Readers Write: 'Child-free' or Just Cranky?

They have more money and free Saturday nights, and they never have to deal with a sick baby waking up at 3 a.m., but those people who have chosen not to have children want something else: respect and, in some cases, not to have to their lives or their nice dinner conversations interrupted by children. Sarah Klein's article on the "child-free" movement -- a group of people who have chosen not to have kids and make that a key part of their identity -- drew a particularly heated response from our readers, with some well-thought-out discussion mixed with a lot of vying over the fruitless question of "who is more selfish."

Readers agreed that it's fine if people don't want to have kids. But they disagreed on how much people without children were missing out, who bore responsibility for kids that already existed, and whether there's any real political issue here at all. But is it OK to make a political issue of it?

Some of us, like Susanh, wonder if the whole idea of people without children "under attack" isn't just a tempest in a teapot, similar to the "war on Christmas." "Are the child-free really being victimized by the opinions of the late pope and like-minded busybodies?"

Some of those without children are also wary of turning their "child-free" status into a movement: "Group identification is not important to me, merely dealing with the realities of life," says Samantha Vines. And Saramarie, who chose not to have kids, just doesn't want to fight about it: "All I want to do is teach and spend my summers being a big kid and happy," she says.

Why does everything have to become a "movement?" Larraine asks. "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."

Cielo also finds U.S. culture to be 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. … But the most basic reason I feel it is so difficult for parents and children, even beyond horrid health care, is the expectation for one or two parents to take on all the burden of child raising. … 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."

Bettsoff agrees: "You don't need to HAVE children to take part in educating and raising them."

But the point, according to some of the "child-free" folks, is they feel they're doing more than their share.

"If I don't even LIKE kids, why should I have to care for them?" Kat14 writes. If I wanted to do that, I'd HAVE one."

And Hiroe chimes in: "If a parent is unable to cope with the full responsibility of work plus kids, that isn't my problem."

But maybe it is. Midge reminds us of our codependence: "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 child-free adults can coexist quite peacefully."

And Ruby, who has been on both sides of the fence (first getting her tubes tied and then, years later, having it undone) has this balanced wisdom: "One cannot know the strong feelings for your children and the satisfaction unless you have them. … That said, I wouldn't expect someone to adopt a puppy just because I might like dogs. I applaud those who realize it's not for them and are honest about it."