, not a duty. There are almost seven billion people on the face of the earth at this very instant. How many more disasters and wars have to occur before we realize that "be fruitful and multiply" no longer applies? It was written over 2000 years ago! We don't have to act like animals.

To the childfree I say....KUDOS!!

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

...that no one's mentioned yet: that there are people who regret having kids, wish they'd skipped the whole thing. And we're all particularly shocked when it's the mother. I know a guy whose wife bailed after three kids, leaving him with a 4-year-old, a 2-year-old and a newborn. I met a young mother recently who said kids aren't cute or loveable at all, and I know a mother of two adult kids who declares that parenthood is definitely not all it's cracked up to be.

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

Okay, here it is - I am a 40 year old black woman with no kids. Yes, I know that to many of you that seems rather strange, but it isn't. I love children, but decided a very long time ago that motherhood - as wonderful as it can be - simply wasn't for me. I don't have the patience for it, nor would I think of bringing up a black child in a country that still treats all black children as second-class citizens. Is that selfish of me to be concerned that any child of mine woud come into a world that fears them, that manipulates negative images in order to maintain power, that would take one look at my child's skin color and deem them unworthy?

I think in this case, both the child-bearing and the child-free communities need to stop bashing each other and to start creating a society in which EVERY child, regardless of race, is sacred and worth loving.

My decision to be 'child-free' doesn't need nor rely on others to validate it for me. I'm perfectly capable of firmly, yet politely, telling those who think I'm missing out on something to mind their own business.

The only time I look down on those who have children are when those children are ill-behaved in public. I feel that if you cannot be a firm (yet loving) disciplinarian and rein your kids in, then you shouldn't be a parent. If you can't tell your teenaged kids they cannot have everything they want, regardless of if they need it or not, then you really shouldn't be a parent.

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

Well of course having children is a selfish act. But, I believe it's not intentional selfishness. For many people the animal nature to reproduce is so strong that it never becomes a consious decision to have a child or not. It is an instinct so deeply ingrained its like the birds flying south for the winter.

Animals are born with an instinct to pass along their genes. This instinct is so strong the animals can't deny it. I think everyone has probably seen how dogs that aren't put up will come from miles around if there is a female in heat. In their non-thinking world, they are born, reproduce, and die.

Still, there are those of us who are farther away from living by instinct, who know early on, we are not meant to be parents. We do not have a thinking brain for nothing! If anyone has the feeling that they should not have a child, I applaud their right to decide not to. patti_s

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

I have had two homosexual friends tell me that they believed that homosexuality was god's form of birth control. Perhaps those of us who choose to be child-free are a natural extension of evolution- adapting to our overcrowded planet?

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

Will Thomas Malthus please stand up?

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

I think both pro- and anti-childree-movement people are being a bunch of babies about this childfree issue.

Shouldn't they pay more attention to how well children are treated? The American Humane Associate has been reporting on child abuse being widespread in the United States (http://www.americanhumane.org/).

What responsible parent would waste his or her time pressuring childless people to have kids? I should think they'd be too busy bringing up their own children to give a rat's ass.

I also think the "childfree movement" is wasting their time putting down parents. I certainly agree that those who don't want kids shouldn't have them. But why waste your life fighting with people that think otherwise? Isn't life too short? Aren't there more important things for people to do in this world, like making it a better place for everyone, children and adults?

I believe that both pro- and anti-childree activists just want attention.

Get a life, both of you.

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

There are a couple of benefits to having kids I haven't seen mentioned: 1) Women who have their first child before the age of 20 have a zero percent chance of developing breast cancer in their lives, and 2) If you listen, you will learn more from your kids than you could ever hope to teach them. Kids are a tremendous source of knowledge, love and inspiration. People who have kids live longer than the childfree. Not having kids is fine, too. All the people I know who don't have kids have a lot more money than I do. I have four sons and I love 'em even though they have cost me a lot of money, time and effort. All the most important things I know about life I learned from them.

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

There has been and there's going to be a lot of moaning about how hard parenting is and how much it costs in time and money followed by a plea for more of our money. To put this in perspective I'll tell you why parenting is so hard and so expensive. Listen up because It's a secret. It's because parents are bad at parenting and have little or no interest in getting better at it.

Consider their attitude to the economics of children. They simply assume that for the first 18 years of their life the child will make no major economic contribution to their own needs. Now there are better ways to ensure your child grows up wrong but they generally involve felonies assault. Having to pay your own way is an economic fact of life, unless your last name is Packer, Gates or Bin Laden. So why not get them used to the least common situation in the world, a free ride? Because a 14 year old who can pay for his own room and board is a 14 year old who you can't be controlled. He gets to decide if he wants to keep living there and thus if he has to follow your stupid rules. That's not acceptable to the majority of parents who value control far above the "welfare of the child". The "child" might think that his "welfare" includes having sex in the room he pays board in with the "girl" he intends to marry. That's too much like a real life for the "loving" parents.

Of course they'll be howls of protest from the left that this will interfer with the child's 12 years of schooling. We can only hope. Anyone who needs 12 years of sitting in the most boring place on earth outside prison to learn something won't benefit from it. If you doubt me just read political interest group rubbish to the average high school graduate and ask them to name the logical fallacies within it. When they can't you'll know why democracy is going to hell. They teach driving at least 3 years too late after the best time the best motor skill learning years. Most of what is learned is forgotten in a few years, mostly because it was never intended to be useful. It's all part of the big lie that you need a college education to do almost anything. If they really cared about their children they'd tell them most professions can be learnt via apprenticeship better. But that would threaten their own jobs.
* The parents not the kids.

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

I am 25 and have been with a great guy for 6 years now. Neither of us want children and both of us are fine with that. What frustrates me is the looks we get when people find out we don't want kids, like there is something wrong with us, or worse, the one who get all patronizing and say things like "you're young, you'll change your mind." That just frustrates me to no end!! Why can people not accept that just because they love being a parent does not mean everyone else should love it? Does everyone on the planet love science fiction? Or even math? Then why do a lot of parents think that everyone should love being a parent? And I am not bashing parents as our staunchest supporters of our decision to not have children has been friends of ours who WERE parents. I accept the fact that some people have this what I consider a totally insane desire to have little hoodlums running around their house. That makes them happy and I am happy for them. After over 10 years of hearing everyone tell me I'd one day change my mind and want kids I got a complete kick out of the fact that my fiancee FINALLY got that response! I like children. I can't wait for our siblings to have children so I can spoil them. However I feel no need to have one of my own. I want all the fun with none of the responsibility. And if that makes me selfish, then so be it. I don't pick on you parents for making life choices that i don't understand so how about you don't pick on those of us whose life choices you don't understand?

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

One other thing I'd like to point out. Why is it that you have to get a permit to drive a car, or own a gun, or even something stupid like fish, but any two idiots with a pair of mature sexual organs can reproduce and become parents? For those of you who became parents knowingly and willingly then I applaud you for knowing what you were getting into. For those of you who became parents accidentally and then decided to become the best parent you could be, then I applaud you as well. But for those of you who became parents 'because you should', or you got carried away in the moment and yet have no real desire to BE a parent, then Shame on You! If you have kids, then guess what? you are a parent. And as a parent you should be the best frelling parent you can be. I'd be a terrible parent, and so I shall never be one. For those of you out there though who are parents, and who are GOOD parents, the world does need more of you. It needs more GOOD parents. Not just more parents. And if you do not feel the urge to be a GOOD parent, or know you would not be a good one, or maybe you just don't want to put the time and energy into being a good parent, then I urge you to not be any kind of parent. Anyone who doesn't want to take the time (and I've been told it's a LOT of time) and the effort (again, a whole LOT of it) and even the money (around a 1/4 million per child I read) then don't be any kind of parent. Parenting should never be viewed as a job, or a chore. And if that is how you would view it, then please, for the sake of that child you might have, abstain.

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