I liked most of the list, except the last bit:

"Parenthood is an emotional and societal prison."

I think this is true for some people. But not for a lot of other people. Some women I know are happiest being mothers. They enjoy it thoroughly. I think its only a prison if parenthood doesn't fit right with you or your partner. And that's what turns it into a prison; when you weren't cut out for the job.

I'll give you an example. My cousin had her first child at seventeen. It was her goal in life to be a mommy, sadly enough. No other career aspiration for her. But I'll tell you what: She's a great mother. And she enjoys being Mom. She's involved with her kids, and she takes really good care of them. And that's what gives her validation and fulfillment. That's not to say she's flawless or whatever, but for her, motherhood was the most freedom she's ever had, emotionally.

-CD

PS: Personally, I'm undecided about the whole "parenthood" thing, but I lean towards "no" most days.

Actually, I'll tell you something chilling, presented by Steve Gaulin (UCSB) at the recent Human Behavior And Evolution Society conference in Williamsburg: Women who become mothers before the age of 18 are likely to end up stupider. The developing baby is fighting them for resources when their brain is still developing.

While many women out there enjoy being mothers, and feel it was worth it, I think there are many women who also feel like they threw away their lives to a great degree. I'm just glad I figured out what I wanted instead of buying into the cute baby thing and letting myself get knocked up -- or buying into the idea that marriage is a great idea, and pledging to be with somebody for life.

I have a boyfriend and I'm very happy with him. (I really lucked out.) But, we live separately and feel happy to spend time together -- we don't feel stuck with each other the way a lot of people who are married seem to.

Like faith, the child/no-child issue is one of those chasms, a social great-divide, where it's hard to see the other side. I remember what life was like before children (yes, I am one of those awful breeder people) and as much fun as it was, I am thankful I had the opportunity to be a parent.

The list includes the old over population gag:
---6 billion. The world is already overpopulated. Do you really have to add to it? Do not answer this question lightly. Every new human draws on our limited resources, tramples over previously undamaged land, creates more waste, and accelerates worldwide instability. ---

At least it leaves out the part where a western child will use vastly more resources than a child from the "developing" world. We sit tapping on keyboards because we are in something called civilization. The highest birth rates on the planet are in those places where there is the least civilization, politically incorrect as it is to say so. America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It by Mark Steyn examines what the world might look like if current trends in birthrate continue. It MIGHT be a good thing for the environment (eventually) if civilization collapses but that seems like a pretty dark view of things. Raising children who will go on to make the world better is a wonderful thing to do.

Having said all that, I'm glad for all you child-free types out there who are up for the occasional day out with my kids. We all benefit from a change of perspective and yes I do miss those lazy mornings.

I know you harbored a secret smirk all the way through Children of Men, Amy.

Exactly Amy. Some real welfare reform advocates even suggested to raise the minimum age to 25 for women to be qualified for welfare benefits in relation to brain changes.

Martin,

The whole Malthusian argument is a debatable topic. The standard prediction is the planet will reach 10 billion and start to decline in numbers afterwards. I recommend reading Dr. John McCarthy's paper on the sustainability of human progress or anything by the late Julian Simon.

My concern is dysgenics in relation to IQ. An ever increasing populations in nations that are still developing, with unstable government institutions, and high factors of religiosity will cause problems with their neighbors and the world with the global market on weapons. I'm not as concern about nukes as most anxiety ridden people in the states, based on the historical development of the weapon in matters of engineering and politics.

Not only are the least "fit" people on the planet now having the most kids, relatively few people die as babies (especially in the west). Even the sickest and least fit are kept alive, where, less than a century ago, they would never have made it to reproductive age.

The book sounds really interesting. One caveat I'll add, though (let's see if I can word this correctly), is that I wonder if we'd do a lot of the things we've done if we had the chance to "do it over again." I did a certain activity in college that took up virtually all of my time; I loved doing that activity, but if I had it all to do over again, I would probably structure my college life very differently, just so I could see what I had missed the first time around. (And I deliberately chose a grad school and grad school experience that would be very different from my college experience.) And I LOVED college.

I will say, though, that some of the happiest parents I know have the same attitude as one of the posters on another thread here yesterday - they saw themselves as producing future adults rather than cute widdle babies. My parents adored us and enjoyed the whole little-child-raising thing more often than not, but they often say how cool it is to be the parent of ADULT children. That's not a reason to rush out and have kids if you weren't planning on it already - you can develop strong friendships with younger people without having to birth 'em or raise 'em. I would guess that Amy is likely to stay friends with at least some of her younger friends as they move into adulthood. But I think a lot of parents might be happier if they ACCEPTED that young children aren't the easiest human beings in the world and viewed the fact that they "won't be this age forever!" as a blessing. Most of us have frustrating, difficult times at the beginnings of our careers - I've had a couple of different careers, and those initial stages are HARD. We don't typically get into those careers because of the initial stages - we get into them for the later stages, when things are more fulfilling and fun. I am not, not, NOT saying that anyone should EVER have children who doesn't want them. I am saying, though, that people who have gone ahead and had children and are saying, "what the hell did I do?!?" might want to see parenthood as being similar to other endeavors in life that require a lot of work at the front end but change over time, rather than as something that's supposed to be an endless source of joy from day 1.

I always preferred Darwin's original expression of 'the struggle for existence', where far too many misinterpreted as survival of the fittest.

Many people need to be asking certain questions in the next 100 years:

All animal species are destined for extinction through natural selection. Even humans. But a species can go extinct, because it evolves into a new or better adapted species. Would algae recognize us as their descendents? Wouldn’t anyone agree that we are a substantial improvement in our capacity to direct our future?

We will be able to do two things in the future:

1. Direct our own evolutionary process. Especially, if we are cooperating we each other through a healthy balance of egoism/altruism.

2. Control the physical universe to suit our purposes.

This is why I cannot respect Martin’s sympathies of philosophical self loathing. Everyone has to pay the price for progress. It is neither good or bad, but inevitable.

My best friend and her husband, who still love each other, mind you, are getting a divorce. A LOT of that is because of the children (more specifically, the one from her first marriage, who is a future juvenile delinquent no matter what they try with him). She's now saying, "maybe we could get back together in 10 years when the younger one is in college," because right now he is burned out on family.

Suffice it to say, she supports my being childfree all the way.

This be the verse.

> Wouldn’t anyone agree that we
> are a substantial improvement
> in our capacity to direct our
> future?

BZZZT! Paglia says no, nature is in control, and we're fools for not recognizing her fulfillment in our desire. Gould says no, evolution is control, and we're fools for thinking we or any species is "improved" beyond the day of our survival. Even Carlin says no, that the world will scratch its back one day and that will be that (He said that after the tax problems, the death of his wife, a a few steady years in Vegas without cocaine.)

'she hates the way that people's lives are curtailed and thwarted when they have children. If people did not have them, she retorts, "they'd think about what they really want and just go out and do it".'

It sounds like she's idealizing life without children, in a way. People without children find all sorts of excuses for NOT living their desires. With or without kids, a lot of people love nothing better than sinking their sorry asses into the dirty diaper of melancholy and regret.

I'm on my way to Paris, bitches.

Me too, in a couple of weeks. We just signed on for what looks like a very nice and affordable apart in the Marais. Where we will live temporarily in marital bliss. BLISS, did you get that Amy???

Cridasaurus,

Trust me, you are going to need better sources. All 3 are guilty of posturing only for the moment. (artsy friends, fellow short sighted academics and a stand up audiences)

Remember, I work in a field that constantly defies our inherent evolutionary tendencies. I cannot give out any specific details, because of the various confidentiality agreements I had to sign. I recommend reading (re-read) Darwin's The Descent of Man and look around your surroundings for a few weeks. Make comparisons and then re-read my original post.

I had a bio-chemistry professor who would tell his student: "Give us (scientists) a 100 years of no regulations into our research and we could change the world." He wasn't implying a perfect world free of problems. A world without problems would be the end of our species.

I will be in Buñol, Spain for La Tomatina during the last week of August. I missed last years, because of work. So anyone in the area will have the opportunity to whip a few thousand tomatoes at me and 30,000 others.

> All 3 are guilty of posturing
> only for the moment.

Opal-leeze, if anyone's taken a longer view of human character than Paglia and Gould, they've been inexplicably quiet with their report. (Carlin was included only for laughs.)

> cannot give out any specific
> details, because of the various
> confidentiality agreements

Joe, you're bullshitting. Even by the streetshit standards of self-important blog commentary, that's an overreach, and a transparently silly one. There's no workaday career that gives transcendent insights to these matters. The spirits who get there are the ones who were going to give their lives to the library and the fieldwork anyway.

> Give us (scientists) a 100
> years of no regulations into
> our research and we could
> change the world."

It's not just the scientists. Others who believe that include, in no particular order:

1. Warriors.
2. Bankers.
3. Farmers.
4. Schoolteachers.
5. Advice columnists.
6. Technocratic weasels of every stripe.
7. The lawyers, the lawyers, the lawyers. ("All this fucking precedent! It's just a pain in the ass!")
8. Others.

(Politicians are not listed. Those fuckers are all about maneuvering through the real world, untroubled by idealism. Constraints are to politics as currents are to fish: They make the environment workable.)

> I recommend reading (re-read)
> Darwin's The Descent of Man

Heal thyself: Darwin's signal contribution was the recognition that we're momentary entries in a very, very long parade. You may have an especially cute costume, but you will not be excused from procession.

I always preferred Darwin's original expression of 'the struggle for existence', where far too many misinterpreted as survival of the fittest.

The "fittest" means for survival within an environment...so, to survive, you'd have to have the genetic means to solve environmental problems...the mental wherewithall to avoid being eaten, the ability to remain within a group by being adequately reciprocal while self-interested, etc.

Amy,

I wasn't attacking your use of the term, but to use my explanation in case of someone using the social darwinism screed. Sorry.

Ah, like old times, Crid. We've been agreeing far too much lately.

First off, Paglia's work saved feminism from internal destruction in the early 1990s. That's it. While providing such gems as that Monica Lewinsky's jaw was biologically destined for oral pleasures. Perhaps her commentaries on Hitchcock movies are slightly adequate, but I prefer Truffaut's original Cashiers du Cinema articles written 40 years prior to the public's knowledge of a token writer from Syracuse. In a way she is in a same business as Carlin, but being a public intellectual for being laughed at when she opens her mouth on non art topics. She is nothing but a victim of the old 19th Century German mentality that the humanities are on the same level as the empirical sciences. So in a sense, she is a victim of sorts.

Second, the Marxist zoologist from Harvard Yard. In most circumstances that would have been enough to seriously question Gould's research, but I will go a little further than a screed.
I recommend reading his miscalculations on the important role of adaptation in biology. Gould's acceptance without proper data on species selection as the main component of natural selection. The main argument of Gould's ideas as a revolutionary way of understanding evolution, which relegated natural selection to a much less important position. This has more aspects in his personal political beliefs than his actual scientific research. How about his mistakes on gene selection? Miscalculations of the Cambrian Burgess Shale fossils on matters of disparity? How many biologists had to do reworks on their past writings, because ID activists were using Gould as a source? Who rejected evolutionary psychology in an almost knee jerk fashion? Must I go on further and get technical? Gould will only be known outside of paleontology for NOMA. So keep using him as a source if you want to, but try to understand the gross errors of the popular radical scientist who just had a couple bestsellers on the NY Times.

I wasn't attacking your use of the term, but to use my explanation in case of someone using the social darwinism screed.

I got that -- no apology necessary. I was just clarifying, too, because I think that's an area a lot of people don't really understand. I find it very interesting -- the way adaptations came about to solve problems; particularly men's and women's specific biological problems back in the Pleistocene...which can lead to some problems or just unnecessary attention paid in the very different environment we're living in now. (For example, there's the adaptation to be interested in people around you -- which probably is what backfires to make us care about celebrities...people our brains THINK we know and should care about for our survival.)

Definitely did not intend to reproduce. I am ADHD and mildly bipolar, both genetic, both contributed to a lifestyle that is definitely not conducive to parenting (i.e. sex, drugs and rock and roll - seriously). If you had told any of my friends, especially my band, that I would ever make even a mediocre parent, they (and I) would have laughed and laughed. Then I had my first child.

It turns out, that I am actually pretty good at it. Being ADHD, I am pretty good at dealing with it, much better than my mom and adoptive dad ever were. I actually know how to use it to my advantage when educating my child. The ability to carry on two or three conversations simultaneously, has been of immeasurable value.

Also, being a "live and let live" extremist, I am constantly amazed at my abilities as a disciplinarian. I don't always handle problems as well as I should, but it's usually erring on the side of too strict, rather than the opposite. Still not a great thing to do, but considering that discipline of any sort is rather contrary to my nature, I think I do pretty well.

The most advantageous aspect of my personality, that I never considered as an asset to parenting, is my inability to be embarrassed. Thus, when my child says things like; "why is that person so fat?" or "is he an asshole?" or "why is that kid being so rude?" I could care less what the objects of his observational questioning think about it. The closest I have come, was when he said to a young black person; "whats up nigger?" Even then, I was more concerned about figuring out how to talk about that with my pasty white son, than being embarrassed.

All that aside, I think the best reason not to become a parent is the strain and stress of being entirely responsible for another human being. Knowing that every decision that one makes, has to take that little person into account. Worse than the loss freedom, is the fear of fucking them up, or becoming unable to provide for them. That is a very, very good reason not to become a parent.

I should also note that he asked another pasty white kid; "whats up my nigger?" as well. He still doesn't really understand the concept. I tend to figure that's ultimately a good thing.

Here's my two cents - when my husband and I got together I swore on threat of getting myself "fixed" that I would never have children because I was convinced I would be a terrible mother and didn't really want to give it go. Then along came our kid. And it's been rather swell. I still lack a maternal instinct, but my husband has a paternal gift that would puts most dads to shame. I also discovered you don't have to pander to kids - our daughter is bright, well-behaved, she generally distains fast food and sweets, and barring R rated films she pretty much watches the same t.v. shows and movies we would watch even if she wasn't around. Although she does enjoy Dizzyland, she's just as happy (if not happier) going on a hike in the mountains. And since marriage already forced me to curb my selfish temperament to accomidate another person, accomidating one more person was not as bad as I thought. And I'm in better shape now than I ever was before having kids, mainly from all those hikes. So, it's been a net gain for me. But, that said, I've also discovered that I absolutely despise most other people's children still. And I constantly have to explain to people that I refuse to have another child - I can't imagine will get this lucky again - smart and adorable - everyone tells us so - and then they say - but you breed so well and did such a good job raising her... you should have another! No thank you. It's taken all my energy to get this one nigh-perfect. I don't know that I can pull it off a second time. And I'm tired of explaining it to people.

So my sympathies to both sides.

Kids who've been pandered to become asshole adults.

TO: Amy Alkon & Mz Maier
RE: I Suggest....

....that the title should be sub-titled....

40 Reasons I'm Selfish Beyond All Conception?

RE: Christ, God & Kids

There's a passage in that old Book that has an interesting [pardon my 'french'] double-entendre.

Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. -- Matthew 10:14-15

The face-value point is that Christ wanted children to seek Him out. He enjoyed their youthful exuberance and honesty.

The hidden point is that if you are unwilling to accept children in your life....guess what....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Selfish, n., devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others. -- Ambrose Beirce, The Devil's Dictionary]

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: So....

"Kids who've been pandered to become asshole adults." -- Amy Alkon

...are you saying you couldn't do better?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You know you were successful as a parent, if you grand-children turn out alright.]

I'm married with three children; number three was a surprise. We're very happy with them, and I think our happiness in more of a product of who we are as individual persons than how our environment and choices have given us happiness. I've made some mistakes in my life, but I can still be happy

I don't wish to meddle in the lives of others. If someone doesn't want children, then I keep my mouth shut because they know more about living their lives than I do. Suffering is inevitable in life, but happiness is a choice.

Chuck -

What the fuck is selfish about not having kids? Personally, I think that way to many people express their selfishness by having them. The whole; "I must have a child so I have someone who loves me" mentality is sickening and common, especially amongst very young people, who choose to breed. They don't think about the kid they're bringing into the world, they don't think about the world they're bringing the kid into. All they think about is having a cute and cuddly little person, that will inevitably become a fucking monster for the rest of us to deal with. Because when cute and cuddly, becomes older and unruly, momma inveriably can't deal.

And this isn't limited to the very young or very poor breeders. The "I must have progeny that I don't have time or interest in dealing with, to perpetuate the family name" can be just as bad and just as selfish. Inflicting upon society the monster they didn't have time, so they pay someone else to raise, is just as obnoxious.

The whole; "every child's precious, everyone should have one" meme, is nothing but a load of shit. Selfish is inflicting my child with obnoxious, asshole kids that have selfish parents. Selfish, because they bred for selfish reasons. Honestly, you should have subtitled your post with;

My asshole opinion

> Must I go on further and get
> technical?

I'm convinced you're not up to it... A whole lot of reeking horsehit just flew up in a hurry, and it covered a retreat from the part that went "I'm not at liberty to share the particulars of my brilliance at this time...." Babe, everybody works "in a field that constantly defies our inherent evolutionary tendencies." The guys at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power defy our tendency for thirst. Short-oder cooks defy our tendency for hunger. Are there any "evolutionary tendencies" that aren't "inherent"?

> 1. Direct our own evolutionary
> process.

Dude, fuck a tall blonde. Or a short brunette. Or both! Just like that, you've taken control of the "evolutionary process."

> 2. Control the physical universe
> to suit our purposes.

Wash your car; the "physical universe" is again "controlled" (and it will "suit your purposes" of chasing the blonde.)

> cooperating we each other
> through a healthy balance
> of egoism/altruism.

You're stinky bullshitting. I can't imagine what the angle is, but it smells like Amway... And if there were a stock issue behind it I'd short it for six figures and laugh like a hyena.

> producing future adults
> rather than cute widdle
> babies.

The parents I've most admired have sounded similar themes. There are members of my family who coo at children in restaurants, and it makes my flesh crawl... Nowadays I see it as the feminine equivalent of a construction worker's wolf whistle at a harried working woman. Yes, we all have urges, but we really oughta be able to keep the expression under control around others. When you actually meet an adult with the little girl voice, she's almost always a badly misaligned human being. Adulthood is where the action is.

In the 1980's there were a lot of psychology types on the radio out here, and one of them talked about how we hear all sorts of chatter about the inner child, the imaginary being whose vulnerability needs to be sheltered forever; but people don't talk to children about their inner adult, an aspiration of future strength from which they can draw courage.

> Worse than the loss freedom,
> is the fear of fucking them
> up, or becoming unable
> to provide for them.

Word. You're a brother.

> I'm on my way to Paris,
> bitches.

Showoff.

My first child was conceived despite 3 forms of birth control, so he was obviously unplanned. I've never for a moment regretted having him. I do regret that I married his father. It would have been better for us and my son if we'd just been friendly co-parents. By a couple of years in, we were really just friends living together.

Like Julie, I wasn't sure what kind of mom I'd make, but as it turns out I do pretty well. I too got really lucky with the first one, he's been a breeze to raise, mainly because he's always been more adult than child - probably because he's scary smart. As in reading Hawking by third grade smart. He's sixteen now, and I couldn't be happier to know such a great person.

I knew pretty early that I wanted one or two more, but doctors told me I was extremely lucky to have gotten pregnant once, and for the next 14 years they seemed right. A couple of years after my first husband's death, I married a man who is the polar opposite of #1. We got pregnant after 3 days of trying. My daughter didn't sleep through the night for months (my son did after 3-4 weeks) and had colic. Completely opposite of my son, yet to my surprise I found I had no problem dealing with it. Now she's a surprisingly well-behaved toddler. Surprising because most of the toddlers I see out and about seem right terrors.

We decided on one more, and this one took a whole month of trying. He's not due for a few weeks, so I don't know what kind of experience this will be, but it's the first time I haven't been afraid of how I'll deal. As DuWayne said above, the scariest thing about having kids is worrying about how you could screw them up, how you'll provide for them. I think worrying about what kind of adult they'll make is good - helps prevent raising self-centered, overly-entitled little schmucks.

In this long, probably boring, post I haven't answered the question of why. Why do I want kids? I truthfully don't know. The ones I have have given me more joy than anything else in my life, but I hardly knew ahead of time that would be the case. I've just always known I wanted kids.

I've done a lot of other things in life as well. I've traveled to many places, met fascinating people, lived in a variety of areas. I've never felt having kids limits what else I can do in the world. People who feel they would be limited by having kids shouldn't have them. It's not fair for them, and it's not fair for the kids. People come in a huge variety, so why should everyone be suited for parenthood. Better someone know themselves well enough that they don't have kids than pop out unwanted ones, or have kids merely as status symbols.

I get very annoyed at people who push others into parenthood. I also get annoyed at people who imply there's something wrong with having kids. Or who presume to tell me I must not really be happy or fulfilled if I have kids. I'm a grown-up, and I don't need some crusader telling me having kids is making me miserable any more than those who are childless need someone telling them they'll only know true happiness if they reproduce.

TO: DuWayne
RE: Vernacular Aside

“What the f---[edited] is selfish about not having kids?" -- DuWayne

You spend all your time thinking about yourself.

I think it’s obvious that you don’t have any. Let me tell you [from a father’s perspective]....

....your whole life changes the moment you look into the bewildered eyes of your new-born daughter. It’s almost as if Someone toggles a switch in your whole being. And suddenly, you’d move heaven and/or earth, slay ANY dragon to do what must be done for her. It’s very odd. And I didn’t recognize it until later. But there it is. It almost makes me weep, looking back on it; being this is my second’s birthday. Just sent her a card of the most stunning scan of a gorgeous vermillion oriental lily I’d ever done. I think I’ll blow it up, print it out as a poster and send it along as an additional b’day gift. [Note: Thinking of it, I remember the baffled expression on HER lovely face 30 seconds after the doctor laid her on her mothers breasts; “What the F---!!!?!?!”]

"Personally, I think that way to many people express their selfishness by having them." -- DuWayne

Could be. I guess you’ve touched on a major factor in all of this business....”What’s my motivation”. -- Newsboys, Shine

Some people’s motivation is selfish in nature, i.e., “Hey! I can get money from the givernment for having a kid.”

I can see that aspect. Heck. I see it every week, one way or another.

"The whole; "I must have a child so I have someone who loves me" mentality is sickening and common, especially amongst very young people, who choose to breed. They don't think about the kid they're bringing into the world, they don't think about the world they're bringing the kid into. All they think about is having a cute and cuddly little person, that will inevitably become a fucking monster for the rest of us to deal with. Because when cute and cuddly, becomes older and unruly, momma inveriably can't deal." -- DuWayne

"And this isn't limited to the very young or very poor breeders. The "I must have progeny that I don't have time or interest in dealing with, to perpetuate the family name" can be just as bad and just as selfish. Inflicting upon society the monster they didn't have time, so they pay someone else to raise, is just as obnoxious." -- DuWayne

What YOU seem to be describing is what stems from ‘ignorance’ combined with ‘instinct’. I dangerous combination. Akin to booze and/or drugs and driving. It’ll make a mess out of what remains of your life.

"The whole; "every child's precious, everyone should have one" meme, is nothing but a load of shit. Selfish is inflicting my child with obnoxious, asshole kids that have selfish parents. Selfish, because they bred for selfish reasons. Honestly, you should have subtitled your post with;" -- DuWayne

Okay. If we buy THAT approach, YOU ARE A PIECE OF S---. And we should, therefore, ignore you. Is that it?

Or, rather, you are not a POS and you do have some impact on your world and, consequently, mine.

So. the question now...that you are here...becomes, “What is the form of that ‘impact’?”

Is it ‘good’? Is it ‘bad’? And by what measure do we determine such?

I HOPE that helps. However, I suspect it’s only caused more questions than answers. But, such is Life.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Solving the problme, changes the problem.]

TO: All
RE: Okay...

...look at it this way.

If you are determined NOT to have ANY children, that's fine with me and the rest of my 'ilk', i.e., christians.

James Taranto refers to it as the Roe Effect. In this scenario, the christians will have political sway in the future, as none of these 'liberals', i.e., selfish people, will procreate and pass along their (1) genes and (2) political philosophy to the voters of the future.

Have a 'fun' life.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Look upon it as evolution in action. -- Niven & Pournelle, Oath of Fealty]

Hey, look - a Christian fear goad from Chuck!

Does that mean anything?

TO: All
RE: ERRATA

"I remember the baffled expression on HER lovely face 30 seconds after the doctor laid her on her mothers breasts; “What the F---!!!?!?!”" -- Chuck to DuWayne

Actually....

...with further reflection....HEY it was 21 years ago today.....I've slept since then.

The 'baffled' expression was when the doctor showed her to me, before he passed her off to the nurse to clean her up. She was kind of 'messy'.

When the nurse laid her on her mother's breasts that 'baffled look' disappeared. It was replaced by something of a gaze of wonder mixed with a generous dose of love.

I WISH to God that they'd of allowed me to bring a camera into the delivery room. Any set of shots of Lisa from those first few moments of her now 21 years of Life would put the abortion industry OUT OF BUSINESS.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Suffer the little children.... -- some Wag, 2000 years ago]

TO: Radwaste, et al.
RE: The Meaning of Life

"Does that mean anything?" -- Radwaste

Only that you're heaping more honor upon Christians, compadre.

Think about it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Consider it all glory, if the world should hate you. -- Francis of Assisi (paraphrased)]

TO: Radwaste
RE: The Meaning of Life, Reprised

"Hey, look - a Christian fear goad from Chuck!" -- Radwaste

Why should YOU care?

After all, based on this thread's topical approach, combined with the atheist ethos...

It just doesn't matter! It just doesn't matter. -- Bill Murray in Summer Camp.

Why should YOU care if the christians inherit the earth? Eh?

Or is there something else at play here? Some 'hidden agenda'? Some sense of 'foreboding'?

Otherwise, why didn't you just STFU?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]

First I must say word(s) to all of the following. Good thoughts people.

some of the happiest parents I know have the same attitude as one of the posters on another thread here yesterday - they saw themselves as producing future adults rather than cute widdle babies.

people don't talk to children about their inner adult, an aspiration of future strength from which they can draw courage.

If someone doesn't want children, then I keep my mouth shut because they know more about living their lives than I do. Suffering is inevitable in life, but happiness is a choice.

And then, was anybody else kinda blown away reading this. How does this happen?

My first child was conceived despite 3 forms of birth control

I mean, one is normally enough, two is being really cautious, but THREE? And they all still failed! Talk about being way out there in the tail of the probability distribution.

TO: justin case
RE: How Can THIS Be??!?!?!

"And then, was anybody else kinda blown away reading this. How does this happen?

My first child was conceived despite 3 forms of birth control

I mean, one is normally enough, two is being really cautious, but THREE? And they all still failed! Talk about being way out there in the tail of the probability distribution." -- justin case

Simple Answer: It is an 'imperfect' world.

Complex Answer: It was an 'Act of God'.

Both of my children were 'accidents', one way or another.

And I'm overwhelmed with joy for both of them.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Some of Lifes greatest adventures were begun by 'accident'.]

Actually chuckie, I have a five year old and the next will be here in December. Part of the reason that I consider so many parents to be making selfish decisions, is because the monsters they have produces, make my son's life more difficult. Of course, if you had any reading comprehension skills, you would have noticed my reference to that in the post your responding to, since you obviously didn't actually read the thread - I posted a comment about my child upthread a little ways.

I know exactly how it feels to become a father, seeing your child enter the world for the first time. It is simply amazing and incomperable - for me. Wouldn't change it for the world. That does not mean it's for everybody, nor does it mean that those who choose not to have kids are being selfish or thinking only of themselves.

I have several friends who don't have kids, who are very active members of their communities. Some of them are even important, active participants in the life of my child. One of the gay couples we are close to, even take my son regularly, to give momma and I a break when we really need it. Having more money than we do, they also contribute a lot to his education, providing memberships to the zoo and science museum, that we are only just getting to the point that we can afford them ourselves. Not to mention sending us, occasionally going with us, to various cultural events around Portland.

So no, not everyone who chooses not to be breeders, are selfish or self-centered. From the sound of it, my kids would value from having Amy in their lives. Thankfully, we have plenty of non-breeder friends here, who are a wonderful part of our son's life and look forward to being a part of our next child's life. They are just as important as our fellow breeder friends, especially since grandma and grandpa live more than 2,000 miles away, back in Michigan.

I thank God every day for our non-breeder and gay friends.

Stating the obvious, but IMO too many people have kids for the wrong reasons. Agree with whoever said that there's nothing selfish about NOT having kids, and that sometimes people do have them out of selfish motivations.

I held off for a long time a) because I hadn't met anyone I felt I could partner with to raise a child until my mid-30's and b) to get financially secure enough to feel up to meeting the monetary demands.

Ten years in, it's a mixed bag. Damned inconvenient a lot of the time, but I love my son more than anything. I absolutely miss being able to go see a movie on the spur of the moment, or take off to a weekend B&B. That doesn't mean I'd change my decision to have a child; I knew going in that it would mean giving some things up, and I waited until I was prepared to do that. I think if you're happy with your life and don't want it to change drastically don't have kids.

TO: DuWayne
RE: Children

"Actually chuckie, I have a five year old and the next will be here in December. " -- DuWayne

Good on you. And thank you for taking the extra effort to inform me of you ‘position’.

"Part of the reason that I consider so many parents to be making selfish decisions, is because the monsters they have produces, make my son's life more difficult. " -- DuWayne

Well. You’ve certainly taken ‘selfishness’ to a new level. Not sure whether one could consider it ‘higher’ or ‘lower’. I guess that would depend on ones perspective, i.e., moral code.

"Of course, if you had any reading comprehension skills, you would have noticed my reference to that in the post your responding to, since you obviously didn't actually read the thread - I posted a comment about my child upthread a little ways." -- DuWayne

Oh. I’ve got ‘reading comprehension skills’. However, you overlook the fact that I had NOT bothered to read the rest of this thread before you decided to ‘jump’ me.

All I had done was provide an initial response to the base entry. Then you decided to attack me.

Understand?

"I know exactly how it feels to become a father, seeing your child enter the world for the first time. It is simply amazing and incomperable - for me. Wouldn't change it for the world. That does not mean it's for everybody, nor does it mean that those who choose not to have kids are being selfish or thinking only of themselves." -- DuWayne

Good on you.

Whether or not ‘everybody’ appreciates what we’ve experienced is, I think, central to this discussion. Like I said, and I think you’ve exprienced, something in your ‘approach’ to Life changes when you see your child for the first time. Eh?

"I have several friends who don't have kids, who are very active members of their communities. Some of them are even important, active participants in the life of my child. One of the gay couples we are close to, even take my son regularly, to give momma and I a break when we really need it. Having more money than we do, they also contribute a lot to his education, providing memberships to the zoo and science museum, that we are only just getting to the point that we can afford them ourselves. Not to mention sending us, occasionally going with us, to various cultural events around Portland." -- DuWayne

Good on you and your friends.

However, does this change the fact that their decision NOT to procreate reduces their long-term affected on the quality of Life on Earth?

Apparently the love that the homosexual couple give your child is, as you see it, a blessing. But if they have that much love to give....

Well....I think you’re intelligent enough to finish that sentence.

As that Wag said, “Greater love hath no man than this. That he give up his life for a friend.”

Wouldn’t you consider your child a ‘friend’?

"So no, not everyone who chooses not to be breeders, are selfish or self-centered. From the sound of it, my kids would value from having Amy in their lives. Thankfully, we have plenty of non-breeder friends here, who are a wonderful part of our son's life and look forward to being a part of our next child's life. They are just as important as our fellow breeder friends, especially since grandma and grandpa live more than 2,000 miles away, back in Michigan." -- DuWayne

I would suggest that the vast majority of those who conciously choose not to bring children into the world ARE ‘selfish’, at the most basic level.

"I thank God every day for our non-breeder and gay friends." -- DuWayne

Thank Him as you will. [Note: I’m not certain of your spiritual ethos.] It still remains as written.....

Suffer the little children to come unto Me.....

And I remind you, I am NOT the arbitor of this. I’m just re-stating the message given so long ago, as it was given to me to understand.

If you have a different and/or better understanding, I’m willing to listen to and discuss it with you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Children, n., Messages to a future we shall never see.]

>I mean, one is normally enough, two is being really cautious, but THREE? And they all still failed! Talk about being way out there in the tail of the probability distribution.

Tell me about it. The Pill (taken correctly), condom, foam spermicide. The first time we had sex, the day after my period. Oh, and I was born with only one ovary. Doesn't exactly sound conducive to conception. The doctor said "sometimes these things just happen". And later five years of no birth control and nothing.

I just jumped into this so I might be repeating others...

Chuck, many people have children w/o thinking. It's natural. It's necessary to continue the human race. And some people do it b/c the bible says so (gah). But many people who have kids shouldn't.

There are an infinite number of asshole children running around with parents who just don't care. I've met them, nannied them, dined near them, sat next to them on the T.

Reproducing is a personal choice but one which people view as a necessary one. Having a child will not fix any problems, instead it will exacerbate existing ones. To have a child because "it will love you" or to get a man to "stay," etc. it THE MOST SELFISH THING ANYONE COULD DO. If a person has significant doubts about reproducing it is an act of pure selflessness not to bring a child into the world.

I have no desire to biologically reproduce. But I'm in my twenties and enjoying not putting $650 per month for the next 18 years into an education account (that's how much you have to save to put one child through college). It's not selfish that I want to spend that money on a car. An Audi A4 3.0 Quattro to be exact. Sport design, decent mileage, comfortable and great in the snow. Or how about do the traveling I was too poor to do in college?

Many people feel the same as I and they have a baby anyway. They take out their subconscious misery on their spouse. Many people have a baby then pay someone else to raise it. Many have a baby and do a half ass job raising it. These people go on to be miserable sons-of-bitches. Selfish^100.

Now, I'm off to take care of the son of friends. They need a night off and I adore him - he'll be two in a month. He is a joy to be around...but I say that knowing I get to leave at midnight. That's usually about the time he wakes up b/c he still doesn't sleep all the way through the night. Luckily for his parents, they should be numb on wine by then.

"Imagine it taking ten hours. Imagine that after ten hours of trying to push a grapefruit through your anus and failing that doctors cut a big hole in your belly to remove the grapefruit."

Brief and to the point:
Wow. Only ten hours?

I understand and appreciate the ideals and opinions on this subject of those who choose to remain child-free. I don't understand why breeding seems to be the default option in life. The most frightening thing I've ever heard in life was a woman in the check-out lane at the grocery store talking to her friend. Two kids in the basket and a wee one in her arms. She was complaining that she wanted a new one because they grow up so fast, and then little one was no longer tiny and helpless anymore.

That terrifies me. The idea that there are people out there who view babies as pets or dolls, and want to replace them once they aren't interested in staring and playing dress-up, scares the bejeebus out of me.
The stupid are breeding, and they're outbreeding the responsible, intelligent people at a ferocious rate. That's my reasoning for why a few who do know better have to bite the bullet.
That's my theory, anyway.

TO: Gretchen
RE: Children, God & Such

“I just jumped into this so I might be repeating others..." -- Gretchen

In the words of the immortal Bruce Willis, from Die Hard....

“Welcome to the Party! Pal.”

"Chuck, many people have children w/o thinking. It's natural. It's necessary to continue the human race. And some people do it b/c the bible says so (gah). But many people who have kids shouldn't." -- Gretchen

So. Who made YOU the arbiter of who should and should not? And what set of ‘rules’ are YOU using?

Care to share?

"There are an infinite number of asshole children running around with parents who just don't care. I've met them, nannied them, dined near them, sat next to them on the T." -- Gretchen

Every one of those ‘a--hole children’ deserves some sort of ‘respect’. After all...did THEY decide to come to this place?

Or, are you going to punish those who brought them here? Even if they were ‘ignorant’ and/or worse.

"Reproducing is a personal choice but one which people view as a necessary one. Having a child will not fix any problems, instead it will exacerbate existing ones. To have a child because "it will love you" or to get a man to "stay," etc. it THE MOST SELFISH THING ANYONE COULD DO. If a person has significant doubts about reproducing it is an act of pure selflessness not to bring a child into the world." -- Gretchen

Yes. It IS a very ‘personal choice’. So is ‘murder’; whether with a gun or a scaple.

We place our ‘bets’ and we take our ‘chances’.

However, all too many people ‘play the game’ without a solid understanding of the proverbial ‘rules of play’. Hence posts like yours and DuWaynes. And why is that?

I’d chalk it up to a lousy ‘education’. In more ways than one.

"I have no desire to biologically reproduce. But I'm in my twenties and enjoying not putting $650 per month for the next 18 years into an education account (that's how much you have to save to put one child through college). It's not selfish that I want to spend that money on a car. An Audi A4 3.0 Quattro to be exact. Sport design, decent mileage, comfortable and great in the snow. Or how about do the traveling I was too poor to do in college?" -- Gretchen

Yeah. Right. And I’m Santa Claus, in a woodland camouflage suit.

But then again, you too can become a victim of self-inflicted chlorine in the proverbial gene pool.

But, you are free to be as selfish as you wish. No one is holding a knife to your throat....I should hope. It’s not my problem.

However, I suspect that DuWayne, for reasons of his own, will applaud your decision to support his children; indirectly. [Note: You’ll need to take that up with DuWayne. Maybe you can hire a ‘unique’ attorney.]

"Many people feel the same as I and they have a baby anyway. They take out their subconscious misery on their spouse. Many people have a baby then pay someone else to raise it. Many have a baby and do a half ass job raising it. These people go on to be miserable sons-of-bitches. Selfish^100." -- Gretchen

Such is life. As I said, my children were ‘unexpected’.

As for ‘misery’. Hardly.

As for hirelings to raise children....

I point out the murders of children in public schools when the killer comes into the classroom and tells the teacher to leave. The teacher leaves and then the rapes and murders begin.

“In loco parentis”, my fourth-point-of-contact.

"Now, I'm off to take care of the son of friends. They need a night off and I adore him - he'll be two in a month. He is a joy to be around...but I say that knowing I get to leave at midnight. That's usually about the time he wakes up b/c he still doesn't sleep all the way through the night. Luckily for his parents, they should be numb on wine by then.

Good on you.

What if you don’t get to leave at ‘midnight’? Just going to walk out anyway?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life is full of commitments. The questions are (1) which do you accept and (2) which will you fulfill?]

Crid,

A bruised ego or a slight to your midwestern sensibilities does not make a viable counter argument.

Each repost just fuels the notion that you only know the basic talking points of natural selection. Self interest and altruism go hand in hand. Have you read my past posts on the evolutionary implications of empathy towards strangers or Amy's similar comments? Also, other contributors have provide similar comments too.

The personal reference to my career choice in bio-engineering in relation to immunology. Something we are born with and through certain combination of scientific and engineering procedures alter that particular system through a form of gene therapy to combat diseases and global epidemics. Or would you like nature to take its course? I could easily get a job as a food chemist. Patent a food substance that will make kids fatter, but keep the cavaties away. I would still make a great deal of money in either case. My present choice has to do with that empathy thing mentioned earlier. Your sense of values does get a serious gut check when you visit Wat Phra Bat Nam Phu AIDs hospice and Buddhist temple in Thailand.

By the way they do request volunteers, especially from Western nations for up to 30 day visits if anyone is interested? After Bangkok's red light district gets a bit boring, just head on up. The monks will be waiting.

So if I give off a slightly arrogant appearance on a person's blog, please bear with my flaws.

TO: Steph
RE: Playing IN the 'Game' of Life

“I understand and appreciate the ideals and opinions on this subject of those who choose to remain child-free." -- Steph

Good on you. Next point?

"I don't understand why breeding seems to be the default option in life." -- Steph

Better ask your parents why YOU are HERE to say this.

"The most frightening thing I've ever heard in life was a woman in the check-out lane at the grocery store talking to her friend. Two kids in the basket and a wee one in her arms. She was complaining that she wanted a new one because they grow up so fast, and then little one was no longer tiny and helpless anymore." -- Steph

They do tend to grow much more rapidly than the little Chatty-Cathy does. Maybe their fixed in a certain locus of time from their early life and want to remain there.

Might make a good episode for a Star Trek: The Next Generation movie. Oh. Wait. They did that in Generations.

"That terrifies me." -- Steph

Life is full of ‘exciting’ moments.

"The idea that there are people out there who view babies as pets or dolls, and want to replace them once they aren't interested in staring and playing dress-up, scares the bejeebus out of me." -- Steph

Again, I remind you that, Life is full of ‘exciting’ moments.

"The stupid are breeding, and they're outbreeding the responsible, intelligent people at a ferocious rate." -- Steph

Maybe you should do something to counter their efforts? You sound intelligent enough to save the Earth.

Get involved. Put your body on the proverbial line.

Or are you suggesting we should ‘liquidate’ the unintelligent?

"That's my reasoning for why a few who do know better have to bite the bullet." -- Steph

You don’t have to ‘bite the bullet’. Rather, get in the ‘game’! Become a player instead of ‘bitter water’ boy/girl.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Put your whole self—mind, body, heart and spirit—into the game. Only those on the sidelineswhine and pulse without justification.]

P.S. I’m reminded of Patton’s famous speech....

And later, you won’t have to tell your grandchildren, when they ask you what YOU did during the Great War, “Well. I shovelled s--- in Louisiana.”

From Deja:

I absolutely miss being able to go see a movie on the spur of the moment, or take off to a weekend B&B. That doesn't mean I'd change my decision to have a child; I knew going in that it would mean giving some things up, and I waited until I was prepared to do that.

This kind of parent I can respect - and do. My neighbors are like this. They haven't eaten out anywhere but Houston's for about six years (not wanting to go anywhere their kids might annoy other diners), and they don't have a lot of money because the husband's a professor and the wife (an architect by training) is home with the kids while they're young, doing some design work from time to time. Still, I don't get the sense that they feel they're making a big sacrifice, and because their kids are so well parented (as oppposed to sidelined and indulged), I actually enjoy the kids and sometimes actually make an effort to go over and hang out with them...imagine that!

TO: Amy Alkon, et al.
RE: Taking the Kids Out

"My neighbors are like this. They haven't eaten out anywhere but Houston's for about six years (not wanting to go anywhere their kids might annoy other diners), and they don't have a lot of money because the husband's a professor and the wife (an architect by training) is home with the kids while they're young, doing some design work from time to time." -- Amy Alkon

Actually, there are two issues here; children out and eating out.

First item, going out to dinner with the kids.

My personal experience has been that you can take the children out to eat. However, between the ages of .01 and 3.0 years you run the risk of disturbing other dinners.

Such is life.

After 3.0 years, things tend to have 'settled down', provided you've instilled a good sense of 'discipline' in the children. If you have not, maybe you should wait til around 21 years of age.

Second item.

It's better to learn how to cook for yourself than to go out to eat.

First off, it's much less expensive.

Second, most restaurants do not measure up to the quality of fare you can make yourself. Only those listed in the Guide Michellin will be better than you are, if you learn how to cook. And it's not THAT hard to learn in the first place.

[Note: For those so inclined, I recommend the Good Cook series from Time-Life. Published in the 80s, and only available through used book stores, now, it is a superb set of 30 books to teach you most of what one needs to know about cooking. Each volume includes step-by-step photos of how to prepare various forms of food. Each volume deals with a specific form of food; beef, chicken, pork, veggies, fruits, desserts, salads, cookies & pastires, pies, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.....]

We moved to a smaller 'burg' from Denver. We missed the excellent restaurants of foreign persuasions. So, the only thing we could do was learn to do it ourselves. And we do very well, thank you very much.

You can too. Furthermore, teaching your children to cook will be a blessing they will carry throughout their life.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Give a man a meal and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to cook and he'll open his own three-star restaurant and earn a living. -- some wag in an old Book, paraphrased]

I'm on my way to Paris, bitches.

Oh Paris in August is perfect, Lena...for bumping into millions of Americans:)

Way to miss the point Chuck.

I'll try to be more clear. Having a child does not make you a selfless person. Not having a child does not make you selfish. Having children does not make a person a "good person" nor does it make a person "better" than a person who does not have kids. You seem to fall into that asinine group of people who think that, once you have kids, you're super-special. They look down their noses at people w/o kids. They tell people w/o kids that they're missing out and that having a child is the most amazing thing on earth. They ask you if you are having "infertility problems and if you are I know a great doctor..."

Great - want a medal and a chest to pin it on, too?

"Who made YOU the arbiter of who should and should not? And what set of ‘rules’ are YOU using?"

I'm using a ground-breaking set of rules called "using common sense." If a person isn't going to raise a well adjusted child, and they have a kid "just because they want to" I call that selfish. Such people shouldn't reproduce. Parenting IS the hardest job. There is too much on the line to screw up - and you inevitably do screw up somewhere along the line and it's hard not to take it really hard when you do.

If a person isn't willing to give 100% then having a child b/c it's trendy, expected, or an attempt to fill a void then that is endlessly selfish. Why are you fighting me on that? Children deserve good parents. There are many shitty parents. That isn't fair to the kids.

Before you get defensive, let's define "shitty parents." Such a parent would pick work over the child nine times out of ten. Parent doesn't teach child how to behave in public, proper etiquette, etc. Parent tries to buy love...spoils child w/ new phones, iPods, doesn't give the child a proper sex talk on how to prevent teen pregnancy or cancer causing HPV. Parents who honestly try (ALL THE TIME) don't end up with bad kids. Usually. If they do they get my complete sympathy.

To be a parent one must place his/her own needs on the back burner b/c a hungry child can't feed him/herself. As you mention, a child doesn't ask to be born and every child deserves proper attention and care whether or not a parent has the energy, time or money. Those things don't matter. All a child knows is when he/she needs to sleep or eat or be held. Who are YOU to say that it makes a person more fulfilled or "better" when they yield their existence to parenting. There are MANY selfish parents out there - they shouldn't have kids.

If a person gives his/her life to charity, saves animals, donates blood and cures cancer...but doesn't have kids, will you give them an honorary spot in the "Special Club for Selfless People?" Or, since they don't have kids, are they just completely SOL?

TO: Jody Tresidder
RE: Or....

"Oh Paris in August is perfect, Lena...for bumping into millions of Americans:)" -- Jody Tresidder

...any number of other Anglophiles. August is 'holiday' in England.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Get away from yourself. Join the rest of us.]

TO: Gretchen
RE: Missing the Point

"I'll try to be more clear. Having a child does not make you a selfless person. Not having a child does not make you selfish." -- Gretchen

As, I think, I stated earlier, to someone else, it depends on your 'perspective'.

I agree with you on the former. I disagree with you on the latter.

What's to misunderstand? Nothing, from my 'perspective'.

Maybe you should reconsider your first sentence.

RE: Chest, Medals & Such

"Great - want a medal and a chest to pin it on, too?" -- Gretchen

Got medals. Got a chest. But currently, being 'retired', the medals reside on my 'love-me' wall and on my Dress Blues, next to the tennis shoes and the bottle of olive oil.

Where do yours 'rest'?

RE: Common Sense

"I'm using a ground-breaking set of rules called "using common sense."" -- Gretchen

As I said earlier, "Who died and made YOU god [of common sense]?" [Note: Rephrased for 'emphasis'.]

"If a person isn't going to raise a well adjusted child, and they have a kid "just because they want to" I call that selfish. Such people shouldn't reproduce. Parenting IS the hardest job." -- Gretchen

Actually, if you get the knack right, it's not all that hard.

As for people who do a poor job of parenting, that sounds more like an issue with 'training' than anything else.

The question becomes, "What training are they lacking?"

Furthermore, what do we do about it?

More, on 's----y parents' and such later. Now I have to focus on dinner and a meeting.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If your parents didn't have children, odds are you won't either.]

> a viable counter argument.

Counter to what, Joe? What are you saying?

> you only know the basic
> talking points of natural
> selection.

Others --and fate-- will judge the suggestion that we can "Direct our own evolutionary process" and "Control the physical universe" in some novel way. Good luck, and be sure and let us know how it's going. (A prospectus would be helpful.)

> Self interest and altruism
> go hand in hand.

And (if Chuck will forgive an intrusion into his realm of the hackneyed) a fool and his money are soon parted. Yet there's nothing especially clever about smooth-running markets.

> Have you read my past posts
> on the evolutionary
> implications of empathy
> towards strangers

Waiting for the paperback. It'll be bigger than Potter.

> Something we are born with
> and through certain combination
> of scientific and engineering
> procedures alter that particular
> system through a form of
> gene therapy to combat diseases
> and global epidemics.

Verb [is] missing.

> a serious gut check when you
> visit Wat

Now you're drifting into Chuck territory, deeply. Maybe you two should go for drinks, or get a room.

> please bear with my flaws.

Don't make it too difficult.

TO: Gretchen
RE: Clarification [During a lull in the kitchen 'action']

""I'll try to be more clear. Having a child does not make you a selfless person. Not having a child does not make you selfish." -- Gretchen

As, I think, I stated earlier, to someone else, it depends on your 'perspective'." -- Chuck to Gretchen

A lot of it is going to depend on the 'motivation' of the persons involved.

If you cannot have children, due to some unfortunate circumstance, that is not necessarily an indication of 'selfishness'. Could be a genetic matter. Could be a bout with mumps as a adult male.

However, if you can have children and choose not to because you just 'can't be bothered with the effort involved', that's a good indication of being 'selfish'.

The same sort of mentality would cause the same individual to refrain from stopping some poor soul of being attacked, robbed, raped and/or murdered. Too much 'trouble' for them to 'get involved'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Still waiting for the remaining ingredients to arrive. The distaff is due back from the grocery any minute now.

"France has the highest fecundity rate in Europe, 830,000 births in 2006, the average of 2.9 children per woman."

These numbers are simply false. According to Wikipedia (and you can verify these numbers via other sources as well), France has a birthrate of about 1.98 children per woman - not quite the replacement rate. But more significantly for France, this number hides the substantial differences in birthrates that exist by religion and ethnicity.

Check out the data presented in tabular form at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_France, and you begin to understand the consequences of the line of moral reasoning set forth in this book. The Christian/European/White women of France have no more than 1.7 children each, whereas the Muslim women of the Arab/immigrant/African populations, who already make up about a fifth of the population of France, are having an average of between 2.57 (Algerian women) and 3.2 (Turkish women) children each. With these numbers, France, and with it the culture that gave rise to Corrine Maier, is doomed.

White liberal elite women who refuse to address these numbers and who choose not to breed, even after so much has been invested in them, are helping to dig the grave of Western Civilization.

> perfect, Lena...for bumping
> into millions of Americans

Some smartass jokes write themselves.

> who choose not to breed,
> even after so much has
> been invested in them, are
> helping to dig the grave
> of Western Civilization.

The whole point of Western Civ is to live well enough that you don't need to have 15 kids, because the crops will come in and your old-age ass will get wiped anyway. Asking modern women to turn away from the central benefit of being a modern woman is not going to get you very far. (To say nothing of what the post means to the daughters.) And if you really believe the blessings of modernity are "doomed" because they're overwhelmed by this simplest of demographic arithmetic, then why are you asking us to be precious about it?

Chuck.

Kids are more than "a bother." It's a one hundred and eighty degree change in one's life. Don't diminish the dramatic impact children have on one's life. Not finding a babysitter at the last minute is an inconvenience. Losing a marriage that was once strong but weakened by the intense struggles of co-parenting is devastating. The great balancing act of parents will inevitably lead to certain areas of life to suffer.

Letting friends or a spouse fall to the wayside doesn't make you a good little reproducer. It makes you stressed and, quite possibly, depressed. It doesn't make you love your kids less...but it certainly strikes most people as crap when you wake up one morning and you realize you haven't had sex in two months. And...who cares, anyway, because your body insecurity overrules any sexual urges (for women). So stop acting like raising children is easy. Some people can do it (but not w/o getting bumped and bruised along the way) and some (or most) can't.

Marriage is, supposedly, a commitment. Neglecting my (hypothetical) husband wouldn't make me a better mom - just overwhelmed and under resourced. That idea scares me. Scares me enough to think that having kids at the expense of possibly losing someone I love is...well, a bad idea.

Also, some people don't really like kids. There might be many reasons for this, but of those some are inexplicable.

And I almost forgot: "What if you don’t get to leave at ‘midnight’? Just going to walk out anyway?" - Chuck, several posts ago.

Fuck you.

Don't fall off that horse. You might injure your ego.

Why is not having kids selfish?

If someone doesn't like/can't afford/doesn't have time to give a child, how can that possibly be construed as selfish? The absolute best thing for everyone would be for that person to *not* become a parent.

If I'd replaced "child" with "puppy" no one would say that's selfish, but puppy's need a lot of the same things a that kids do, as far as time and money. But most people are more likely to think about them before they get a puppy rather than before having a kid.

More people might have children if they'd stay purse-sized like my dog. And equally obedient.

Actually, chucky, I was commenting on your reading comprehension, because I referred to my child in the comment you responded to. Mentioning that fact, in the slam on your reading comprehension, the irony makes me chuckle, chuck.

As for the rest, you're obviously insane. Like, seriously screwball - incoherent screwball. More incoherent than I get, after a few days without meds. This is not meant to be snarky, but did you forget to take your meds?

Amy - I can't tell you how often I wish I could just stuff my kid in a purse, or just trade him in for a dog*. It's so "cute" when he decides that listening is just not going to work for him, for a while. Especially fun, is the sheer disbelief, in spite of a lifetime of experience to the contrary, when you explain that no, he won't be getting back any of the privaleges he just lost and yes, if he asks again it will be time for a sore behind.

Sorry, rough weekly trip to the downtown branch of the library.

(*Not that I actually would ever consider trading him in for a mere dog. A unicorn or hippogryph maybe, but not a dog:)

(Psst! Amy! Justin! Over
here!

Merci for posting this! It was refreshing to read as I have just returned from a trip home to visit my two sisters and there 3 children all under the age of 4. The ability for me to love children but not want them seems to lead to all sorts of wildly entertaining clinical conclusions by my sisters. I am not able to commit, my boyfriend is too old for me, our Mom neglected me, I will realize it was a mistake someday. Why is it somehow socially acceptable to question a woman who decides not to procreate? I wanted to say that they might regret their decision to someday but it’s pointless because even if they do they would never admit it. When I say I love my life just the way it is and explain why with the obvious reasons… one of my sisters says..."jesus I think sex is so overrated"...so needless to say I left wondering whether or not my sisters and I would ever be able to relate in the same way we did before they decided to and I decided not too...and wondering if it was a coincidence that both of them are downing anti depressants while I am able to sit here sipping a glass of red and reading what delectable clips the Goddess is dishing up.

Crid...linking to Alternet...do you have a fever? We're worried about you!

And Tara, loved that...the idea that not wanting kids is a disorder of some sort. I have the same illness, which is why I'm up at 3am posting instead of because I've been awakened by a screaming child, or will be.

And I guess sex, for victims of (CIA -- that was for Crid!) torture where they're made to stay awake for days on end -- or parental sleeplessness -- is not going to be the first thing on one's mind. Which is why I've been careful not to work for the CIA or opposing organizations or have children.

I don't have time now to read the whole comment string, so if someone made this point above, I apologize, but "no kid" is a good part of why France (and much of Europe) has been so dependent upon immigrant labor the past few decades, and why they now face the Islamic threat they do.

Kishke -

Absolutely correct. Or, as the buys at NRO say, "The future belongs to those who show up for it."

And if the relativists would get over their fear of judgment, they'd understand that there is, in fact, such a thing as the "wrong person". And if the "wrong people" wind up in a demographically dominant position, they will be able to impose their worldview by fiat.

In this case, "wrong" doesn't necessarily carry any moral heft, but I know that I certainly don't want to live under sharia. And those who are presently overtaking Europe have expressed their enthusiasm for such a system entirely too much for my pleasure.

Western women just aren't going to pump them out like bunnies the way the immigrants are.

Amy - then we need to make sure those immigrants assimilate to our culture instead of insisting we accommodate theirs.

We do that better than Europe does, for now. We've got our own problem on the horizon if we don't get immigration under control here.

Here's an observation that I have made after working as a helicopter pilot at a hospital. Please let this serve as a warning or wakeup call to any women not quite sure about their true feelings and empowered by the entertainment industry and media to think that it's trendy to be 50 years old and childless.

I worked with alot of female nurses who, I can only imagine, had their mothering insticts fulfilled by their work (ie. taking care of patients - instead of their own child). Nursing pays well, but you normally end up getting the night shift as a new hire. The night shift normally pays more (pay differential) and they can get addicted to the money which is very good after a while. Socially they don't have much of a life, because they live on the back side of the clock. Almost to a person they put on this persona that they are happy with their life. Most of them had nice houses and expensive cars. If they were married it was usually to a cop or a firefighter. And the nurse always made more money than their partner.

Almost without exception in their late 40's their husbands or boyfriends would come to the realization that they WANT a child. The nurse had convinced herself by that time that she did not. A divorce or breakup ensued. Within a year or two the ex had gotten remarried to someone younger and a child soon followed. It was around their late 40's to early 50's when all of the sudden they find themselves alone. Usually the only available men are divorced with kids, and it seems the adjustment to becoming step mom or dad's girlfriend is too steep a slope. Often times they would prey on married men, thinking that they would abandon their family altogether to be with her.

In the end they end up unhappy and lonely and longing for a child. Many of them, if they had not reached menopause, would get pregnant in their late 40's from someone who they were not in a commited relationship. That was usually the last I would see of them, so I cannot tell you how their life turned out from there.

As a young man I NEVER wanted to have kids. My wife pestered me constantly to have children and eventually I relented. Now after 20 years and 3 kids I wish we had started earlier and had more. Ladies, be true to your own feelings and don't let your career fulfill the instinct that you have for a family. Guys can (and do) have kids at any age. For women the risks increase dramatically in your 40's.

P.S. There are some women who are so self centered and materialist that they should NEVER have children. It is my unfortunate observation that they are the ones who go and get pregnant so that they can be the center of attention along with baby.

There are some women who are so self centered and materialist that they should NEVER have children.

Far too many women think a man and/or children is/are replacements for developing a self. And far too many women think they can go for careers in which they make no money and count on some man they marry or bond with to pay their way in life.

So here's what I've learned from Chuck:
1) Parenting is not that hard.
2) Overwhelm the opposition by sheer numbers. Have lots of kids so your worldview will be spread by your mini-mes.
3) Its better to have kids and do it half-ass then to not have them at all.
4) Others are unimportant. If you want to go out to dinner with your under three year old screamer, do it. Life sucks sometimes and other people should learn to deal.
5) There is no way you can change the world for the better without having kids. Cure cancer, you selfish git, if that's the best you can do.
6) Knowing that you wouldn't be a good parent means you are selfish. Suck it up and screw up kids like the rest of us! There certainly aren't enough worthless morons running around, why don't you pop out a couple more and teach them that they are the only people that matter? Go team!

Thanks, Christina. Sometimes I just don't have the attention span.

As a former foster parent the two things almost all the kids I saw had in common were:

1. Mom on drugs.
2. No Dad and No Granddad.

If you take a disciplined approach to raising the kids, include them in your day to day activities, delegate household tasks, realize they are sometimes little monsters and need firm guidance, and make sure they get enough sleep, its not that hard.

The parents that do not teach their kids manners, let them stay up past bedtime, do not get them in sports, don't teach them to read and seek out knowledge, and don't give them responsibility, deserve the little horrors they create.

By the time they are 5 or so, kids should be easy and more of a time saver than a time sink.

There is no way around the first 5 years, though. Its not easy and its a lot of work. Having grandparents and other friends who have kids around helps a lot.

My two cents:

What an interesting topic, defiantly rife with talking points for both sides of the fence, without room for people to take a position in the middle.

When I was in college (15 years ago) I worked in a convalescent home, for most of the six years it took for me to complete my degrees. I remember the old people there, the ones who had no family (by choice or by nature), they were the ones who sat alone staring at the T.V. when we had family day. They were the ones who were bitter against all of those who had children coming and visiting them, or grandchildren. They would yell at the young children to be quite, to stop running, to get away from them. It got so bad that we had to put most of them into isolation when visitors would come.

It was interesting that the ones who had children who visited were the ones that tended to do the best, be happy, live the longest, and were less reluctant to pass-on when that time came. The ones with no children, seemed to be the ones that stayed in their rooms, mopped about and tended to be pass-on shortly after coming into the convalescent home.

I know it is one thing when you are 20/30 to go without children and to not give it another thought, you get one of those “cool tats” in the small of your back or on your upper arm, and you are off to make the world conform to your way of thinking. But when you are 60/70/80/90+ and in failing health, the “cool tat” long since stretched into some incomprehensible form, and you are going around in jogging pants and a hoodie, when it is 90 F. then children are a different story. The career will not last forever, the boy/girl friends come and go, marriages dissolve, and are recreated, but family tends to stay pretty stable. You have a child; you are that child’s father/mother for the rest of that child’s life.

It is true what they say I have never heard someone on their deathbed wishing that they had spent more time at the office. I have heard a lot of regrets in my life but no one has ever told me that they wished that they had spent more time at the office or on a career.

That’s just my two cents.

Western women just aren't going to pump them out like bunnies the way the immigrants are.

They don't need to. Just by replacing themselves they would have rendered most of the immigrant labor unnecessary. That's not bunnyhood.

The author is right that children are needy and demanding, and they change our lives in unimagined and unpredictable ways. That is, in fact, what is so wonderful about kids, whether they are our own children, or those of family, friends, or even strangers.
Their needs are so great, they almost force us to recognize our own self-centeredness, and prod us to change. As we learn to put the needs of others ahead of our own desires, we discover new things about ourselves, wonderful gifts we never knew before. A book about "40 Reasons Not to Have Children" or "40 Reason You Should Have Children" simply gives us 40 reasons to avoid recognizing our self-centered absorption and growing beyond it.
A society that is characterized by the willingness of its members to do what they should, rather that just what they want, and to help others in need, will prosper and grow. For many, that will be manifest by providing and caring for their own children. Others will not have children of their own, but will lead fulfilling lives with an eye toward serving others in different ways.
A sociey that is so self-absorbed that even the biological imperative to procreate and raise children is tossed aside will wither and die.

I remember the old people there, the ones who had no family (by choice or by nature), they were the ones who sat alone staring at the T.V. when we had family day.

Ever heard of friends?

Here's a quote from my column "For Bitter Or For Worse":

The truth is, according to studies referenced in Bella DePaulo’s terrific book Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After, women who’ve never been married have some of the strongest friendships and sense of community in their lives, and are the least likely to feel lonely when they’re old bags.

Here's the link to the column:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/06/for_bitter_or_f.html

Chuck,
First, let me say you've hit a sensitive spot in my life. So I apologize in advance for the over the top vitriol of what I will say next.

Leave my uterus and my life the fuck alone. You don't get to judge me.

For various reasons (that I don't feel like sharing) I don't think I would make a good mom. So how the FUCK would I be a more noble person to inflict my defects on a helpless dependent child? How is making the decision to not pass along my genetic code selfish?
And how the FUCK does that correlate into me be unwilling to help my fellow human beings in time of crisis?
I see no train of logic to follow.
And yes, I am indeed pissed off. I'm gonna hang up now before I really start spitting acid.

However, if you can have children and choose not to because you just 'can't be bothered with the effort involved', that's a good indication of being 'selfish'. The same sort of mentality would cause the same individual to refrain from stopping some poor soul of being attacked, robbed, raped and/or murdered. Too much 'trouble' for them to 'get involved'.

I'm impatient, extremely committed to my work, and with the time I have left, I spend with my boyfriend and my friends. To assume that this means I wouldn't stand up for somebody being attacked, robbed, raped, or murdered...where do you come up with this stuff? My picture is in the dictionary under the words "Busybody" and "Meddling bitch." Hell, I even complain when some business is taking up neighborhood parking.

And yes, I'm childless; however, I prefer to refer to myself as "BARREN!!" (I hope that communicates my glee.)

Regarding the notion that Western women need only "replace themselves" to render "most of the immigrant labor unnecessary"...

Uh, immigrants employment isn't the problem in France, it's the fact that immigrants are overtaking the population by having litters of children -- not a problem since the state will pay for them...in fact, the state subsidizes them. Immigrants having litters of children isn't something Françoise, Chantal, or Marceline can cure by having one child, maybe two.

Of course, we're a "nation of immigrants." Until recently, however, being an immigrant meant blending in, joining the "melting pot," learning English, becoming American. I'm not opposed to people from other cultures coming to America; just those who refuse to become American (learn English, for starters) and those who want to convert or kill us for not believing in their particular brand of unproven religious bullshit.

Uh, immigrants employment isn't the problem in France, it's the fact that immigrants are overtaking the population by having litters of children -- not a problem since the state will pay for them

True. My point is that had the Europeans been replacing themselves, they would not have needed to import the immigrant labor. I certainly agree that they are mishandling the situation in other ways too, as you detail.

And I'm not arguing against immigration, just demonstrating one real-world negative result of "no kid."

They weren't "importing immigrant labor," merely letting immigrants in.

P.S. In fact, in France, many, many of the Muslims who've come in from other countries are on the dole.

They weren't "importing immigrant labor," merely letting immigrants in.

I did a quick Google search and found some sources that say otherwise:

From: http://www.udel.edu/poscir/mjmiller/MuslimImmigrationtoEurope(Minaret)-1.htm

"In the years following World War II, no one foresaw massive Muslim migration to and settlement in Europe in coming decades. Among European states, France constituted an exception in that it could be considered a land of immigration. Due to a perceived demographic insufficiency and labor market needs, the French government had long authorized or allowed extensive recruitment of foreign workers and colonial workers. In 1945, there was a broad consensus in governmental circles that large-scale immigration should resume. To this end, a National Immigration Office was created and given a legal monopoly over recruitment of foreign workers. As the late George Tapinos suggested, the French Republic, which then straddled the Mediterranean, evolved a two-track policy. It welcomed the immigration and settlement of Italians and Spaniards, judged to be assimilable, while pursuing temporary foreign worker policy when North African Muslims were recruited for employment."

From: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/30/europes_muslim_dilemma/

"Muslims started coming to Europe in great numbers to fill labor shortages after World War II. Europe thought they would all go home when their labor was no longer needed, but recent European history shows that ``guest workers" don't go home. They invite their families to join them. Today, Muslims pour into Europe legally and illegally."

There are lots more such cites. Also, I remember reading recently how England imported lots of Muslim labor to fill jobs in their mill towns, which subsequently failed, leaving most of these people on the dole.

1. The people in France having kids are Muslims, birth rate around 4 per woman. The French natives are around 1.3 or so. Conclusion: unless things change fairly radically fairly quickly, France will be alcohol-banned, no wineries, food (much of pork-based), women in burqas, etc. All the local indigenous culture and traditions will be replaced by North African Muslim cultural norms which are to put it mildly radically different. [There aren't very many fashion shows in Algeria, for example. And the food has a poor reputation.]

2. Much of the anti-kid arguments stem from a loathing to anti-European racism that seems fashionable. No one would dare tell Blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, or Filipinos to have fewer or no kids. European culture and ethnicity is the only one which is supposed to go extinct, and that probability celebrated.

3. Female fertility windows close fast. And not even medical advances in IVF can compensate fully, and carry the risk of birth defects besides. A woman may or may not want kids in her twenties. But she can also find out at age 35 her ability to have kids is zero.

4. Much of the anti-kid stuff from white middle/upper class women that I see stems from the desire to always be sexually attractive and switch off to a higher-status guy when he comes around or fear of being left by one's partner. Yes childbirth will stretch out a woman's vagina. It matters (along with the kid) if you want another man, or are unsure of your partner, etc. and it doesn't if you're certain your husband will stay with you and love you regardless. But by the time women are in a fully committed and comfortable relationship, their ability to have kids seems to be gone (for upper-class white women at least) because they are in their mid-late thirties and it's just biologically very difficult.

Bottom line: stupid fads and social theories (like promiscuity, wife-swapping, "free love" and so on) don't stack up against what most people's mothers and fathers knew: the best way to happiness as an adult rather than an eternal adolescent is to find someone you love and will love for a lifetime, marry them, and have kids.

Life is not an endless series of parties, struggle for status, etc. Children are your gift to the future. Not for everyone but probably for most. And by the mid-thirties even for wealthy women fairly difficult.

"My point is that had the Europeans been replacing themselves, they would not have needed to import the immigrant labor." - kishke

Your point is far from proven. What is France's current unemployment rate? Could those unemployed people being doing the tasks immigrants do? Could automation pick up the slack? Would France crumble and fall without the immigrants?

Certainly, some individual immigrants are beneficial and others are detrimental. As a whole they may be a net benefit to France. Even if they are, it does not follow that they are needed.

I seriously distrust casual use of the word "need."
E.g., I need a blowjob from Audrey Tautou.

Crid and Joe,
It seems to me that you might as well argue about whether chickens come from eggs or eggs come from chickens. Both sides of the statement are equally true and there is no paradox.

Thank goodness Chuck(le) makes it easy to skim the comments.

Chuck(le), took your advice about the Good Cook series of 30 books from Time-Life. However, I could only find 29 of the 30 books on Amazon. What to do?

Such is life.

> they were the ones who sat
> alone staring at the T.V.
> when we had family day. They
> were the ones who were bitter
> against all of those who had
> children coming and visiting
> them, or grandchildren. They
> would yell at the young children
> to be quite, to stop running,
> to get away from them.

My people! Did you happen to get a business card from this place? I think your attitude problem is an American phenomenon. Everyone's supposed to enjoy other people... We're all supposed to be a people person. It's precisely the theme of Amy's recent posts, and it's a despicable boundary violation. It's just assumed that all healthy people have abiding enthusiasm for intimacy, new faces, and the emotional freight of others. I've spent a lot of time in Alheimer's facilities in recent years, and while the afflicted loved one is doing OK, I'm terrified that this could happen to me. The idea of having to share every meal and several other hours a day with random people is mortifying. I'd rather go by cancer the summer before this incarceration. We've never met, but I think I hate you.

> no one has ever told
> me that they wished
> that they had spent
> more time at the office
> or on a career.

Consider yourself told. I could have done much better 1989-91 and a little better in 2004-2005.

> Just by replacing themselves
> they would have rendered
> most of the immigrant
> labor unnecessary

You make it sound like you're asking so little.

> they almost force us to
> recognize our own self-
> centeredness

I've known plenty of assholes who became parents, and it didn't help. Quite the inverse: Their parenthood is the deepest expression of their self-regard.

> A sociey that is so self-
> absorbed that even the
> biological imperative to
> procreate and raise children
> is tossed aside will wither
> and die.

If "society" is so rickety that its blessings can't attract new participants without a clucking intrusion into this most profoundly personal of choices, it probably doesn't deserve to survive.

> I need a blowjob from
> Audrey Tautou.

So you're a brother! Don't be rhetorically backhanded about it. Live in your feelings, dude... Own them.

> you might as well argue
> about whether chickens
> come from eggs

Quite aside from the weekend's pissing match, I strongly believe that evolution is not a 'perfecting' force that delivers "improvement." To believe so is stasist arrogance; an infantilizing, baseless faith in objective excellence with horrid religious overtones; and naively anthropomorphous. I'm embarrassed for people who think that way. If you survive, you're adapted, and if your kids survive, bully for them: That's all there is to it. People proud of their atheist independence ought to be able to handle this with some stoicism.

You know, I've never met a person (or any other creature) who didn't think of himself as just sensationally well-adapted. The complaints are always directed at the environment... Or in politics, at some bad policy from someone else. It's like that chestnut Treacher linked the other day: "Someone should do something about all the problems!"

Frankness: "loved one is doing OK" should read "did OK." Dark planet, people.

Here's how it goes when nations get pushy about reproduction:

http://urltea.com/13el

(hurry before the link rots)

Those of you who refuse to engage in the birthing and rearing of children are simply making a rather Darwinian statement, to which there need be no other response than "We'll miss you."

Don't reproduce. Then disappear, just as if you were never here. The ultimate self indulgent, self absorbed, self induced extinction.

Life works because behavior that doesn't contribute to a new generation's ability to successfully create yet another new generation isn't inherited.

So, choosing not to have kids is automatically "selfish", eh? Okay. Interesting. So, then, I want someone to list 10 reasons that people choose to have children, that are NOT selfish. As in, that don't include "I want/wanted..." statements.

I'd lay odds that of planned kids, 99% of them were born because Mom or Dad said "I want children" - "I want..." being - wait for it - a selfish reason.

And REAL-LIFE reasons only. I'm not going to buy into BS like "future ass-wipers for you evil childfre folks" and "Social Security payers", because I don't believe for two seconds that anyone says to themselves "I don't want kids, but I shall be selfless so that someone will wipe my neighbor's ass in the nursing home, and pay into Social Security for them."

Hints: "Unconditional love" is selfish - you want to experience the love. "Experience birth" is selfish - it's about you wanting an experience. "Joy of molding a new life into a responsible adult" is selfish - you want that experience. "Carry on the family name/genes" is selfish - you care about your genes for your purposes.

So go ahead, Chuck. Ten realistic, beliveable reasons someone would use to decide they're going to have kids, that aren't for selfish reasons.

"Ten realistic, beliveable reasons someone would use to decide they're going to have kids, that aren't for selfish reasons."

Love your spirit, Laurin.

But you go first with your opposing list.

Ten realistic, believable reasons NOT to have kids that avoid a selfish motivation!

I'd like to see in advance how strictly you'd interpret "selfishness" when it's YOUR list.

Also, I'd rather not read Chuck again on this topic - 'cos I can't understand him half the time and I'm not sure he's worth it when I do.

All this reminds me of David Cross

"So all my friends have kids now... which I think is rude."

"All my friends are always telling me how hard it is to have kids. 'Oh, David, it's so hard.' That's not hard. I'll tell you what hard is. Try talking your girlfriend into her third consecutive abortion. Yeah, that's hard, that takes finesse. You’re just inconvenienced."

TO: Donna B.
RE: [OT] The Good Cook Books

"I could only find 29 of the 30 books on Amazon. What to do?" -- Donna B.

I might have been off in my count. Or it might be that I didn't care much for the 'Varietal Meats' issue of the series. I'm not partial to organ meat dishes; 'sweetbreads', kidney, tripe, etc., as an entry. Pate is fine, but not as the main course.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. More later for the rest of youz guyz. I'm recovering from shoveling four cubic yards of mulch on to the island garden project this morning.

Hi, Jody,

I don't have to defend my side - I'm asking Chuck - or anyone else who's declaring that it's somehow selfless, or at least less selfish, to have kids than to not - to prove their assertions. I have made no assertions in need of proving.

That said, I personally DO know people who've chosen not to have kids because
- they are concerned about the status of the world during a future generation's lifetime, possibly leading to misery for that future generation or beyond. That is altruistic
- they are concerned that potential children they may bear would inherit conditions that they (the adults) do not wish to inflict on potential children. That is altruistic.
- they are concerned about the status of the world due to overpopulation (and its related problems, like pollution and destruction of habitat) and don't believe in adding to the problem. That is altruistic.
- they are concerned that their own problems (ie, illnesses) would result in their potential children either being orphaned young or forced to act as caregivers at the expense of their own ambitions. That is altruistic.
- they cannot afford to raise children even at "basic need" level, and believe it is inappropriate to force children to live in squalor/poverty. That is altruistic.

So, I've got 5 off the top of my head. Whatcha got for your side?

TO: All
RE: On the Nosey

"Those of you who refuse to engage in the birthing and rearing of children are simply making a rather Darwinian statement, to which there need be no other response than "We'll miss you."" B. Dubya

However, I'd suggest that we, or rather MY children, won't miss them.

We don't need 'stupid' people around. Even though they 'think' they are 'smart', their behavior indicates otherwise.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The gene pool could use a little chorine.]

P.S. And isn't it nice that they administer it themselves?

P.P.S. ERRATA....

...that should read "chlorine".

I apologize for my typing error.

TO: Laurin
RE: An Interesting Question

"I'm asking Chuck - or anyone else who's declaring that it's somehow selfless, or at least less selfish, to have kids than to not - to prove their assertions." -- Laurin

I'll get to it later. I need some lunch. I've been up since 2 am today, doing work of one form or another.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[In the Army, we do more work before 9 am than most people do all day. -- Recruiting commercial from the 80s, showing a night operations 'jump' exercise. It was 'way kuwel', except it was people from 18th Airborne Corps, instead of 82d Airborne.]

That is altruistic

Is it? Would you prefer your parents had made that decision for you? I wouldn't. I'd rather be alive with whatever problems the world brings than never to have existed. Some altruists.

Reasons not to have kids?

Here's one of mine: I'm not interested in children.

Does that scream "ideal mommy" to you?

Hi, Kishke,

That's a very silly argument. If I'd never been born, I'd have no opinion on anything. Ditto if you'd never been born. What with the whole "not existing" thing, and all.

If we're going to operate on your little train of thought, we're gonna be in a hell of a mess. Women all have a whole bunch of eggs... making sure each and every one makes it to live personhood - because not doing so would be horribly unaltruistic, stealing the decision to be alive from those futurepersons - well, that's going to be awkward, isn't it? And won't somebody please think of the sperm? They outnumber eggs a bazillion-to-one - how are we going to ensure they all get to realize their alivedness as humans, or whatever silliness your statement leads to?

The fact is, a person/child who does not exist, does not exist. A person/child who does exist, exists. Talking retroactively is just gibberish. We're not speaking about killing the living, we're talking about not creating new. There's a difference. Mull it a bit.

And Amy, you're totally right. Any reason to not want children is a perfectly good reason not to have them.

"Don't reproduce. Then disappear, just as if you were never here."

That happens to everyone, whether they reproduce or not.

I'm curious to see what Laurin gets as a response. I don't want kids, for basically the same reason Amy doesn't - I'm simply not the least bit interested. And since my childfree-ness isn't hurting anyone else, I don't feel any obligation to have kids. Who the hell does my life belong to, anyway?

I suspect that for most people, the reasons to have or NOT to have kids are about equally selfish - we're all doing what we feel is in our own rational self-interest, what will make us the happiest. I don't have to pretend all parents are miserable in order to feel comfortable with my decision. Some of them are, some of them aren't, just like childfree people.

Some of these comments are just idiotic, though. Muslims will outbreed us! You will die old and alone, in a van down by the river! Plz.

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Well....

"Here's one of mine: I'm not interested in children.

Does that scream "ideal mommy" to you?" -- Amy Alkon

....it sounds more like what has been discussed here relating to 'selfishness'.

We kiss your geno-type 'good-bye'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Children, n., Messages we send into a future we shall never see.]

P.S. On the other {shudder} hand, you could be the epitome of the sort of person describe by Christ. Someone who loves God more than they love anything else, including children.

"We kiss your geno-type 'good-bye'."

Who cares? Your DNA (and mine) are about six strands removed from a chimp, same as everyone else.

I'll make my difference in the world with my keyboard instead of my vagina, thanks.

P.S. On the other {shudder} hand, you could be the epitome of the sort of person describe by Christ. Someone who loves God more than they love anything else, including children.

Uh, read my site much, Chuck?

Hint: The job description on my business card is "Godless Harlot."

TO: Laurin
RE: Defensive Ops

“I don't have to defend my side - I'm asking Chuck - or anyone else who's declaring that it's somehow selfless, or at least less selfish, to have kids than to not - to prove their assertions. I have made no assertions in need of proving." -- Laurin

True. You don’t have to do or say anything. You can simple withdraw from this ‘field’. But for some strange reason, you have not. Instead, you’ve decided to ‘engage’. That shows that there is more to this matter than you seem to profess.

Otherwise, you’d simple ignore this discussion. Neh?

RE: Why Is It ‘Selfish’?

Any number of reasons have already been stated in this thread. If you don’t accept some of them, maybe you should be specific as to what you dont’ accept. Otherwise.....please....re-read everything posted about that heretofore. Please don’t expect eat up Amy’s bandwidth repeating what has already been stated.

RE: Down to ‘Specifics’

"That said, I personally DO know people who've chosen not to have kids because

- they are concerned about the status of the world during a future generation's lifetime, possibly leading to misery for that future generation or beyond. That is altruistic" -- Laurin

The world has ALWAYS been in peril. However, despite all of that, we seem to be doing better. Don’t you think?

Or, are we still torturing everyday citizens in baronial dungeons using thumb-screws, the rack, iron maidens or such...here in these United States? When was the last time we had a really riping witch burning? Do we still keep blacks as slaves? Are women still denied the ‘vote’?

- they are concerned that potential children they may bear would inherit conditions that they (the adults) do not wish to inflict on potential children. That is altruistic." -- Laurin

See item immediately above.

- they are concerned about the status of the world due to overpopulation (and its related problems, like pollution and destruction of habitat) and don't believe in adding to the problem. That is altruistic." -- Laurin

Ooooooooooooo.....the ‘habitat’. Funny thing is that no matter how many people we have, we still don’t have serious issues with how many people we have.

The world’s population is limited only by our ability to support it. And, despite the ever-increasing numbers of persons, we still MANAGE to support them. Why is that?

- they are concerned that their own problems (ie, illnesses) would result in their potential children either being orphaned young or forced to act as caregivers at the expense of their own ambitions. That is altruistic." -- Laurin

Obviously, someone is ‘paranoid’ in the extreme. May as well go and blow their own brains out, just to get it over with, eh? Most rational people don’t think in such a negative manner. Maybe that’s because most rational people think of themselves a Christians; i.e., no matter how bad things get, we still have ‘hope’.

- they cannot afford to raise children even at "basic need" level, and believe it is inappropriate to force children to live in squalor/poverty. That is altruistic." -- Laurin

Poor Roman Catholics with more than 3 children seem to ‘make ends meet’. Why IS that?

The local, recently elected DA, has 14 children. He started life in a household in the poor part of town with almost as many siblings. And yet he seems not only to survive, but he, literally, prospers.

"So, I've got 5 off the top of my head. Whatcha got for your side?" -- Laurin

Actually, you only got 1. All of your ‘items’ were about ‘selfishness’ masquarding as a confused and twisted concept “alturism”.

You cannot have ‘alturism’ without having a devote interest in ‘life’ and you cannot have that without being willing to throw yourself in the fray.

The truth of the matter is as I suggested earlier in this thread....

“Suffer the little children.....”

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life is boot camp. And we are all expected to go out and be heroes.]

TO: Pirate Joe
RE: Who Indeed

"Who cares? Your DNA (and mine) are about six strands removed from a chimp, same as everyone else." -- Pirate Joe

Obviously YOU care. Otherwise, you'd have ignored all of this kerfuffle.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education. -- George Bernard Shaw]

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Actually....

"I'll make my difference in the world with my keyboard instead of my vagina, thanks." -- Amy Alkon

...your vagina has very little to do with children, save for their conception and egress. Or did they forget to teach you that in school?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Procreation: Fleeting moments of pleasure followed by years of service; for both parties, if they have the courage to face Life.]

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Oh....

"P.S. On the other {shudder} hand, you could be the epitome of the sort of person describe by Christ. Someone who loves God more than they love anything else, including children.

Uh, read my site much, Chuck?" -- Amy Alkon

....I'm well aware of your predilections.

You, however, are ignorant of my inference. Maybe you should read more good Book[s].

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Hearers should test what teachers say by reading the text themselves.]

Chuck, whether Laurin's list of altruistic reasons for not having children holds water or not, you still have not given any altruistic reasons for having children. Why is having children any less selfish than not having them?

All you have done by way of "reasoning" is to rhapsodize about the joys of parenthood, which is a selfish reason, and you think having kids will make the world a better place. Such arrogance. I happen to think you're a tedious asshole, and you are probably just filling the world with more tedious assholes like yourself.

And "most rational people think of themselves a Christians?" Rational people do not believe in an invisible man who lives in the sky, any more than they believe in the tooth fairy. Hope for the future comes through the rejection of precisely the religious superstitions you adhere to, through scientific progress, and through advances in medicine and technology - not continued population growth.

Chuck,

Sorry, but disagreeing with their choice of reasons does not negate those reasons' altruism (note, that's not "alturism"). These people have chosen not to breed for reasons other than "I want/don't want".

Just because you think it's presumably okay to pop out a bunch of kids with catastrophic disabilities, or mental illnesses, or time-bomb genetic conditions, doesn't mean that your particular brand of morals is universal. For example. All you've done is give what you believe, evidently, is counter-reasons (with a healthy dose of gibberish) for people's reasons.

Speaking of gibberish: "You cannot have ‘alturism’ without having a devote interest in ‘life’ and you cannot have that without being willing to throw yourself in the fray."

Um. No, actually.

And you have come up with precisely zero realistic reasons to breed that do not include "I want/do not want" statements.

TO: Elie
RE: Awwww....

"Leave my uterus and my life the fuck alone. You don't get to judge me." -- Elie

...you obviously need some professional help.

Especially if you think you can offend me with such trite language. You can't hold a candle to Colonel 'No Slack' Stack, babe.

Also, just because you are so obviously 'ignorant'. It's not my position to 'judge' you. Nor anyone else. That's His job. Not mine.

I hope that helps. But, based on your ignorant attack, I doubt if it will. But...and this is a big 'but', maybe, just 'maybe', you might pause and reflect on this communication between you and I and decide you need to learn more about your 'opponent' before you get 'stupid' again.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Know your enemy and know yourself and you shall never be defeated. -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War]

That's a very silly argument. If I'd never been born, I'd have no opinion on anything. Ditto if you'd never been born. What with the whole "not existing" thing, and all ... We're not speaking about killing the living, we're talking about not creating new.

We're talking about people who would otherwise have children, if not for the "altruistic" reasons you listed. This means that their decision not to conceive is done for the presumed benefit of those potential children, who, they assume, would prefer never to be created than to be brought into this world. So it is not I, but they (and by extension you) who have brought the "opinions" and "preferences" of uncreated children to the table. I am therefore justified in responding in those terms.

To wit: These people decided that their children would rather not exist than be created into this world. All my experience tells me that most people would rather have been born than not, notwithstanding whatever problems they state. Thus is their reasoning refuted.

Okay, I've kept out of this for as long as I could because I know Chuck is just a mindless troll, who throws the words 'God' and 'Christ' around as a substitute for personal character. Here's a true life story on this subject.

My mom got pregnant with me to trap my dad into supporting her for the rest of her life. She envisioned a baby like a living doll, to validate her and make her feel good about herself. She got a baby born with a mind of its own. I grew up like an animal, partly because my mom had no clue about parenting, and partly because she would beat me up whenever she felt any kind of frustration, which was daily.

When I was 8 1/2, she shat out a boy baby, which became my responsibility other than when company came and she posed, madonna-like, with the infant. She remained mildly interested in my brother until he was about 10, mainly because he seemed to realize early on that she could be manipulated by his seeming to go along with what she wanted. After that, he fell entirely under my care, and I did the best I could with him.

Although he is not in prison, he is manipulative and a pathological liar, and I am probably to blame for being inadequate to the task of raising him when I'd had no guidance myself. Instead of compounding the mistake by spawning a bunch of children of my own, I elected to try straightening myself out, trying to learn all the things I needed to know to be a successful, self-supporting, well-adjusted adult.

I am now 43, and where I needed to be at 18 to start being a useful member of the human race. Yet by what passes for Chuck's 'reasoning', my mother is noble for having shat out a couple of kids without regard for the consequences, and I am selfish for not following suit!

Chuck need not bother to answer this rant; I've got his number (on my blacklist).

"notwithstanding whatever problems they state."

I mean, "they face."

TO: Christina
RE: Apparent Poor Comprehension Skills....

"So here's what I've learned from Chuck:" -- Christina

....or worse.

Personally....I suspect the latter.

RE: By the Numbers

"1) Parenting is not that hard." -- Christina

It's not. Really. And, as the children mature, they are more of a help than a hinderance.

"2) Overwhelm the opposition by sheer numbers. Have lots of kids so your worldview will be spread by your mini-mes." -- Christina

It's working in Europe.

"3) Its better to have kids and do it half-ass then to not have them at all." -- Christina

Who decides that's 'half-ass'? You? Is that how you are going through YOUR life?

Such a shame!

"4) Others are unimportant. If you want to go out to dinner with your under three year old screamer, do it. Life sucks sometimes and other people should learn to deal." -- Christina

Show me where I said such?

By the way. If Heather was too obnoxious when we took her out, we paid our tab and left with the meal in bags.

On the other hand, after the 'terrible twos' she was the epitome of a well mannered child.

So, where is my approach indicative of my not caring about 'others'? Eh? Come on! Show me! Or are you just blowing smoke?

5) There is no way you can "change the world for the better without having kids. Cure cancer, you selfish git, if that's the best you can do." -- Christina

Call me again when you come up with the cure for cancer. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke...again.

Personally. I doubt if you'll ever come up with the cure for ANY form of cancer. And I equally doubt you'll do much else to enhance the quality of life on earth.

Your CHILDREN, however, have a better chance of success at something more significant than your diatribe here.

"6) Knowing that you wouldn't be a good parent means you are selfish. Suck it up and screw up kids like the rest of us! There certainly aren't enough worthless morons running around, why don't you pop out a couple more and teach them that they are the only people that matter? Go team!" -- Christina

You never know until you REALLY try.

Or are you just throwing up more 'smoke' as a pitiful excuse for your unwillingness to even try?

I suspect that is more the case than anything else at play here.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[We find a delight in the beauty and happiness of children, that makes the heart too big for the body. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

TO: That Julia
RE: Oh! Help!

"Chuck need not bother to answer this rant; I've got his number (on my blacklist)." -- That Julia

I am so 'mortified'.

Well...when you send your gestapo agents to my doorstep, be sure to advice them about body armor.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one or the other. -- John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn]

TO: Laurin
RE: Speaking of Gibberish

"Speaking of gibberish: "You cannot have ‘alturism’ without having a devote interest in ‘life’ and you cannot have that without being willing to throw yourself in the fray."

Um. No, actually. " -- Laurin

So. You agree with me, eh?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A little ambiguity never hurt anyone. -- Deputy Directory of English Teachers Assoc.]

P.S. But that might be about to change.

Re: Chuck's last gasp. Wow, and I thought I overreacted...

TO: Gretchen
RE: Children, And All the Fun Entailed Therewith

“Kids are more than "a bother." It's a one hundred and eighty degree change in one's life. Don't diminish the dramatic impact children have on one's life. " -- Gretchen

I think I stated as much earlier in this thread. Did I not?

Maybe you should do some more ‘homework’.

“Not finding a babysitter at the last minute is an inconvenience. Losing a marriage that was once strong but weakened by the intense struggles of co-parenting is devastating. The great balancing act of parents will inevitably lead to certain areas of life to suffer." -- Gretchen

Sounds like serious issues with regards to the basis of the marriage in the first place. Been there. Done that. And all I got was the scars. Not even a lousy t-shirt.

I’ve learned better since then. Maybe you should read something in that old Book I keep mentioning. Start with Proverbs 31. Then go to John.

"Letting friends or a spouse fall to the wayside doesn't make you a good little reproducer. It makes you stressed and, quite possibly, depressed. It doesn't make you love your kids less...but it certainly strikes most people as crap when you wake up one morning and you realize you haven't had sex in two months. And...who cares, anyway, because your body insecurity overrules any sexual urges (for women). So stop acting like raising children is easy. Some people can do it (but not w/o getting bumped and bruised along the way) and some (or most) can't." -- Gretchen

I never said losing one’s help-mate was a good approach or technique to raise children. If I did, please point out my confusion.

I never said raising children was ‘easy’, as in ‘nothing to it’. But it’s not nearly as horrific as a lot of people around here, especially those who haven’t had any, seem to make it. Nothing in this life, as far as I’ve determined, is handed to you on a silver platter. But I guess it boils down to what people think is ‘easy’. And what they think is ‘hard’.

From raising my own children, I learned that if you treat and teach them in a loving, firm and rational manner, they turn out pretty well, even at age 3. And from there on, if you keep that approach going, things just keep getting ‘better’.

Seriously! It’s incredible what a well educated 3 year-old can do.

"Marriage is, supposedly, a commitment. Neglecting my (hypothetical) husband wouldn't make me a better mom - just overwhelmed and under resourced. That idea scares me. Scares me enough to think that having kids at the expense of possibly losing someone I love is...well, a bad idea." -- Gretchen

Again. I think we’re getting into an interesting digression relating to the basis of a marriage. Children, in a REAL marriage, do not detract from the marriage. They augment it.

"Also, some people don't really like kids. There might be many reasons for this, but of those some are inexplicable." -- Gretchen

Sounds like a personal problem. They should seek professional help. I can recommend a good minister.

"And I almost forgot: "What if you don’t get to leave at ‘midnight’? Just going to walk out anyway?" - Chuck, several posts ago." -- Gretchen

"Fuck you." -- Gretchen

What’s the matter, babe? Can’t control your anger/anguish? Or can’t put it into words because it is too great and your vocabulary is too limited?

Or is it more important that get to ‘do your own thing’ instead of fulfilling an obligation to a child and to your friends?

Have we come to the proverbial crux of the matter of ‘selfishness’ here?

"Don't fall off that horse. You might injure your ego." -- Gretchen

You obviously don’t ‘know’ me. In any way, shape or form.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life is a game. And you've just been finessed.]

TO: That Julia
RE: Last WHAT???!?!?

"Re: Chuck's last gasp. Wow, and I thought I overreacted..." -- That Julia

You are so sadly mistaken.....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I gotta million of em. -- Jimmy Durante]

Please don’t expect eat up Amy’s bandwidth repeating what has already been stated.

Uh, the bandwith is for the eating. If my goal with this site was preserving my bandwith, I'd leave this page blank. If you'd like to contribute to the cost of my bandwidth, click on the Amazon or Paypal button on the left on my main blog page. Of course, I'm assuming that was just a way to dice yourself out of an argument, not an actual concern for my costs.

Chuck:

It has been pointed out to me by one of my office-mates that you may be unaware that blocked email addresses, in some programs, go onto a blacklist. Of course, I remembered too late that they don't have such items where you are (in the 14th Century). I do apologize for the confusion.

TO: That Julia
RE: Blacklisting

"It has been pointed out to me by one of my office-mates that you may be unaware that blocked email addresses, in some programs, go onto a blacklist." -- That Julia

Blacklisting is any of a number of actions. Sometimes practiced in Senate Committees, Hollywood, Nazi Germany, etc., etc., etc.

Maybe you should be more careful with the volatile verbiage you use.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Words have meaning.
When you speak you set them free. -- Newsboys]

TO: That Julia
RE: The 'Ageless' [Not So] Gentleman

"Of course, I remembered too late that they don't have such items where you are (in the 14th Century). I do apologize for the confusion." -- That Julia

Apology accepted.

However, I'm a man of many ages. But I don't particularly favor the 14th Century, as Barbara Tuchmann did too good a job of describing it in her dry but 'classic' work, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century; the great schism, the Black Death, the 100 Years War. Too much 'fun' for any civilized gentleman.

I think I prefer the one I'm in today.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I went to a restaurant that serves 'breakfast at any time' so I ordered French toast during the Renaissance.]

Chuck: strange that you left out my 14th Century qualification. Yet you claim to be more historically aware than I. And then the Disney movie quote. Hilarious. But I'm through with you.

On the actual subject of the post: isn't that the woman who wrote Bonjour Laziness? I enjoyed the bit about the water and wastewater mogul who bought the multimedia company, because the water biz isn't sexy enough.

TO: That Julia
RE: Strange Indeed

"Chuck: strange that you left out my 14th Century qualification. Yet you claim to be more historically aware than I. And then the Disney movie quote. Hilarious. But I'm through with you." -- That Julia

That you think I'm in the 14th Century. Take a look around you, babe. This is the 21st.

As for 'being through" with me. Whatever.....

"On the actual subject of the post: isn't that the woman who wrote Bonjour Laziness? I enjoyed the bit about the water and wastewater mogul who bought the multimedia company, because the water biz isn't sexy enough." -- That Julia

Sorry. That one I missed. And the pun isn't that clever either.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Programming, like punning, is a play on words.]

It's becoming clear that Chuck is arguing for Chuck, and not for anything resembling rationality. To say nothing of the fact his posts are perilously close to incomprehensible. Possibly because he's into wilful incomprehension. Fine. I'll leave him be. But nonetheless point out he's not come up with a single realistic unselfish reason to breed. Ahem.

As for Kishke, well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. You've gone to so many degrees of "meta" that it's into another dimension. I *think* your argument is predicated on the concept that somehow the idea that people *could* have kids somehow magically creates some sort of personhood within eggs/sperm and changing one's mind, and/or not taking advantage of it, is killing the personhood. But "intent" has nothing to do with the price of cheese. Not having kids isn't killing potential kids. It's just plain not having them. They have never existed, and now they will never exist. And, quite possibly, for perfectly good reasons.

> Love your spirit, Laurin.
> But you go first with
> your opposing list.

But it's not the childless ones in this argument who first used the word "selfish." It's a little snotty to insist that they give a full defense without first offering the full volley of your assault.

Turns out there's already lots of stupidity to work with in these comments.

> are simply making a
> rather Darwinian
> statement

One problem with living in these feminine times is that anything anyone ever does is thought to be an effort at communication. Maybe teenagers walking out of McDonald's sucking Coke through a straw aren't trying to "make a statement" about the excellence of processed beef in a diet... Maybe they were just hungry. The childless might not be saying they think your contributions to the gene pool are particularly admirable... Just that they'll probably be so lame that they need not be countermanded through burdensome childrearing.

Furthermore, if you think having children is the best way I can be of service to your culture and your species, I should confess that I just don't like you enough to take the time.

> Then disappear, just as
> if you were never here.

Nothing ever disappears as if it "were never here". Every beetle that ever crawled under a leaf changed the arrangement of earthly materials in some way which might prove determinative. People have the fantasy of being a notable figure (Newton, Darwin, Hendrix etc), within whom generations of tradition suddenly rebounded. But it's not necessary. Live to suck one breath, and you've got a piece of the action. Hell, miscarriages change history.

Now, we the childless can relate to the suffering you go through as a parent... And it seems be terribly important to you that we do. But all the tax breaks social social space don't get the job done for you. Aside from demanding flattery for your 'sacrifice' of slavishly answering your reproductive urges, the rest of must be chided as selfish by comparison. Exactly how brittle does an ego need to be?

Most importantly: If simply cranking out rugrats is the only way to make a contribution to the human enterprise, then why --having already done so-- are you desperate to have your personal excellence expressly admired? The die are cast anyway... Right, babe?

> To wit: These people decided
> that their children would
> rather not exist than be
> created into this world.

This sounds is like some Catholic school prohibition against teenage masturbation: 'Every sperm deserves to become a taxpayer!' A person who doesn't exist has no opinion. We need not be concerned with too many geniune feelings, let alone imaginary ones.

> Thus is their reasoning
> refuted.

You're not old enough to use "to wit" and "thus."

> Uh, the bandwith is
> for the eating.

Amy is endlessly patient with her blog visitors. I know this.

Isn't it a "selfish" decision whichever way you go? Isn't that the nature of any decision (presuming it was a decision and not an accident)....to weigh the pros and cons and pick what makes sense? After two hours of attempting to read through the whole thread (first day back from vacay...slow start), I haven't seen a reason on one side or the other that couldn't be interpreted as "selfish" by the other side. So, what's the problem with being selfish? Make an informed decision and follow through.

It's that follow through that's important. Decide to have babies because they're cute, or they give you "immortality" or because they'll carry on your political cause....just be there to carry through when you learn there's more to it than playing house and the little suckers develop their own ideas and don't always do what you want! And each time you eff up (as we all do to some degree in whatever we take on), learn, fix it, take responsibility.

Of course, this is hindsight talking and I'll fess up to my stupidity....I'm the mom of (what I think) is a great 8 year old. Had him on purpose even though I'd always disliked kids to appease my then-husband in an obvious failed effort to "save" a marriage (yes, yes....stupid and VERY selfish! I sure coulda used a kick in the ass Amy style before I married the jerk!). Asked outright, I tell people parenthood is a huge pain in the ass, but that's my "perspective". There are definately good times as well though and I see great parents all over the place for which it is the "right" decision. Me, I love my boy like crazy and he'll never know anything less than my full commitment....but if someone put a time machine and a clear conscience button in front of me...it would be a tough call...selfish, but honest.

Laurin, it's really quite simple: Your acquaintances believe that their children would prefer not to be born into this imperfect world, so by refraining they show kindness to the unborn. I say the children would prefer to be given the chance at life, so your friends are showing unkindness. Any assumptions as to the "personhood" of the unborn begin with them, not with me.

You're not old enough to use "to wit" and "thus." - Crid

I know. Words like these are a weakness of mine. But hey, they do come in handy in discussions like these!

Chuck
1) This is a matter of opinion. However, you are the only person I've met that seems to hold this opinion. Everyone else seems to think it's hard.
2)Is it? Hmm... Genocide worked for Hitler for a while. Maybe we should try it? (Couldn't resist the ridiculous and grandiose comparison... right up your alley).
3)Half-ass is how a lot of people do it. Half-ass is the way most people do a job they don't really want. Whatever intimations you want to make about me from this observation, go for it. Have you noticed how many shitty kids and adults are out there? Maybe if more people were "selfish" and didn't pop out kids they didn't really want, we wouldn't have to live with such actually selfish assholes.
4) "My personal experience has been that you can take the children out to eat. However, between the ages of .01 and 3.0 years you run the risk of disturbing other dinners.

Such is life." - Chuck
5) Wow. My diatribe? Who's the one getting huffy? I'm typing this with a smile on my face. Your opinions on my future contribution to the world are about as baseless and silly as it gets. I disagree with you, find humor in your near-unbearable posturing, and so I have no value as a person? Again, your brilliance has no equal.
6) I don't know whether I'd make a good president either as I haven't tried, but it seems to me a shit job that I'm unqualified for, so I'll not be making a bid. Knowing that you are not fit to do something is self-awareness, not selfishness.

Coincidentally, I never said I wasn't going to have kids. I don't think that's a decision I'm ready to make. I know that I don't want them now, and that I have a lot to learn and grow before I can give a child the best shot I've got. Funny that you seem to respect life for the sake of life but see no contradiction in having kids that you can't offer a good life to. I am of the "suck it up and do the best you can" school, but most people are not. Most people care more about themselves than anyone else, often even their kids. The miserable screw-ups that they produce might also disagree with you.

Kishke: "Laurin, it's really quite simple: Your acquaintances believe that their children would prefer not to be born into this imperfect world, so by refraining they show kindness to the unborn. I say the children would prefer to be given the chance at life, so your friends are showing unkindness."

You cannot show unkindness to something/someone that doesn't exist.

And again, WHICH children should have that chance at life? Which egg? All of them? Sixteenth from the left? What about the sperm? There are NO children "prefering" anything. They don't exist. A nonexistent being cannot prefer something.

You are attempting to attribute values and preferences to something absolutely nonexistent. It's like accusing me of mistreating the elephant I don't have, because I'm not feeding it.

WooooHooooo! What a shitstorm of comments on this topic! I've been reading through all of these and the best thing I can come up with is:
Don't want kids? Don't have 'em! Ain't nobody's business but yours.
Want kids? Have 'em! But be prepared to deal with a lot of heretofore unknown variables to your life, inlcuding people who will think you're an asshole for doing so, based on how well/not well your kids turn out to be.

Bottom line, accept your own personal responsibility, no matter what your decision, and make sure, if you do have kids, to teach them personal responsibility as well. You can't really do anything about the ones that are already here, unless they're yours. Except maybe ignore them. I just don't understand why everyone's bound and determined to get their shorts in a twist about it all. Not everyone thinks the same way about things, but there's no need to beat each other up about it. Agree to disagree. Or not.

You cannot show unkindness to something/someone that doesn't exist.

Nor can you show it kindness. Which is why it's not altruistic to refrain from having children b/c you don't want to bring them into an imperfect world. Which was my point to begin with.

You are attempting to attribute ... preferences to something absolutely nonexistent.

No, I'm not. It's the so-called altruists who are doing that, by acting on the assumed preferences of their non-existent children.

So Kishke, answer Laurin's point... Which exactly are the sperm who deserve to feel cheated?

(Do you need a sample to examine up close? Given the numbers you're going up against, this will certainly be a terrifically nuanced judgment, and we want you to have everything you need. Just let us know.)

Kishke: Nor can you show (something/someone that doesn't exist) it kindness. Which is why it's not altruistic to refrain from having children b/c you don't want to bring them into an imperfect world. Which was my point to begin with.

I'm not sure it was. But regardless, it's the difference between "passive" and "active". It is (or at least can be) altruistic to not have *actual, living, breathing, growing, existing* children in a crappy-and-getting-crappier world (as defined by the potential parents in question). It is of no difference to children that do not exist, but it is a big deal to children who do exist. Seeing as they do not exist, it is not the least bit unkind not to make them exist. If they did exist, then killing them would, indeed, be unkind.

Me: You are attempting to attribute ... preferences to something absolutely nonexistent.

Kishke: No, I'm not. It's the so-called altruists who are doing that, by acting on the assumed preferences of their non-existent children.

And yet you would have them act on YOUR assumed preferences of those non-existent children.

You are disturbed that I'm being unkind to my non-existent elephant.

It is (or at least can be) altruistic to not have *actual, living, breathing, growing, existing* children in a crappy-and-getting-crappier world

Altruistic to whom? To the children, of course. But they don't exist! Which is why it can't be altruistic.

And yet you would have them act on YOUR assumed preferences of those non-existent children.

I never said that. I simply said they are not altruistic, (a) b/c they are not doing the potential kids any favors, and (b) b/c as you argue, you can't be altruistic toward non-existent beings. I made no argument in favor of their procreating, only against your characterization of it as altruistic.

Kishke: (me:)It is (or at least can be) altruistic to not have *actual, living, breathing, growing, existing* children in a crappy-and-getting-crappier world

Kishke: Altruistic to whom? To the children, of course. But they don't exist! Which is why it can't be altruistic.

If you genuinely believe that (and that's a-okay with me, though I'm not certain one must be altruistic "to" anyone/anything to be indeed altruistic), then you're at least conceding, by default, that you also can't be *unkind* to children who don't exist. And frankly, THAT, my worthy chum, is the ultimate point I am making to you.

Laurin/Flynne,
Excellent comments.

But it's not the childless ones in this argument who first used the word "selfish." It's a little snotty to insist that they give a full defense without first offering the full volley of your assault.

For f's sake, Crid. Enough of the "snotty" swipes, already.

The whole larky point of batshit-provocatrice french lady's list was to yank the chain of smug parents with a load of petty insults.

A thoughtful child free person trumps a thoughtless, shitty parent and vice versa.

Laurin's list is plenty altruistic - if you preface her reasons with "I'd love to have kids, but...". I thought her list was just fine.

If you DON'T want kids, it's not a virtue not to have 'em. And if you DO want kids, it's not a perversion.

And if you want to avoid the vile crap about how giving birth gives a woman a flabby vagina - like the chap with the obviously tiny dick upthread did, then have a C-section - and "keep your tubes honeymoon fresh" like so many of us do anyway.

> Enough of the "snotty"
> swipes, already.

Well apparently not, Jody.

> to yank the chain of smug
> parents with a load of petty
> insults.

That "smugness" was first blood. Game on! Next!

And frankly, THAT, my worthy chum, is the ultimate point I am making to you.

I see that, although I'm not sure why, since I called it unkindness only in response to your assumption that refraining from procreation is kindness. In other words, the initial assumption that one can be kind or unkind to unborn children is not mine, but yours.

Chucklet,

"What’s the matter, babe? Can’t control your anger/anguish? Or can’t put it into words because it is too great and your vocabulary is too limited?"

1) Don't "babe" me. Dick.

2) Anger? Anguish? You were exceedingly rude to postulate that I would walk out on my friend's son at midnight if they weren't home. So, now you're saying that not having kids not only makes me selfish, but also reckless and irresponsible. Wow, good interpretation. Next time I'll have to get the two year drunk and a prostitute...What's your problem?

3) "Fuck" is a valid word to be used. I know it makes your eyes bleed to read it but nothing is more satisfying when a presumptuous, rude, incoherent pissant such as yourself interrupts an otherwise interesting thread by insulting people. Calling people selfish because they don't have kids is insulting.

Alternative opinions and heated debate are glorious and the reason many of us frequent this site. Life isn't fun when everyone agrees! But you, Chuck, are an obnoxious distraction.

"Or is it more important that get to ‘do your own thing’ instead of fulfilling an obligation to a child and to your friends?"

...and here you go with presumptions again.

Do you want some? With an attitude like yours I highly doubt that your angelic children want anything to do with you. Your need to pull incorrect assumptions from your ass (when people disagree with you) and your mighty ego surely interfere with their ability to interact with you. Your wife only agrees with you out of boredom and desperation to make your monotonous diatribes end. She's learned her lesson - well done, chap. Take your little bible citations and go screw an emu. It was written by a bitter man with an ego problem because he probably had undiagnosed mental issues. Much like yourself.

Now, have a good chuck[le] about how wrong you think I am...and we'll all have our own b/c everyone else knows I'm pretty damned on the mark.

Good grief, what a couple of loons Chuckles and kishke are. Seriously demented, in their reactions to the thought that some people don't feel compelled to breed like fucking fruit flies. Selfish? Give me a fucking break. You people are insane. Some people would rather contribute to society in different ways than pumping out resource sucking little monsters, get over it. Some people recognize that they probably wouldn't be very good parents*, get over it.

*though it should be mentioned that a lot of people who don't believe they would be very good parents, end up doing a better job than assholes who think they can. That doesn't mean they should have kids they don't wish to have.

I love this shit.

> Laurin's list is plenty
> altruistic - if you preface
> her reasons with "I'd love
> to have kids, but..."

Help me understand: Isn't this precisely the narcissism Amy's post addresses? Parents just cannot believe that all decent human hearts aren't aligned just like their own. Until the childless confess this, you just won't release your grip. It's like demanding every gay man admit that he just hasn't met the right woman yet.

This sounds is like some Catholic school prohibition against teenage masturbation: 'Every sperm deserves to become a taxpayer!'

The way I see it, more people should've been aborted.

Jesus, Crid - no!!!!

"Until the childless confess this, you just won't release your grip."

No, not what I mean.

I mean: IF you want kids, BUT you decide - for one of Laurin's reasons - that it is better NOT to, then that decision is true (unselfish) altruism in my book. Because you are acting against personal desires.

If your personal desire is not to have kids, you can justify it any way you want to any passing sticky beak idiot. Or not.

But that isn't necessarily an unselfish decision. Maybe it's entirely in your own best interests? Maybe parents disgust you with their petty oneupmanship and tedious conversation? Maybe you need your sleep? Maybe kids just DO nothing for you? Maybe you feel they're not worth the sacrifice? Maybe you're pretty sure you have work to do that a kid coming along might torpedo?

In which case - your decision kicks ass!

Good for you and all that!

Just don't dress up a lack of desire for kids as a selfless gesture to this sorry old world IF that's not the case.

Well, how could you possibly, possibly, know? I'm no good with hand tools, but I could start building a sports car in my basement tonight... And I might win the Indy 500 next year. We'll never know though, will we? We cant prove a thing until I give it a try. So are race fans supposed to be saddened if decide to wash the windows tonight instead? When you say "best interests," who are you talking about, if not imaginary children?

Is there such a thing as unselfish altruism? Surely, there's self-interest in the supposed lack of it -- confirmation that you're a fabulous human being, and so on. Sorry to not mention this sooner, but Monday's one of my big deadline days, and I've been home crawling under the furniture in search of better verbs.

(PS for Jody- I loved watching you dance out of the way of that towel-snap. In these years, no reflex is more important to liberals than being nice to gays.)

Well, how could you possibly, possibly, know?

I don't, Crid - but you know, surely?

"Is there such a thing as unselfish altruism?"

Amy,

I think so - if the act is of no benefit to you?

(I'm not sure inner feelings of fabulousness count - do they?)

> you know, surely?

Yes, I do. I have no children. Nothing's being withheld from from anybody.

Questions? Anyone? In back, there? No?

Very good.

"The childless might not be saying they think your contributions to the gene pool are particularly admirable... Just that they'll probably be so lame that they need not be countermanded through burdensome childrearing."

So your contribution to this discussion, Crid - (I submit the above)is to throw a few pointy paper planes - and then point to your blameless, mute crotch?

Fine.

(And you're so wrong on the gay thing.)

No, the contribution is to assert that the vocal, showy pride parents take in the fulfillment of a base impulse in often inappropriate. Especially when it clucks. It comes off like whistling in the dark, or sour grapes.... ("I didn't even want to go to Paris in my thirties! Count Chocula is a fulfilling breakfast, and who doesn't love the Ninja Turtles?")

> (And you're so wrong
> on the gay thing.)

It would be fun if you'd say how. Amy promises we got plenty of space here... Gogogo! Let's do this!

Here, let me help you. Imagine two gay men... Two queer, faggotty, ho-mo-sexual men. Flamers! I'm talking about two men who like to stay indoors and kiss... Each other!

Are they "selfish" if they don't want kids?

Answer carefully.

And kissing isn't even the half of it!

Ewwww, Amy! Grossout!!!

(Looks like JT's not taking the bait)

"...i[s] often inappropriate."

Shame on you, Crid for "inappropriate": the weak weasel word of the PC crowd.

As far as the gay thing: with the shortage of fresh born babies for adoption & the fact it's a bit of a fag for gays to get hold of a young member of Our Glorious Future as their own one way or the other - I don't get the bait.

> So you're a brother! Don't be rhetorically
> backhanded about it. Live in your feelings,
> dude... Own them.

Huh?

> ...I strongly believe that evolution is not a
> 'perfecting' force that delivers "improvement."
> ...baseless faith in objective excellence...

Agreed. However, it can be useful to think of it as a perfecting force as long as you keep in mind that that is a metaphor and that you are anthropomorphizing or at least imparting intent where there is none. The "selfish gene" idea suffers from the same faults, yet I have found it to be incredibly enlightening.

Evolution is a force in which organisms adapt according to the demands of their environment. One environment's adaptation does not necessarily work well in another.

Amy,

You mean "one organism's adaptation"...yes?

Evolution is a force? I thought it was a process of accidental mutations.

> "inappropriate": the weak
> weasel word

I know what you're getting at, but my own prohibition on that word only applies to women before their thirtieth birthday. After the start of that fourth decade, they're usually ready to surrender the fantasy that the world --when spinning correctly-- churns only to deliver them to a comforting and flattering series of feeling-states. By then they have a better understanding of the limitations of the "appropriate." My nieces are almost there, and I can't wait... They're already wonderful.

> with the shortage of fresh
> born babies for adoption

Gotcha gotcha! My second scalp this week. Sure, I'm proud, but props for your effort: Small words but very chewy.

First of all, who said anything about adoption? The childless who wrote the book Amy cites and defend themselves in this stack aren't being asked to adopt, we're called flawed simply for not wanting kids at all. It's far too late in the argument to pretend your intentions were practical.

Second, who said anything about babies? Sure, the market for healthy white babies has never been hotter. But if you want to talk about adoption, the bigger burden is from the toddler-thru-twenties; and there's no reason, I would presume you believe, that gays shouldn't be as responsible for these kids as the rest of us. More than any internet phenomenon, this truly is the "long tail."

Thirdly, a childless gay would live pretty much like... um... I do. If I blow a guy, am I off the hook? (Hey Paul! Justin! Amy: Phone one of the Melissas or somebody... Whatever it takes.... Hurry! Before people start asking you to post about the horrors of the LAUSD)

>> dude... Own them.

> Huh?

I think the impulse for a beej from that particular actress, outrageously tall but endearingly pixie-chinned, is an important signifier of discerning intellectual heft. Nothing speaks more hopefully for strong Franco-American cooperation in the difficult decades ahead.

> as long as you keep in
> mind that that is a
> metaphor

Nobody ever does. Y'know, Europeans have pissed away a lot of political strength (and Christ knows how much money) on technocratic government in recent decades, and it's not all just to countermand the United States. Especially when your cultural history is as the subjects to royalty, you tend to think of your government as Mom & Dad. The metaphor is too attractive for the ego to resist. It works over here, too! People sincerely credit Hillary and Al and all the rest with the authority and insight and durability of parents. It's tragic human nature.

Same with this. No adaptation holds meaning beyond the problem it seems to skirt, but human nature demands people look for bigger patterns than context.

We should resist that impulse... It's the stuff of church-going.

One last clarifying deet: If gay guys are off the hook because they can't make babies, why am I not off the hook because I don't? I'm capable of murder too, but by not committing any, I stay out of jail, right? You wouldn't ask me to do time for the sins of others.

TO: Laurin
RE: Whatever, Babe

"It's becoming clear that Chuck is arguing for Chuck, and not for anything resembling rationality. To say nothing of the fact his posts are perilously close to incomprehensible. Possibly because he's into wilful incomprehension. Fine. I'll leave him be. But nonetheless point out he's not come up with a single realistic unselfish reason to breed. Ahem." -- Laurin

Sorry if you can't follow my 'rationale'. But then again, it might not be a problem with me. Lots of people can follow my rationale in various matters. Or maybe we can compare governmental citizen advisory committees we sit on, to compare rationality and communication skills. Eh? I'm a citizens advisor to two Area Council of Governments committees as well as sitting on the local Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning and Zoning Commission. All of which are positions appointed by local governments.

If you can't 'follow' my 'rationale', I suspect it's more of a personal problem than anything else. All the people on those committees and other organizations seem to be able to follow.

RE: Who Decides What is "Unselfish"?

"...he's not come up with a single realistic unselfish reason to breed. Ahem." -- Laurin

Interesting. Now your claiming that having children is 'selfish'? Sounds like 'convoluted' logic to me.

On one hand, most other people, opposed to having children, around here seem to think that children are a pain in the fourth-point-of-contact and expensive to boot. Or did I misunderstand someone whining about whiny kids at restaurants (above).

On the other hand, maybe you're thinking of that woman who adopted children in order to get $2M in aid from the government. THERE you might have an argument. But then again, she's looking like she'll be doing the 'long course' at some penal institution; if convicted. And 'confidence is high' that she will be.

On the third hand, maybe you're 'projecting' about that inability to follow the 'rationale'.

So....

...how many kids have YOU been claiming on your IRS forms?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You must have been insufferable as a child. -- George Bernard Shaw (paraphrased)]