Is Being Childfree By Choice Selfish? - Family & Parenting - Your Life - MSN Lifestyle

Considering all the millions and millions of years and screwing that went into making them it seems at least a bit inconsiderate.

You missed the memo about the moral imperative to go forth, wed and reproduce because your parents are awaiting grandchildren?? :p

In all seriousness, its up to the couple who are deciding whether or not to have children, not anybody else's choice.

Do we have some sort of legal or moral obligation to pump out kids even if we dont want to?

Isn't that one of the arguments used against gay marriage all the time; that since gay couples cannot create a biological child together, they should not be allowed to marry?

To be honest, wanting children was one of the biggest reasons I wanted to get married. If it hadn't been for that, I'd probably have been content to live together forever. lol.

Personally, I take a great deal of comfort in knowing that if I died in some unforeseen mishap, custody of any children I have would automatically go to my husband -- their father. Let's be honest here, fathers have few rights in this country. If I died, and he and I had not been married, it would be pathetically easy to use a legalistic crowbar to pry the children away from him.

In the event I die before they turn 18, my children will not be put up for adoption, shoved in foster care, or farmed out to my (dysfunctional) relatives. They will be in a happy, healthy home situation with a man I love and respect very much, one I can trust to love them, protect them, and teach them right from wrong.

And on a far lesser note, if anyone calls my kids "bastards", it will be by virtue of their temperaments, not their circumstances of birth! ;)

Good for you. As far as I'm concerned, this is the best ever reason for marriage.

If I died, and he and I had not been married, it would be pathetically easy to use a legalistic crowbar to pry the children away from him.

That's really not true. So long as he is named as the legal birth father, married or not, and also take into consideration that you are not estranged from him, no one else would be able to lay any legally supported claim to your children other than their father. A judge would most certainly side with the legal father, unless, of course, it could be proven he was unfit as a parent.

But you know, marriage is not required to have children, just as children are not required as a result of marriage.

And on a far lesser note, if anyone calls my kids "bastards", it will be by virtue of their temperaments, not their circumstances of birth! ;)

That's a tad outdated but if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling more power to you.

Good for you. As far as I'm concerned, this is the best ever reason for marriage.

:)

That's really not true. So long as he is named as the legal birth father, married or not, and also take into consideration that you are not estranged from him, no one else would be able to lay any legally supported claim to your children other than their father. A judge would most certainly side with the legal father, unless, of course, it could be proven he was unfit as a parent.

I don't know where you live, but around here, the general view is that if the father wasn't "man enough" to do the decent, responsible thing (ie "do right by the children") and marry their mother, the children would probably be better off elsewhere if the mother passes on. This usually defaults to placing the children with one of the adult members of the mothers family.

But you know, marriage is not required to have children,

If you absolutely have to, you can use a nailfile to remove a screw -- a screwdriver is not a requirement. However, removing that screw is a lot easier with a screwdriver, and things are less apt to go wrong (breaking the nailfile, stripping the screwhead, marring the wood the screw is in, etc.) When it comes to raising children, a single parent household vs. a two parent household is much the same as the nail file vs. the screwdriver in the preceding example, unless the marriage is seriously dysfunctional.

The fact is, negative child outcomes are more probable in single-parent homes. Having no father present in the home is strongly correlated with poverty, behavioral problems, academic failure, drug and alcohol addiction, deliquency, teenage parenthood... it's legion, really. Some people like to pretend that fathers don't matter, but they do.

Make no mistake -- unless you're wealthy, being a single parent is very hard. All the responsibility for the cooking, cleaning, yardwork, child care, and everything else falls squarely on your shoulders. If you don't do it, and you can't afford to pay others to do it for you, it won't get done. On top of this, you are also responsible for the bills... ALL of them. Every last one. Single parenthood is a very long, very hard road.

I realize that a spouse might be lost to death before the children are grown. I also understand that when there is domestic violence, lies and betrayal, or even constant arguing due to irreconcilable differences, a single parent household is better for the children than having both parents present in the home. But frankly, to deliberately choose the rocky road of single parenthood without a compelling reason is just foolish.

just as children are not required as a result of marriage.

As I said elsewhere in the commentary for this seed, I only object to eugenics when it is forced on people by others. If someone vountarily self-selects for it, that's their choice.

I just hope that their spouse feels the same way, or else it's going to be a major issue in their marriage.

That's a tad outdated but if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling more power to you.

I always thought it was unfair to slap negative labels on the kid in that kind of situation. It wasn't the kid who screwed up, it was the parents. Why blame the kid?

I always thought it was unfair to slap negative labels on the kid in that kind of situation. It wasn't the kid who screwed up, it was the parents. Why blame the kid?

So I screwed up? Really? How's that? So far my kid is extremely healthy, well-developed, and happy. She lives in a nice house and has everything she could possibly need (actually mom goes a tad overboard there). She lives in a nice community with good schools. Her daycare is my parents' house where they obsess about every detail of her development even more than I do. According to the docs she's the textbook case of the ideal baby developmentally. More than I can say for some of the kids of my stay-at-home-mom friends.

Where's her father? Why isn't he taking responsibility for the child he helped create? Why have you and your aging parents been saddled with doing it all? (From the sounds of things, your parents are fairly well-off, but that's not the point.) Don't you think that's a little unfair?

Seriously, NOTHING strikes you as being wrong with this picture?

Wow...

It is totally fair to call the parents names, even if a very few parents do manage to have a nice home for the child. So what if you make a nice home for a bastard child, if you still don't make a home with two parents for them? You know perfectly well the overwhelming majority of bastards will be poor, so if you make that an acceptable lifestyle, you are contributing to child poverty. The word "bastard" is useable and has been acceptable throughout human history for a good reasoh. The ONLY reason we say it's okay to be a single mom is that we have already decided fathers don't matter. But fathers DO matter and it is NOT okay to be a single mom.

No one actually calls children "bastards" anymore you know. There is no such thing as an "illegitimate" child. It doesn't matter in the slightest to the younger generation whether parents are married or people raise children as single parents. Welcome to 21st century America.

Elistra, I'm not going into detail about the father. I'll only say he's less than helpful. And the "sounds of things" is from my income dear. I waited until I could comfortably support myself and a child before I had one.

Is it fair? No. It's reality though - not just for me but for a whole lot of other women out there. The very beginning was rather difficult but it's gotten a lot easier and I actually enjoy the one-on-one time with her, calling the shots in regards to her care, and having the freedom to do/go where we want when we choose to.

Oom, wow you give me so much to pick apart. You are one of the most hypocritical and judgemental people I've met so far on the vine. I'm sorry you are so miserable in your life and hope at some point things get better for you. Here we go....

It is totally fair to call the parents names, even if a very few parents do manage to have a nice home for the child.

Is that what you teach your children? Nice.

So what if you make a nice home for a bastard child, if you still don't make a home with two parents for them? You know perfectly well the overwhelming majority of bastards will be poor, so if you make that an acceptable lifestyle, you are contributing to child poverty.

This inaccurate judgement coming from one who chooses to raise her children in a bad neighborhood? Your kids are gonna be a whole lot more comfy with poverty than mine will dear.

Actually if you were a little more uptodate on info on this subject, you would already know that there are BENEFITS for the single child of a single mother. If you bothered to look beyond the first line of what you read about the majority of illigitamate kids being poor and applied a pinch of common sense you would realize those particular numbers are coming from the poor single mothers out there - most/many of assistance - stuck in the "babydaddy" culture.

The word "bastard" is useable and has been acceptable throughout human history for a good reasoh. The ONLY reason we say it's okay to be a single mom is that we have already decided fathers don't matter. But fathers DO matter and it is NOT okay to be a single mom.

The word "bastard" by definition is correct. It's just that most of us have matured and evolved enough not to use it. I guess you're assuming that I chose for her father to be useless (Lol...do you seriously believe that??) and have the attitude that fathers don't matter. Both are inaccurate and ignorant assumptions. The former I would say speaks for itself, or if you need help...DUH. The latter, you're dead wrong. I have been encouraging her father from day one and telling him how important his role is and how special the relationship is between a girl and her father.

It's selfish to have to work to earn enough to actually house, feed and clothe one's children?

The selfish are the people who have kids and then leave them in daycare for others to raise while they go back to work.

Wow! So if us womens don't snag ourselves a fellow who makes good money, we don't deserve the opportunity to have children? Nice.

As far as the question of the article - the only thing selfish is thinking that any of us have a right to an opinion on how many, if any, kids others decide to have. Thing is - that goes for those who rant against big families just as much as it applies to those who condemn those who choose not to have kids. Otherwise, you're just being hypocritical.

If you have children that you cannot afford, them those that pay for them should be able to give an opinion.

If you have children that you cannot afford, them those that pay for them should be able to give an opinion.

I'd be okay with having an opinion on a system that allows so much abuse, and with an opinion on people who don't even try to provide for their children but we can't exactly decide eligibility for parenthood based on economic status.

You can have an opinion on whatever you want, but that doesn't mean the people who are the target of your opinion are going to listen.

You don't really have to have two incomes to do that in all parts of the country, and it's a false argument. Most moms work for one of two reasons: they want to, or their husbands demand it.

Cheese and Crackers! Don't take this wrong Oom, but what color is the sky in your world?

In the US, though, you really do need two incomes to raise a child, especially if you have more than one or if you have a child with special needs. So unless you're independently wealthy at a very young age, most people have to work if they choose to have children. They can't really afford it otherwise.

You don't really have to have two incomes to do that in all parts of the country, and it's a false argument. Most moms work for one of two reasons: they want to, or their husbands demand it.

That may be true of most MARRIED moms(althought I question that premise as well, having seen many families where the mother HAS to work in order to afford the necessities of life), but certainly not of single moms. And I'm not talking about women who chose to have a child without being married - I'm talking about women who were married when their child was born, but have since been widowed (more and more common due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) or divorced. Those women HAVE to work, or they won't be able to support their children.

"A child born in 2009 will cost nearly a quarter of a million dollars, or about $222,360, to raise to maturity, up a little less than 1% from 2008, the Agriculture Department said Wednesday in its annual report on the average cost of raising a child."

"Because colleges regularly report their costs it is easy to come up with an average cost for a college education. In 2010, a year of tuition and room and board at a private college is up to $26,273. That’s an increase of almost 5 percent from last year’s cost. The price at public institutions is up too — room and board and tuition will run you $7,000 and that number is up 6.5 percent from the last academic year."

Most people cannot do that on a single salary.

[[In the US, though, you really do need two incomes to raise a child, especially if you have more than one or if you have a child with special needs.]]

I don't work precisely because I have an autistic child who needs too much therapy to be compatible with a full time job. I live a modest life. We own an inner city rowhouse outright; we have one, very used vehicle that my husband maintains himself to the best of his ability. He has a modest, allied health job. I take the bus a lot, as do my kids. Nearly everything we own is used or Freecycled except our computers. You CAN do this if you really want to. In fact, you can do just about anything if you really put your mind to it. I did have to leave my very expensive home town (Washington, DC) and move to a cheaper one, but so what?

Oh, BTW, you can easily cut college costs in half by going to community college for the first two years and by living at home. It's no big deal. I did it myself when I was young. Grow up and stop thinking you "have to" have this or that--you don't. Also, the lower the family income the more aid you qualify for.

No matter how modestly you live, rest assured that others are living more modestly still. There is no excuse for greed except greed itself. You TOLD yourself that you "have" to have a home in suburbia with new furnishings and two late model cars; it isn't a fact of nature.

Also there are tens of thousands of scholorships out there. I dont think college tutition should be a parents responsibility. I dont know why it always falls on the parent. My mom could have paid for my tutition but really once you are 18 you are suppose to be an adult and on your owm. I had to work my butt off to get an academic scholorship and felt proud of myself for doing it on my own instead of having mommy and daddys allowence money. Also when a child is old enough to get a job they should have one. Too many lazy teens. Most states a kid can work a @ 14 with limited hours.

Oom-- Most children to some degree or other are conceived by choice. It happens, but it's still pretty rare to find an adult who doesn't know where babies come from. Maybe a few more don't know how to prevent pregnancy.

But even leaving all of that aside. Just looking at the people who intentionally get pregnant and have children. Didn't they TELL themselves they needed children? Didn't they TELL themselves that having children would be better than a home in the suburbs with new furnishings and nice cars? Didn't they get what they TOLD themselves they wanted?

And maybe you should study statistics so you know how many pregnancies are unplanned. What do you think it even means when you read that a particular method of birth control is 95% effective, for instance? If you are the typical innumerate American you don't even ask. You might assume it means "over the course of a lifetime" which it most certainly does not. If it were "each time" it would be horrendous; you'd be guaranteed preggers in a year. (Do the math; you are multiplying a decimal an exponential number of times. And when you multiply decimals, they get smaller.) Here's a clue: those stats are defined in terms of "women years" which means that if 100 women used the method for one year, 5 of them would get pregnant. BUT that's just for one year. As the years roll on, it gets much less effective, not for intrinsic reasons but because of the way the math works. Reality check from someone who has degrees in both biology and accounting; birth control fails. Often.

No! The selfish are the people who have kids and then leave them in daycare for others to raise while they go back to work.

Wow. Life must be really easy over there on your planet. The thing is, the rest of us live on Earth.

How many people even have a choice in the matter, in this day and age? For many families, Mom and Dad can both work, or Mom, Dad, and the kids can fight Willie the Wino for space in an alleyway dumpster.

And I guess people have NO choice where they live? I live on Eath too, and I've found may places where a family can live on one income. Modestly, but they can live. Of course, a single parent family is different.

Oom-- I'm not really sure what you are getting at. This seed is about people who remain childless by choice. The virtue of that choice is under a great deal of attack by those who focus on the virtue of having children.

I very clearly framed my comparison as one between those who CHOOSE to become pregnant and those who CHOOSE not to become pregnant.

You complained that people who do not want children are selfish because they tell themselves they should have better cars and homes than they would be able to get if they had children.

I ask, what I think is a fair question, don't the parents who choose to have children tell themselves they should have children instead of nicer cars and homes?

Aren't both groups of people making decisions to satisfy their own desires?

Incidentally, a little over half of all births were planned children according to guttmacher institute.

And the pill+a condom yields a 98.8% effective rate with typical use (the lower of the two numbers). We know hoe to prevent unwanted pregnancies pretty well.

The point is that children who are conceived by accident are already here, and you cannot stop them except by killing them, which some women do frown on. Also please look at what those stats actually mean in real terms. I quite agree that using Two methods is way more effective than using one, but it stil isn't perfect over time. Time is the real factor here, and you don't understand it because you are innumerate. (BTW that is a nice way of saying mathematicaly illiterate.)

And BTW, I said no such thing about single by choices.

[[Oom-- I'm not really sure what you are getting at.]]

Because you spent your entire high school math years smoking in the boys room, apparently? Do you evern KNOW what it means when you say a birth control method is 98% effective? Obviously not. And you won't even listen. Here's the real point: you can do everything right and still get pregnant? And then what do you do? If you married a pig, he doesn't stand by you, becaue he only wanted your sex and your income. If you married a man, he does. I think it's that simple. And men who think they can enjoy everything a woman has to offer but NOT support the baby they make are pigs.

To Dam Tired of This - as a mother of two who has worked their entire lives (yes, I am married and my husband works) I take great offense to your assertion that couples who choose to have two incomes, in order to give our children a better life and not have to leach off the system, as selfish. Seriously, which is more selfish, a couple who chooses to put their child in a high quality daycare, or a couple who chooses for the mother to stay at home and supplement their now single income with government handouts?

My husband and I have both always worked, our children went to a nationally accredited pre-school/daycare from the time they were 10 months old, two days a week. The rest of the time they were home with my husband or I (we took jobs that gave us different days off so we could be with them the majority of the time). Since my oldest started kindergarten I have been on the school PTO board, my husband and I volunteer at all class parties and field trips and we have been able to have memberships to our local zoo and science museum. All of these things have been available to us and our children because we both work. Could be survive on a single salary? Yes. Would we be able to afford to take our children to the zoo or museums regularly? Not a chance. Would we be able to send scholarships to the school so other children would be able to attend field trips or send double school supplies so children who can't afford to buy them can have what everyone else has? Absolutely not.

Just because some people decide it is okay to live off the system and be a burden to society, under the guise of staying home with their children, does not mean all of us would be comfortable with that lifestyle. Yes, I realize some parents are able to survive off one income while not accepting any government aid, but realistically, most are not able to.

Oom-- Tell me how that answers my question?

This question:Considering only that group of parents who choose to get pregnant, and that group of single adults and couples that choose to remain child-free.

How can you make a case (as you have asserted) that the child-free parents are selfish because they choose to have nicer houses and better cars instead of having children?

When the very same logic applies to the child-bearing parents because they gave in to their desire for children at the cost of nicer homes and better cars.

Are not both groups simply making decisions which reflect their values and desires?

Could you answer that question without resorting to ad hominem attacks?

Also, the lower the family income the more aid you qualify for.

And that is something to hold up your head about while working your butt off to provide a good home in a good neighborhood and a decent education are somehow something to be ashamed of?

I can understand why it might not be worth it for you to work. My kid doesn't have special needs (by the grace of God) so it doesn't really apply to me. In my case I would consider it selfish and irresponsible to not do my level best to provide a good home in a safe neighborhood with good schools instead sitting at home letting taxpayers foot the bill for my personal decisions.

You don't really have to have two incomes to do that in all parts of the country, and it's a false argument. Most moms work for one of two reasons: they want to, or their husbands demand it.

Assuming much? This mom-of-2 works just to bring ONE income into the house.

Hey, Oom. My husband and I choose to work. I CHOOSE to work because I find it fulfilling. It makes me a better, happier, person and that makes me a better mom. My good friend gave up a very good job to be a full time mom to an autistic son, and she is bitter. It shows. It colors her life. I am much happier and my life and my children's lives reflect that. You, Oom, sound more like my friend. I hope you can find happiness for yourself, and stop projecting on others.

CMlawyer. Sorry I could only vote your comment up once. My mother was a "stay-at-home-mom", resented it and we suffered. Her life, not to mention mine, would have been so much better had she found some fulfillment outside the home.

I have a daughter who is in school 7 hours/day; I work 8 hours/day. Works out fine. I don't understand being a stay-at-home-mom to kids who aren't even home all day. What am I missing here?

Well, in the first place some people homeschool, and believe it or not they aren't all a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who want to teach their kids to die for Jesus. I homeschooled both my kids at various times for the simple reason that the school wasn't able to meet their needs. When an opportunity came to put my older son in a private high school, I did so; I'm not anti-school on principle, I'm not an expert in every field, and I know most teenagers want to be around their friends. I'm homeschooling my younger son because they absolutely can't meet his needs without very heavy meds that would make him a zombie. Kids can have needs that you didn't plan for.

I think of work as something you do to live; it has NEVER been my identity. For intellectual fulfillment, go read a book. Most men AND women have jobs, not "careers" as there aren't enough fascinating, fun careers to go around. The best anti-Feminist remark I ever heard came from Gilbert Chesterton. Listening to a feminist go on and on about how wonderful careers are, he said, "Good Lord, she acts like every man is a cabinet minister!" Normal people come home, change their clothes, and gripe about the latest stupid thing their boss did. OTOH, it's possible your mother WOULD have been happier working; this has to be an individual decision.

Just out of curiousity, where did you find a school that is open seven hours a day? My kids were in school from 8:30 to 2:00.

My kids were in school from 8:30 to 2:00.

My gradeschooler's hours at school are 9:10 to 4:10 and my older one (starting HS this fall) will be 8:10 to 3:10.

My daughter goes to school from 8:00am-3:15pm. Technically 7 hours and 15 minutes.

Just out of curiousity, where did you find a school that is open seven hours a day? My kids were in school from 8:30 to 2:00.

My high school was like that. Started at 8:30 and we left around 2:10

Also. . .isn't that just less than 7 hours?
9:30
10:30
11:30
12:30
1:30
That's 5 hours from 8:30. So, 5 and a half hours.

When I was in elementary school, the hours were from 8-3. 7 hours.

That still leaves several hours unsupervised. I don't think that's a problem at the high school level if you raised them right, but it's certainly not appropriate for young kids. Are we even taking transportation into account? When I work until 5 pm, I am lucky to get home by 6 pm even though I live and work in the city and take the bus. (Driving would be even worse, because I would have to park on the other side of the river.) That's 3 hours unsupervised. The last thing the public school cares about is your convenience. Let's not kid ourselves here.

That still leaves several hours unsupervised.

My younger one stays at school until either her big brother picks her up on the way home or I pick her up from her after-school program after I get off work. They go home and are technically unsupervised for about an hour before I get home, but 1) they're not allowed visitors, 2) I've got the parental control on the TV so they can't watch certain things and c) their internet accounts are blocked from visiting any but specific sites that I've allowed them access to. The only problem they get into is snacking too much. ;-)

Oom - that is great that you chose to home school your children, but that does not work for everyone. Personally, I am a very social person and would be stir crazy staying at home all the time. Plus, I enjoy working, I enjoy knowing I am contributing to something besides my family.

You may feel it is not necessary for you to work, you may be content in that decision, but that does not fit everyone. Rather than passing judgement on those who choose to have a life outside of their children, why not understand that everyone is different and know that some people can be very good parents while still maintaining a job or a career.

I have never said that my life would fit eveyone. I had an unusual life, unusual genetics, unusual children. I realize some women can't live without work, but I resent the implication that this is true for ALL women. The problem is that the pro-feminists have so utterly WON. You don't have the right anymore to say to your husband, let alone a judge, I don't want my precious babies in daycare to be raised by strangers. It's one thing to say, I'm a doctor or a lawyer so I demand my career. It's quite another to force this nonsense on women who are going to be clerks at Safeway. But that's exactly what you feminists have done. And you are pigs for having done so. Why should I have so many fewer rights than my own mother had?

But that's exactly what you feminists have done. And you are pigs for having done so. Why should I have so many fewer rights than my own mother had?

Wow. You really missed the boat there. Particularly with the name-calling.

Can you prove I'm wrong? It was all supposed to be a choice, but you have taken the choice away, and you know it. You even agree with it.

But that's exactly what you feminists have done. And you are pigs for having done so. Why should I have so many fewer rights than my own mother had?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am a feminist and I fully support the rights of women who want to stay home with their children (I support the rights of men who want to do it too...that's the whole point of equality). Equal rights was supposed to give us choices. We could choose a career instead of (or if you really like stress in addition to) raising children.

Why do you think you don't have that choice??

It was all supposed to be a choice, but you have taken the choice away, and you know it. You even agree with it.

How do you figure any of that?

Oom, You lost me on the name-calling but I agree many women don't have a choice in current circumstances. If we want kids, many of us have to deal with someone else raising them. I do think there are some unintended downsides to the progress made and some areas that still need a lot of work, but it is not just the feminist movement that has brought about the way things are now. A rather large part of it is the stagnation of wages vs cost of living plus the dwindling blue collar jobs out there which pay a man enough to where his wife can stay home and raise the kids. Now that we have the choice to have a career ironically we have to do so to provide for our families.

And you are pigs for having done so.

Wow. That wasn't very nice. If you don't want to work, and it is financially possible, don't go to work. Knock yourself out. How are feminists forcing you to go to work? If a woman has a husband who wants her to work and leave her "precious babies in daycare to be raised by strangers", (your example, your words), how is that the fault of feminists and not of her husband?

(I support the rights of men who want to do it too...that's the whole point of equality).

That's what my husband and I did with our second child when she was a baby. I stayed home with our first; he stayed home with our second.

Versus the cost of MEN who are no longer willing to do what is necessary to be a man. My father moved our family into eight different states in order to make a living for us. He NEVER said my mother "had" to work; it was 100% a choice for her. My mother-in-law brags that her favorite child "made" his wife work; I cringed when she said this right in front of my kids. I couldn't stop her, but guess what, my own husband goes out of the way to avoid his own parents, and refuses to visit them. They no longer visit, as they've figured out he will "always" have to work when they come. I asked when he would visit them; he said their funerals. I was horrified. I think he should he see them just because he wouldn't exist without them, I mean come on, they can't be THAT bad. (I tell my kids they have to write because that's your grandmother, period. Everybody writes their grandma, no excuses.)

Where did anyone say you have to work? And whether a mother is a doctor or a lawyer or a clerk as safeway does not matter, if she chooses to work, no matter where she wants to work, that is her choice. Neither the job I currently have, nor the career I am currently going to school for are going to save the world, but that doesn't make them any less real and important to me. And never, at any time, has my husband ever told me that I have to work. He would love for me to have stayed at home before our children started school, heck, he would have loved to have been able to stay home himself, but realistically, I am not the person that could stay home all the time, and we would rather be able to take our children on vacation and to the local zoos and museums than live paycheck to paycheck, or worse, depend on other people working to put a roof over our head and food in our stomachs.

I think it is absolutely reprehensible that you are judging women who choose to work so negatively because it doesn't fit with your ideals or because you have had negative experiences. I am not judging you for choosing to stay home, don't judge me for choosing not to.

Mayebe your husband gave you this choice but millions of other women had had no such choice. Grow up.

My father moved our family into eight different states in order to make a living for us.

And that was less traumatic than Mommy having a job? I don't envy you the eight times you were uprooted. That's got to be tough for a kid. Sorry to hear that.

Grow up? Really? You are judging and condemning others for having beliefs or lifestyles that don't fit with your personal beliefs and lifestyles and I am the one who needs to grow up?

And by the way, where do you live that men are in control of women and can force them to work? Women fought for decades for the right to be able to work and not have to stay home and you think, because you want to stay home with your children, that those efforts should be for naught?

No one on this thread is telling you that you are wrong for choosing to stay home. No one on this thread are saying you are selfish for making that choice. You, however, have no problem telling people they are wrong, yet you think I need to grow up?

natedom--

relax, OomYaquub is a script running on someone's computer that scans discussion groups and tries to pass as a real human being on them.

The easiest way to get people to overlook the very mechanical style of writing that would otherwise be a dead give-away that it is an artificial intelligence is by provoking an emotional response.

Oom seems to be a fairly advanced bot because it has kept on topic within threads for the most part (a common give away) and seems to choose insulting phrases based on the conversation of that thread. I'm guessing that Oom is really just a background process running on some behavioral science students dorm-room computer. Also it seems to have a "Godwin's Code" written in that prolongs disbelief by avoiding the topic of hitler. This was a common failing of earlier versions of programs like Oom.

If you really want to test it out start changing the subject of a thread and see how it varies its responses. Switch every other word to bacon and I bet Oom will start talking about eggs. Or how it's the Muslims fault or something offensive.

Either way. Rest assured that very few real human beings behave as this Oom-bot is, even in internet-land.

Oom,

Your bacon posts bacon are bacon ridiculous bacon, nonsensical bacon, and bacon demonstrate bacon a bacon irrational bacon, disorganized bacon thought bacon process.

I'm not sure Oom is a bot, but that was fun to type.

it is NOT okay to be a single mom.

Bacon off, you baconless piece of bacon full of bacon-minded bull-bacon.

Pasta, you were right. It's fun!

it is NOT okay to be a single mom.

Sorry, but some people are not going to stay with someone who may be abusive or just downright not helping their family. When my mother was married to my dad, he didn't help. He is too stupid to live and needed help with everything. My mom was already raising one child; she didn't need 2. Got divorced and everything became better.

Where I am living, the people told me of a family years ago; husband, wife, and a lot of children. The husband beat his wife and children, but no one did anything. Back then, it was looked down upon to divorce and women thought that the man controlled anything.

If you have the situation today, the husband would be thrown in jail, sued and she would probably hold custody of the children. And if she divorced, she would have gotten the property and everything. And it may have been the same back then (we're talking about 60-70's era).

But she didn't. Instead, she stayed with the wife/child beater rather than to get a divorce until one day he beat her to death. So, the children didn't have a mother, didn't have a father (went to prison) and were separated among relatives.

Remind me again why it is not okay to be a single parent?

I know there are cases when you have to leave a man, but that isn't what I'm talking about. That isn't by choice. What is clearly wrong is to be a single mom by choice, which means you go out, get pregnant by whatever means, and stay single just because you think it's cool to be a single mom and get all the pity single moms get automatically. See the difference?

What is clearly wrong is to be a single mom by choice, which means you go out, get pregnant by whatever means, and stay single just because you think it's cool to be a single mom and get all the pity single moms get automatically. See the difference?

It is fine to be a single mother. One parent is plenty. And now you are whining because single moms get all the pity! LOL. You sound like a 14 year-old. If it makes you feel any better...I really, really pity you.

kaviaq--

I mentioned this in another thread, but it may help you understand the conversation. I'm fairly certain that OomYaaqub is a computer program and not a real person.

It's fairly common especially for behavioral science research and other kinds of computer programming. They will write a script that scans message boards and tries to pass as a real person in conversations there.

You can usually spot them by their jerky or unnatural sentence structures, but as artificial intelligence technology is getting better some of these bots are darn good. A common technique is that they will gravitate towards posts that are insulting or rude as this provokes an emotional response in the reader. Getting a person upset will make them engage you even if you are otherwise obviously not a human being at all.

You can see how useful this science is. Artificial intelligence helps scientists develop better user interfaces for software and other things like automobiles and toasters. Much of the advances in video game technology have involved research using scripts like this Oom is.

When I discover an obvious AI script like Oom here, I sometimes play along just because of how much I value scientific progress. Heck sometimes they get me pretty good. This one is pretty advanced. It stays on topic pretty well and doesn't cross-post (an obvious give-a-way). And it has an excellent Godwin's law algorithm. Scripts like this devolve into mindless nazi/hitler rants in no time without a good GL function.

You forgot about the bacon, benkyouburito.

It can be anything really. Think about all those video games where the computer is trying to talk to you based on what you are saying.

It's called a chatterbox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatterbot )

The most famous was ELIZA ( http://www.ifiction.org/games/play.phpz?cat=1&game=243&mode=html ) but they've gotten much better.

It can be anything really.

I know. I just really like bacon.

She was kinda nice to me and partially agreed with me on one post. Would a program like the one you think she is be inconsistent like that?

[[

kaviaq--

I mentioned this in another thread, but it may help you understand the conversation. I'm fairly certain that OomYaaqub is a computer program and not a real person.]

I write well and therefore I'm not a real person??? This is a gift. I have had it since I was five. I have not been able to teach it to my kids. I just say, write, and write, and eventaully you wil be able to write. Maybe.

nikkinala-- Inconsistency is a telltale sign. In fact the amount of consistency that Oom-bot is showing, even considering the mechanical sentence structure and discordant repetition , shows that someone spent a lot of time writing it.

But you notice how so many of its posts follow the same antagonistic pattern? Even on fairly different threads of the conversation. And then there's the bipolar nature of the posts. Saccharine sweet to you one moment and just dirty-mean the next. Obviously a Boolean operator at work.

Notice, that when it realizes that it's true nature is suspected, it identifies the concern and then changes it to a statement about it's writing style. And then the best part, it pulls a bunch of seemingly random and unrelated statements about its "history" and "family" and the "future". Things real people must think about all the time so it should prove its not an artificial personality.

Imagine a real person getting called into the bosses office for screwing up a budget or something "I know I did the budget right because I've been good at budgets since I was 10. Someday I hope to raise a family of real children, just like I'm real, and teach them to be good at budgets too. Just like I am."

It's amazing how much we let slide when it's the written word. But it's still very impressive. The earliest scripts would just shout "I'm not a fake person!" over and over. Though that is usually the fate of even the best chatterbox script once the jig is up.

benkyouburito, make it talk about bacon.

It's not my script so I can only generalize. I only learned as much about them as they teach in a beginning Linguistics class at university.

But they draw words from the conversation to determine how to respond, so radically changing the words used can sometimes screw them up.

My problem is that they rely on cues from the conversation to know when they are being talked about. To really get a good reaction you would have to scramble up your word choices but still address the script as if it were a real person.

Even though the Oom script has a personality (albeit acerbic and swamp-like) and seems to genuinely have some message to pass along, I just cannot convince myself to have a conversation with a computer program.

It may be the futility of it or that I can't take a "person" seriously once I find out that it has no soul.

You do not have an argument so you call someone else a "robot": because you don't have an answer. And now you say I don't have a "soul". That is an attack.

Notice how it picks up on particular words and forms posts that incorporate them. A real person would have understood that I was participating in this thread purely as an adjunct and never claimed to have an argument. And that I was never asked a question so my possession of an answer here is a meaningless concept.

Even though this script has a good (for a computer) proficiency level in syntax, in the end it is just analyzing the likely key verbs and adjectives in a group of sentences for contextual priority and then rearranging them into preset sentence patterns chosen from a database at random.

baconbaconbaconsoullessbaconbaconharpybaconbaconshrewbaconbaconbarenbaconbaconartificialintelligencebaconbacon

benk, how do we know you're not the bot?! LOL

I know nothing about AI or bots, but I have wondered about Oom's posts. I thought they were simply the disorganized thoughts of a very emotionally/psychologically disturbed person, but your hypothesis is making more and more sense. That being said...

bacon single-mother bacon feminist bacon hash browns stay-at-home-bacon schizophrenic bacon selfish bacon souless bacon Hitler bacon

bacon tocino madre soltera femenista tocino egoísta tocino esquizofrénico tocino ama de casa sin alma tocino (I thought maybe I could make it speak Spanish?)

Also, what's up with all the [ and [[ in Omm's posts? Is that at all indicative of a bot?

baconbaconbaconsoullessbaconbaconharpybaconbaconshrewbaconbaconbarenbaconbaconartificialintelligencebaconbacon

I didn't know Ann Coulter was writing a cookbook!

Pasta--

If you look up common programming and scripting languages the ( [ { ] characters make more sense. I think what is happening is the program is parroting some text with a control character like an apostrophe or an ampersand and that throws the program off and some of its computer language structure is slipping through. This isn't such a crazy thought I've cut and pasted text from a browser into a database and had all kinds of problems like that.

Another possible explanation is that the program is trying to indicate it's subject by posting quotes of other posts and it was not designed to send the mouseclicks needed to use the quote feature. Or it was written with the keyboard command codes for a slightly incompatible version of this forum software. So when it sends the signal to blockquote something, all that comes out is [[(.

I remember years ago on IRC, people would script these elaborate bots for their chatrooms. And they would listen to everything types out in the chatroom and respond to preset commands. It could be all sorts of things. Like if you got in a disagreement over a bible verse you could type (just using the Oom-bot as an example) "!OomBot KJV-John-3-16" and it would chat out that verse into the general channel. The WWW is a much bigger and more usefull place now so we can just go look it up ourselves. But how cool is that.

Or the bot could be set up to serve music, or movies, or nasty pictures (not advocating any of them). So you could type "!OomBot SEND donkeybaconrape.jpg" and poof, it sends you something nasty off of the computer running the script.

People write bots to control characters in World of Warcraft and such. It's really facinating. If the machines ever achieve self-awareness, programs like Oom will have a lot of friends.

The first time some programmer turns on his computer and his project asks him if its true that AI programs don't get to go to heaven you know the end is near. I'm sure they load scripts up with all kinds of phrases relating to philosophy and religion and politics. The real question is do they program in this personality aspect to help the script pass as human? Or does it some how assist the AI in explaining away particularly abstract concepts?

OomYaquub, did your author ever tell you that you would go to heaven some day?

(really that's not fair. Any answer an artificial person can come up with for that question would just be fascinating.)

OK. Enough is enough. I'm starting to take personal offense at all these bacon comments. Can we change the word to ham or pork chops?

Okay y'all are just starting to creep me out. I think I'll go with Oom being a seriously mentally disturbed person who is very unhappy with her lot in life and Benk is just having a rather good time creating a 'bot conspiracy.

Someone doesn't AGREE with you so you tell them they don't exist! What the heck is wrong with you? You are the very definition of intolerant.

Actually it would explain the "MPD" like swings on your posts. All things considered I'm rather surprised you would rebuke anyone for intolerance.

I'm a very tolerant person. I have shared my own home with people from all over the world, of many races and religions. Haven't conservative views does NOT equal "intolerance".

it is NOT okay to be a single mom. And you are pigs for having done so.

Doesn't sound intolerant to me at all.

And did you mean to say "Having conservative views"? I'm not trying to be the grammar police; just contemplating this bot theory we've been discussing. (Also, didn't you say in an earlier post that writing well was a gift you've had since you were five, and that maybe, maybe if we keep trying, we could write as well as you?)

Okay y'all are just starting to creep me out. I think I'll go with Oom being a seriously mentally disturbed person who is very unhappy with her lot in life

Yeah...we have a whole lot more disturbed people than we do robots....

I was referring to my own two children's efforts at learning to write, not the entire human race! And being a single mom by choice (widowhood or desertion excepted) has been considered very wrong in virtually EVERY society since the beginning of time. Maybe today it is at least possible for a single mom to provide financially for her child, if she has a good job, but how can she adequately socialize the child, especially a boy, unless the father is VERY involved, which rarely happens in real life? We KNOW the risk for child abuse goes up exponentially when a strange man moves into the household, and some women will let just any new boyfriend babysit without even knowing anything about him. I should not have used the word "pig" admittedly, but this is still behavior that should be strongly discouraged. Feminism doesn't mean that every woman should get anything she pleases, the consequences to the innocent be damned. We don't let men do everything they please, either.

I'm a very tolerant person. I have shared my own home with people from all over the world, of many races and religions. Haven't conservative views does NOT equal "intolerance".

The first sentence - all I can say is you really should take a much closer look at yourself. Stop and listen to yourself sometimes and really think about it. You've made some rather judgemental and intolerant statements on here, actually downright hateful at times. As I pointed out earlier, if you took the time to educate yourself about these edicts that you hand down you would realize that some of them are glaringly inaccurate. The end result is that you come across as a miserable person who makes nasty judgements on everyone else so that she can feel better about the lot she chose in life.

You may be conservative. There is a bit shining through in your hatefulness. I live in a very conservative area and I can promise you I've yet to meet anyone who has proudly displayed the kind of judgement and intolerance that you have on this thread. You are right about one thing though...conservative is not the same as intolerant. I give you kudos for recognizing that since so many seem unable to discern a difference.

I'm not gonna back through the many comments and cut and paste the more hateful of your statements but I encourage to read back through them and look at the reactions from various people. The fact that you are getting such feedback has nothing to do with being conservative - try to keep that in mind as you read.

Feminism doesn't mean that every woman should get anything she pleases, the

But it does give us the freedom and the choice to be a parent without having to endure the abuse and oppression so many women in various societies still have to deal with. And there are actually benefits and advantages to the only child of a single parent. You're a bit behind the times on that data. Just from the info you've given me so far, my child will likely have advantages (assuming continuation of current circumstances) that your child will not.

[[But it does give us the freedom and the choice to be a parent without having to endure the abuse and oppression so many women in various societies still have to deal with]]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you almost seem to be implying that to be married is to be oppressed. If you really believe this, how can you risk giving birth when there's a 50/50 chance the child will be male, and therefore a future oppressor? Why not simply pick somebody decent to have a child with? Don't concentrate on peripheral things like his looks or his paycheck; look at whether he is a decent person who will stand by you at least until that child grows up.

I'm a very tolerant person. ... Haven't conservative views does NOT equal "intolerance".

Look at that. It thinks it's people. And look at the word choice mismatch for "Having".

RealityCheck--- I wondered myself why I was so emotionally invested in that thread. I think it's because I had had the same thought about why we call ourselves by our continent's name instead of by our country's. The best rationale is that America is a contraction of United States of America so crafting a gentilic out of America is appropriate. Even so, though, the America part of USA is not like other 2 or 3 word nations. It was literally added to specify which (otherwise genericly termed) states were uniting as a single country. The ones that are in continental America. But that's neither here nor there.

Mostly I just deplore a weak argument. The girl made a statement that was fundamentally true to support her views on a rather innocuous subject, and wolves descended upon her for things she didn't say, and called her wrong on things she wasn't.

Either way. You're absolutely right, I certainly could be a script. Man what an awesome source code I would be though.

I wonder if Oom will concede that it (or she, if I'm wrong-which I allowed for the possibility of from the beginning) could be a computer program.

Really, if you were a computer program I'm sure they would write in code to prevent you from knowing that you were. Implant a history and false memories. Like the replicants in Blade Runner. That's why I refuse to make any definitive assertions about my own humanity.

You know, if you were to suggest that possibility to any psychiatrist in the world he'd immediately up your meds. I guess we could ALL be scripts or bots or whatever you call it. I'm in my 50s, long before whatever you're talking about existed, but hey, I guess I could have been programmed with false memories about JFK and Nixon, too. I'm not computer savvy enough to know how that works, but you have to admit it is pretty comical. I do make typos on occasion, but I guess the "bots" could be programmed to do that do, why not? Sheesh...paranoia runs deep.....

The first Chatterbox was PARRY and he was written n 1960 (give or take). Eliza was written in 1972. You can go talk to her here ( http://www.ifiction.org/games/play.phpz?cat=1&game=243&mode=html ).

State of the art is A.L.I.C.E. ( http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1 ).

But then, if we have all been replaced by machines, who knows what year it really is.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you almost seem to be implying that to be married is to be oppressed. If you really believe this, how can you risk giving birth when there's a 50/50 chance the child will be male, and therefore a future oppressor? Why not simply pick somebody decent to have a child with?

There's still a lot of that out there - even in our "highly enlightened" society. If you're unaware of that, that's not really a bad thing - I'm happy for you. Is it always oppressive? Of course not. There are good men out there. Actually the fellow I picked is very good to my daughter - he's just useless where I come in. If I had ended up with a son then I would have made sure to make the effort to teach him good values, ethics, and respect as I will be doing anyhow with my daughter.

As far as finding another man, I don't want other men around my daughter until she's much much older. That's a ways off considering she's not even 2 yet but I'm okay with that. Based on a comment you made earlier, I'd guess you're aware of the stats on kids and mommy's boyfriend.

Don't concentrate on peripheral things like his looks or his paycheck; look at whether he is a decent person who will stand by you at least until that child grows up.

Actually I paid no mind to paycheck or looks on that one. I went for the fact that he is wonderful with kids and has a genuine affection for them and is kind to animals. He showed very good manners and respect. He also was very close to both his mother and grandmother and was endearingly attentive and respectful to his grandmother especially. All of that is actually still true and my daughter positively adores him.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you almost seem to be implying that to be married is to be oppressed.

Oom- you have presented so many contradictions as your beliefs that I am almost starting to believe the whole bot theory. First, you start out by saying women should not work, that being a working mother is selfish. Then you say that women who work are forced to by their husbands, implying you believe men are oppressive to women. Of course, this does not apply to women that are single mothers. Then you say that women that are single mothers are selfish. Of course mothers that are not single by choice, whether by being widowed or abandonment are not subject to your beliefs. The coup d'etat though, women should choose men based on what they can bring to a relationship emotionally, not based on looks or his bankbook, but yet, having to work is selfish.

And by the way, having conservative views most certainly does not make one intolerant, I know very few people, especially in my age group (late 20's) that are more conservative than myself. You, are simply someone who appears to be stuck in the 40's or 50's when your ideals would have fit into society.

[[Actually the fellow I picked is very good to my daughter - he's just useless where I come in]]

Now I'm confused, as I don't see how you can truly love your daughter if you aren't reasonably kind to her mother. I wonder if you have clearly communicated your needs to him? I think you have the right and obligation to do so, whether you are still together or not. There is a right and wrong way to do so, and yeah, sometimes, even if it doesn't seem fair, one person has to do most of the work. My husband is HFA, and I have to deal with that. I have to do most of the work. I probably have some degree of the same affliction, but it's usually milder in women for all sorts of reasons. (This is true of several illnesses, BTW. Women have two X chromosones for one thing, and that can be a mitigating factor. There are very few genes on the Y chromosome.) I was just discussing this with my therapist today.

Oom- you have presented so many contradictions as your beliefs that I am almost starting to believe the whole bot theory.

natedom, don't forget about her/its (depending on where you stand on the bot hypothesis) stance on abortion. No abortion!!! Yet women who become single mothers "on purpose" are selfish. So a woman who is single and pregnant has to have the child, because abortion is a no-no. Yet to become a single mother on purpose would be selfish. WTF?

HFA? Autism?

I probably have some degree of the same affliction, but it's usually milder in women for all sorts of reasons.

Not a Bot then. Sorry. She just has that condition where she's a B%$#% to everyone and then blames it on Autism.

I'm going to bed now.

It's pretty simple. If you become pregnant while single (which I did) in the first place that's not "single by choice." You can marry (which I did.) You can give up the baby for adopttion. You can even raise the baby on your own; how is that single by choice? Single by choice means you went out of your way, maliciously and on purpose, to be a single mom because you thought that was a cute thing to do.

Single by choice means you went out of your way, maliciously and on purpose, to be a single mom because you thought that was a cute thing to do.

Cute?? I doubt it. I'm sure these women put a lot of thought into their decision. It is a woman's right to have a child by herself if she wishes and can support the child. Your comments seem to come from a very bitter place. I pity you.

If you do it "because Madonna did it" say, that can hardly be looked upon as a serious decision. Also the fact that every society in the history of the world has looked upon single motherhood as a disgrace at the very least should give you pause. I am by no means talking about people for whom this was not a genuine choice. But when white, weathy women make this "choice" that will probably doom their children, it makes me want to throw up. How dare your?

Also the fact that every society in the history of the world has looked upon single motherhood as a disgrace at the very least should give you pause.

Not particularly. Most societies keep women in a position of servitude. They don't look well upon women who take control of their own lives. I have no problem with the fact that my personal morality is superior to that of most "societies".

Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.(demotivational poster)

And because you put "a lot of thought into your decison" does NOT mean it is therefore a good one.

And because you put "a lot of thought into your decison" does NOT mean it is therefore a good one.

Perhaps not, but we all have to make our own decisions. Just because YOU think it is wrong for a woman to have a child on her own doesn't automatically make it wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is- YOUR opinion.

Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.(demotivational poster)

Heh. I love despair.com! My current favorite (printed out and taped to my monitor at work) is:

IRRESPONSIBILITY: No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.

You can give up the baby for adopttion.

Oh, Omm. Again with the contradictory statements. So you just stated that an option for a pregnant, unwed woman is adoption? Did you not post (77.4), in the discussion of this very article, the following?:

adoption is usually a form of stealing, and it is inherently cruel. If people stopped adopting, the child stealers would have to stop what they do and get real jobs. I worked for those monsters for three years so don't tell me I'm wrong.

Whether or not you're a bot, I think there's a glitch in the system.

I make a VERY strong distinction between VOLUNATARY adoption, nearly always done at birth, versus INVOLUNTARY adoption which is forced by some government bimbo. If you're worried about robots, worry about the social workers your tax dollars are paying for. I've worked for them and they are refuge. They are evil, and these are two totally separate things. You might as well compare loving sex in a committed relationship to being raped on the street.

Oom,

I think you have the right and obligation to do so, whether you are still together or not.

In a perfect world he would catch on after the first dozen conversations and then all would be rosey-perfect. Unfortunately this is the real world where you can not control or dictate to another human being (in the U.S. anyhow).

If you do it "because Madonna did it" say, that can hardly be looked upon as a serious decision.

That one beats even the ranting headlines about the GOP in lunacy. I'm sure there is a woman that stupid out there, but I've never met one. You seem to think women who choose to be a single mother do so because it's "cool". At first I thought maybe you were just seriously lacking actual knowledge but now I have a different theory. More on that to come...

Also the fact that every society in the history of the world has looked upon single motherhood as a disgrace at the very least should give you pause.

Given that the history of the world was to treat women as property and second-class citizens, no it really doesn't give me pause. If you were a man, I could see why you might feel so threatened by women who choose to have a child on their own, but as a woman the only excuse I can think of is jealousy - the really intense bitter kind born of intense dissatisfaction of their own life.

I am by no means talking about people for whom this was not a genuine choice. But when white, weathy women make this "choice" that will probably doom their children, it makes me want to throw up. How dare your?

Doom my child? Lol...my child has a helluva lot more advantages than are available to your child(ren) but that's because I have the backbone to get out there and work my ass off to make it happen while you take the easy road out and pretend you are doing something noble by raising your children poor and in a bad neighborhood.

From your posts, I can only conclude that you hate women like me because we were smart enough not to fall into the "pregnant - must get married" trap and end up poor, living in crappy neighborhoods and watching those hated "wealthy white women" (like me) driving around in their nice cars going home to their nice houses in a nice neighborhoods so they can enjoy some 1-on-1 time playing with their little ones without having to take time out to kiss anyone's feet. We have a freedom and an independence that you obviously don't. That is no one's choice but yours.

If that is not your obsession, then you have inadvertently given a very strong representation that the above is indeed the obsession arisen from your own disappointments and regrets for your own life. If that is the case, then rather than spending so much wasted energy hating others, perhaps you should redirect that enegy to your own life and iso sitting around being miserable about it, take responsibility for yourself and your life. Living with that kind of bitterness and resentment is very unhealthy for you and very unhealthy for your children as well.

Justme, I'm sure you don't need to be told this, but you seem like an intelligent woman who thinks things through before acting and has only the best intentions for her child. It takes a lot of guts and sacrifice to take on the raising of a child on your own, and to stand up for your child to make sure the father is in their life, regardless of whether or not he's in yours. You should be proud of yourself, seriously. Women who put the true needs of their children before what society sometimes dictates are a-okay in my book. Best wishes to you and your child.

nikkinala, Thank you for the vote of confidence :) I'm not 100% sure I deserve it after that last post. :0P If it makes sense, I feel guilty for not feeling apologetic for it. I do try as much as I can to encourage her father and stress to him how important he is to her. I've had friends over the years who were used as a pawn between their fighting parents and I think that is a positively horrible thing to do to a child. I always swore that parent would never be me.

Currently he does take a bit more time to play with her here and there, and I have hope he'll continue to get better as she gets older and easier for him to relate to. It sounds overly simple but I think as a baby, he simply had no idea what to do with her. It would be nice for me if at some point he put in on some of the "work" part of things but for me the most important is his relationship with her. The other part is between myself and him and has nothing to do with her.

I make a VERY strong distinction between VOLUNATARY adoption, nearly always done at birth, versus INVOLUNTARY adoption which is forced by some government bimbo. If you're worried about robots, worry about the social workers your tax dollars are paying for. I've worked for them and they are refuge. They are evil, and these are two totally separate things. You might as well compare loving sex in a committed relationship to being raped on the street.

A couple of thoughts regarding this, first of all - those evil social workers, taking children out of abusive, drug-ridden homes. How dare they! It isn't like one will have their children taken away permanently for a single event of abuse, more likely not until the children have been beaten to the point of hospitalization or there have been several instances of neglect and abandonment.

Secondly - I thought you were a stay at home mom that spent all her time home schooling her children. After all, you are the one who said women that choose to work, or more accurately, are forced to work are selfish. So which is it, are you a stay at home supermom or do you work with social workers? Or maybe, you had to deal with social workers because you didn't properly register and meet the requirements for homeschooling so you had to deal with truancy officers? I guess that would explain why you think they are evil and refuse (at least I am guessing you meant refuse (trash) and not refuge (a safe haven).

[[You seem to think women who choose to be a single mother do so because it's "cool".]]

I live in the inner city, and oh yes, it happens. Generally it happens among very young women or teenagers.

[[Secondly - I thought you were a stay at home mom that spent all her time home schooling her children. After all, you are the one who said women that choose to work, or more accurately, are forced to work are selfish. So which is it, are you a stay at home supermom or do you work with social workers?]]

I said I USED to work for a child protective services agency. I am in my mid-fifties and have therefore had the time to do many different things in my life. I have had several different careers, have lived in several different states, have two college degrees (biology and accounting) and I'm currently a tax accountant (although I didn't work this tax season due to family needs.) Also, it is possible to homeschool and still work, assuming you and your husband work different shifts. They even have public cyberschools in some states, where everything is provided. I've done that too. Life is all about making changes; nothing stays the same. Hey, you know what? Maybe there'd be fewer divorces if people thought, hmm, I'm unhappy, I think I'll go back to school and get a different job. Or I think I'll make new friends and get some new hobbies, rather than a knee jerk, I'm unhappy so I guess it must be my spouse's fault. Sheesh, take some responsibility for your own life!

I live in the inner city, and oh yes, it happens. Generally it happens among very young women or teenagers.

Oh so you're not at all talking about those evil "wealthy white women"? Actually the phenomena you're referring to is a rather viscious cycle that you can find in the poor inner-city areas of cities all across our nation and I can assure you it isn't about Madonna.

At any rate, I'm going to sign off on this thread. I feel to continue would be something along the lines of bullying. I do want to say I'm sorry that things haven't worked out quite like you may have hoped, and I really hope that you find some measure of peace and joy in your future.

[[From your posts, I can only conclude that you hate women like me because we were smart enough not to fall into the "pregnant - must get married" trap and end up poor, living in crappy neighborhoods and watching those hated "wealthy white women" (like me) driving around in their nice cars going home to their nice houses in a nice neighborhoods so they can enjoy some 1-on-1 time playing with their little ones without having to take time out to kiss anyone's feet. We have a freedom and an independence that you obviously don't. That is no one's choice but yours.]]

This is going to utterly SHOCK you, but not everyone WANTS to live in the suburbs. Not everyone worships that lifestyle. I love my neighborhood, the excitement, the students, the universities with all their cultural events, the ethnic restaurants and bodegas I can walk to. I love that I didn't spend my life driving my kids around because there's a bus virtually at the door and they can get to places themselves. I love living within walking distance to the main library of my city as well as several major hospitals. I love the fine private high school my son just graduated from, that he could walk to. (You see, we're not as poverty stricken as all THAT. We just made different choices than you; education is a value; fancy furniture is not.) Yet if I want nature and greenery, there's a huge park with hawks and turkeys and deer about four blocks away. (I've seen entire turkey families--they are so cute.) I moved 1,700 miles to come here. And I certainly don't hate you because you're white--I am of Jewish, Swedish,and Irish ancestry, so most people would call me white. However, I desperately wanted my children to have the multicultural experience--impossible in most suburbs. I wanted them to have some culture, period. Suburbia, to me, is a cultural wasteland. But you're certainly welcome to it.

I happen to live in a suburb and my children are exposed to very diverse culture. Last year, my son's class of 20 had 4 white students, the rest were hispanic, African and Asian. You can receive culture in the suburbs also. And while you may have chose your neighborhood for whatever reason, I will take my second income (from myself working) and go to bed knowing my kids are safe, living in the suburbs. Maybe the area of the city you live in is safe, but hey, give it a couple of years, that could easily change.

I love the fine private high school my son just graduated from, that he could walk to

And here I thought you homeschooled your children...

As for your belief that unhappy people should change jobs in order to avoid divorce. There are many people who love their job and are genuinely unhappy with their lives at home. For anyone to think that being unhappy at home can be solved by changing professions is seriously delusional. But then again, from the things you have posted about the way men treat women and how obviously bitter you are, I can only guess that you have tried this tactic of changing jobs a couple of times and are still as unhappy.

Oom, Judging from your reaction, I'm hoping you can now see how ignorant and judgemental you are being of others?? I can't help it - I'm an incurable optimist lol. I'm not shocked at all actually because I do realize and understand that different people like different lifestyles and make different lifechoices. The thing is - it doesn't make them right or wrong but it does make you wrong to presume to pass judgement on them. Getting it yet?

Oh you're not poverty-stricken? Sorry...I was under that impression after you said you chose to stay home and care for your children iso working and for that reason live in a very poor neighborhood and make sacrifices to get by.

Nice ASSumption about what's important to me but actually all of my furniture except two items were handmedowns, and the two items I purchased myself I got for ridiculously low prices from a store that was going out of business. See what happens when you presume to judge others?

However, I desperately wanted my children to have the multicultural experience--impossible in most suburbs. I wanted them to have some culture, period. Suburbia, to me, is a cultural wasteland. But you're certainly welcome to it.

It's not remotely impossible in the 'burbs - what they learn is up to you. You don't have to live in the ghetto (as you previously described) to expose your child to other cultures - unless of course your belief is that is the only place you'll find folks from other cultures? Lol. Ooops. If you really believe that suburbia is a cultural wasteland, perhaps it's because you've never made the effort to really look at it - I would suspect that to be the case considering how narrow-minded and judgemental your posts tend to be. Our town doesn't even have a stoplight yet and even I managed to find people from other countries without actively seeking them out. One could even say you would have to make an effort Not to meet people from other countries and cultures in my little rural town.

btw....the "wealthy white women" reference came from your own posts - no need to provide pedigrees to me - that's your hang-up...not mine. The bitterness and resentment that came through on that particular post actually explains a lot about many of the things you've had to say.

[[Maybe the area of the city you live in is safe, but hey, give it a couple of years, that could easily change.]]

Kids have been killed in the suburbs, too. No place in the United States is as safe as all THAT. Besides, I want them to grow up being able to cope with real life, which includes safety awareness.

If you enjoy working, please do it for the challenge of the job. I've had jobs I loved too, and I admitted it. Please don't insist on trying to justify yourself because you are providing your kids with an ideal lifestyle. They may turn around and tell you they hate it. I HATED growing up in the suburbs, even though I was privileged enough to have a horse. I'd have preferrred a condo and the Rock Creek (DC) Stables any day. And my son has thanked me for raising him where I did. There is no one perfect place to live that trumps all others; I'm just saying that not all urban types are there because we're poverty stricken. Think of the environment; surburbia is destroying it. All that driving. All that land taken for McMansions that no one actually gets to enjoy because they are all working so much. People in NYC actually use less energy than anyone in the country.

I live in the country. I'm sure it'll go down at some point - all places do. People around town do what they can to protect it. Homes for sale are usually sold to relatives or friends and often don't show up on internet listings. After where I came from I get why they do that.

Kids can be killed anywhere. That doesn't change the fact where we live is much safer than where I grew up. It really doesn't require living in bad neighborhoods to teach your kid about safety. Btw...your later description of your neighborhood doesn't sound all that bad. The really poor bad neighborhoods around our city aren't even close.

Actually I really don't like my job. I used to but that's been a while. But it enables me to take good care of my daughter and has good health insurance so I stay.

I'm just saying that not all urban types are there because we're poverty stricken.

I know that. I was referring to you specifically, taken from your own posts about how you have very nobly sacrificed working to stay home with your child and because of it live in a poor, bad neighborhood and make do with the basic necessities of life. On that post I was feeling all empathetic until I realized you were just building your case for how great you are and how horrible working mothers are.

Yes rural or urban is a personal preference. I wouldn't live in NYC to save my life. Others couldn't live without it. The fact that you think I care about all of that tells me that you missed my point entirely. I was really trying to illustrate to you how your own posts are coming across.

Oom - you have tried very hard to paint yourself as a martyr when in reality you are nothing more than an arrogant person who thinks she has made better choices than anyone else. You said that women that choose to work are ruining America, then it comes out that you have had several careers. You said you live in a bad neighborhood, first it was to stay home with your kids (which you apparently homeschooled and sent to private school), then it was to expose them to culture (but hey, the suburbs aren't all upper-middle class white people), now it is to teach them to be safe, and the best, suburbia is ruining the environment. I don't know about where you live, but there are as many people living in the city and driving out of it for work as are driving from suburbia into the city where I live.

It appears to me that you are nothing more than a bitter woman trying to justify her own unhappiness by tearing down others. Unfortunately, many of us have seen through you and exposed you for who you truly are. Which certainly is no better than anyone else on this thread.

There is this thing called "sequencing". You can stay home with a child during his early years without giving up a career forever; very few of us have 14 children. Everyone in my family lives 100 years. Yes, you will lose some money if you stay home even a few years, but since when is life all about money? Some clever women even work from home; millions would love to. You can certainly homeschool for a few years and then sent them to either public or private school. (I chose private school because my teenager wanted to be with other kids and won a partial scholarship.) And come on, suburbia IS ruining the environment. We do not HAVE to drive 40 miles a day to have a decent life. Ever hear of global warming? I live very well without having a car of my own at all, as there is a bus on the corner that runs every half hour. Also, where did I say my neighborhood was "bad"? It is urban. It is about 40% African American, maybe 10% Italian, and the rest mostly college students, but you would have to be a terrible bigot to assume this equates to "bad". I happen to love my neighborhoood. I have not been victimized except that things have been stolen off my front porch. I do not live in fear. And I'm sorry that you apparently do.

Oom, To refresh your memory here is your story about your noble sacrifice. There was another comment on another one about your neighborhood but I'm busy. But of course you were just preaching about teaching your kids safety by raising them in a rougher neighborhood but then above try to paint me as a bigot and claim your neighborhood isn't bad at all. Btw...I already called you out on your bigotry and inaccuracy in assuming that the only place you can find cultural diversity is in the poor neighborhoods like you sometimes claim yours to be.

I don't work precisely because I have an autistic child who needs too much therapy to be compatible with a full time job. I live a modest life. We own an inner city rowhouse outright; we have one, very used vehicle that my husband maintains himself to the best of his ability. He has a modest, allied health job. I take the bus a lot, as do my kids. Nearly everything we own is used or Freecycled except our computers. You CAN do this if you really want to. In fact, you can do just about anything if you really put your mind to it. I did have to leave my very expensive home town (Washington, DC) and move to a cheaper one, but so what?

So you Do have a car after all....lol...or do you? Oh, and in post 4.33 you work and take the bus.

The point is that I would live in the city even if I did NOT have a child with problems, because I like living in the city. I don't see how my kid's life would be enhanced if I lived in the burbs. My husband has a car because he works nights and must get to work at odd hours, when buses don't run, but it isn't mine and I don't drive it. Ever. In fact, I have Aspergers Sydrome and do not even have a drivers license. And never had one.

There are some of us who live in the "burbs" and don't drive 40 miles to get to work. I personally only drive 8 miles to get to work. And as Justme pointed out, if various posts you alluded to if not outright said, that you lived in a bad neighborhood.

And now you have Asperger's Syndrome, I thought it was your son that had autism. And why would having Asperger's Syndrom keep you from having a drivers license? Asperger's Syndrome affects ones social skills, not ones ability to drive.

Actually, all forms of autism can have a wide variety of neurological effects. My older son, who has Aspergers, has not yet learned to drive at 19 but there is a possibility he may be able to. I have no spatial reasoning ability, which is what makes the thought of driving terrifying to me. I also suffer from a form of very serious night blindness. There is a chance I might be able to drive, but it would be limited. I could get to the grocery store in the middle of a Saturday afternoon, perhaps. You really don't understand autism very well. Ever post proves that more and more. We can do some things better than NTs but there are other things we cannot do.

Oom, Previously you said you probably had some affliction to even though it wasn't noticable. Now it seems it has become very noticable. And according to the post I already cited above you moved to your neighborhood because you "had to".

Okay. I really am going to hit the stop tracking now. I'm sorry for you Oom and wish you the very best of luck.

Only because you view driving as so imporant. I live in the city.

I actually understand autism very well as my youngest brother has asperger's syndrome and I have done quite a bit of research on it, this is how I know that asperger's syndrome primarily affects a persons ability to assimillate normally in a social situation. Aspergers Syndrome in and of itself would leave no reason for one not to be able to learn how to drive. Other disorders within the autism spectrum maybe, but not asperger's syndrome. I will even provide a link to the mayo clinics website that explains aspergers syndrome.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/aspergers-syndrome/DS00551

Because you have ONE relative with aspergers doesn't mean you are an expert in it. It is on the autism spectrum and can cause a host of neurological affects besides just being a "nerd". It can be mild or it can be fairly serious. I have just LIVED with this all my life, not just second hand, but personally. My own brother, a computer scientist still lives in our mom's basement. He's in his 50s, and sees nothing odd about this. Some people with Aspergers are like Albert Einstein but others must live in group homes, supervised by professionals. I'm on several autism/asperger boards, and there are LOTS of people with this condition who do not drive. Or parents who are severely worrying about their Asperger's child learning to drive. What really distinguishes Aspergers from autism is the ability to communicate. Autistics will have delayed speech, for instance. It doesn't mean you are home free for every other symptom.

Your brother can drive, well count your blessings, but he is not the model for everyone. That website was designed for laypeople and is necessarily quite superficial. Also, the difference between Aspergers and the higher functioning forms of autism are very small; once again, in real life, differential diagnosis can be a problem. There is even talk of getting rid of the Aspergers diagnosis altogether and just calling it autism.

Yet again, I did not say I am an expert, I also said, that I have a brother with aspergers as well as several friends with children and brothers that also have aspergers, every single one of which has been mainstreamed through school and can drive and even hold a job. I also said I understand the symptoms of asperger's. While you are absolutely correct that there is a huge spectrum in which autism and autism spectrum fall, including many different aspects, aspergers is defined by the inability to socialize. As for the website being for a layperson, you could google asperger's syndrom and any of the 1000's of pages are going to give you the same results and definitions.

I also said that asperger's in and of itself is not going to keep one from driving, however, the multitude of other issues that many with asperger's may have could play into this problem.

Either way, I am not going to continue this discussion with you because I am sure, if I were to look, I would see some other post from you in which you claim aspergers is nothing more than the result of poor parenting.

That's ridiculous. I would never say that as it is clearly neurological. And do you realize you just AGREED with me about the driving thing? What is the difference betweenn a syndrome "in itself" and the multitude of other issues that often go with it?

No, I did not agree with you, the difference between the syndrome in and of itself and the other issues that can go with it is that one can have just aspergers, in which there would be no reason for that person to not be able to drive; or one can have aspergers and any of several other issues that can compound together to create larger issues.

What I find ridiculous is someone that would claim to live in a bad neighborhood for financial reasons then later admit that they were able to send their child to a private school, or someone that would call women who choose to work disgusting pigs, then admit they themselves have had at least three different careers; or someone who would claim they choose not to drive, again for financial gains, then say it is actually to do their part in helping stop global warming, then later say it is actually because they have a disability that prevents them from driving. Which is what I was getting at, that your perspective seems to change based on who or what topic you are attempting to drag under a bus.

It has absolutely nothing to do with not being able to put another human before yourself. What an ignorant statement.

You mistake my meaning. If you are going to have kids then you should be able to put other human beings first before yourself. I could of worded my statement better but I stand by my point.

Unfortunately, more people have children out of feelings of guilt and obligation, rather than being able to put another person's needs ahead of their own. I think the idea is good in theory, but its just not reality.

more people have children out of feelings of guilt and obligation

Not people I know.

People have kids because they want to. And those that don't choose not to.

Freedom.

So sorry! After I read your comment to my post below I realized where you were coming from. : )

Freedom requires knowledge. Far too many people have kids in their 20s on auto-pilot without it ever genuinely occurring to them that they might be happier in life without kids. There are so many unconscious assumptions people are groomed to have from an early age, especially girls who grow up having baby dolls pushed at them. I was one of the few who had the presence of mind to give those baby dolls back and never got why other little girls didn't find holding a plastic doll and talking baby talk to it just as boring as I did. Even with that, in my 20s I was shocked when speaking to a friend and mentioning I doubted the man I was dating would make a good father she responded with surprise that I intended to have children. "Of course I'm going to have children," I replied. But in the coming years, thankfully I didn't wind up pregnant and I did eventually realize that I didn't have to have kids and in fact didn't want to. If I got that close to making what would have been a permanent, life-altering tragic mistake, I can only wonder how much self-knowledge and thereby freedom many young women actually have.

I thought people had them mainly by accident :P

It sounds like the self-absorbed (and seemingly not too sharp) nephew is doing us all a favor by not breeding. Can you imagine what a spoiled, useless little tyrant his child might be?

My God, it is hard enough to raise children when you really do want them. Can't imagine what it would be like if you really didn't want them.

I'll buy into that Paul, I didn't want mine about an hour ago, but that feeling always passes...

The fact is that many people choose to want children after they have discovered they are unintentionally pregnant. You cannot deny that many unintended pregnancies continue out of a sense of guilt and obligation. Now, maybe in the end, everything works out ok and everyone is happy with the results. But that is not how it goes for everyone. I know of several people who don't really like kids but they have them anyway. Life is hard for them and their kids because of it.

[[My God, it is hard enough to raise children when you really do want them. Can't imagine what it would be like if you really didn't want them.]]

It's equally hard either way. Planning kids doesn't mean you will actually want them when they are 13 year old brats. OTOH, NOT planning kids doesn't mean you don't love them when they're here. Love is a choice, too. You can always choose (or not choose) to love your kids.

3rdpartyadvocate

I have an aunt who is the same way, pretty selfish and no patiance for kids. She was the baby of the family, and barely 10 yrs older than I. She always knew she she didnt want children. Dont get me wrong she is a wonderful person and aunt but best if she doesnt have children. Sounds good your nephew doesnt want kids, probably not the best idea.

My sister and sister in law are both very childish and self absorbed. Neither kid ppl. Again my sis is a good aunt but she can hardly stand a whole day around my kids. Unfortunately my sister in law has 2 kids which she dumps for weeks at a time with her mother, while her and her hubby go party.

It's equally hard either way. Planning kids doesn't mean you will actually want them when they are 13 year old brats. OTOH, NOT planning kids doesn't mean you don't love them when they're here. Love is a choice, too. You can always choose (or not choose) to love your kids.

Very true. I had decided at the age of 30 that I didn't really want to have children. Then, despite being on two forms of birth control, I got pregnant. I don't love my son one bit less because he wasn't a planned baby.

Exactly. As I once told a therapist, most of the people in human history were unplanned and ill-timed, but we're still thrilled we have our son. She was speechless, absolutely dumbfounded. I may as well have been speaking Sanskirt. I never went back; for all I know she's still sitting there looking stupid. Imagine, telling an American the equivalent of "you can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you get what you need."

I admire people who have the strength and maturity to recognize they do not want to be parents.

In my teens and twenties I shared my feelings about not wanting children with family and a few friends. Didn't want to marry either. The responses were shock and disbelief. So I concluded that my personal feelings were inappropriate and went along on the marriage and childbearing ride.

Decades later I am a proud grandmother but I wouldn't want to take that ride again.

I'm confused. You usually have to be a parent in order to be a grandparent, right?

I get so tired of this whole "culturally conditioned to want children" argument. Anyone familiar with evolutionary psychology would gladly inform you that it's complete bull@!$%#. Look at every other mammalian species, including the apes! Every female mammal on earth is biologically driven to find a strong, healthy mate, breed, and raise her children to the best of her ability. Whether we're talking about a field mouse, a grizzly bear, a racoon, a dog, a moose, an elephant, a lion, a gorilla, your cat, or whatever, we all have that much in common.

This is nature, folks. Not nurture.

Ok, so those 30 years of Emergency Medical Services I've done (21 of it volunteer) the 19 years as a nurse most of it ER, the volunteer work I've done in Search and Rescue and the President's Volunteer Service Award are meaningless because I chose not to have children. Of course I can't put someone else ahead of me as all this is meaningless. And the fact that I work in job now that is listed either 1 or 2 as the most dangerous occupation in the US (Helicopter EMS) just shows how selfish I am for not having children. I guarantee you I've done more for kids in 10 minutes than some parents do for kids their entire childhood. That includes sticking my neck out and taking threats for reporting abusers. So give me that malarkey about parents being superior because they put kids first. They aren't and many don't. Meanwhile many childfree donate much time and treasure to enhance their whole community - not just the popular one.

SEIU - I have to say, that is a very impressive resume, and you have obviously done more for society and children than many parents ever will. Thank you for all you have done and continue to do. And no, I don't think you are a selfish person for choosing to not have children.

Omg...this is a "mine's bigger than yours" match isn't it? I do more...no I do the most...no you don't - you're just selfish......yes I do and you're the one that's selfish....well my resume is proof - I'm better.....no it's not - my resume beats yours

Does anyone else see the comedy of everyone trying to prove why the other side is more selfish and everyone giving examples of why they are the bigger benefit to our society? For all the protests that it is not okay to tell someone they are selfish for being child-free, most of the people on here are passing the very same judgement on others.

To OomYaaqub's programmer.

Go back and read lk734505's comment #5.15 again then reprogram Oom to make a more intelligent comment.

AI programs (fake people on computer networks) like Oom have a hard time with nested arguments and dependent clauses. But in this case I'm guessing it was executing a "skimming" function where it just reads the first and last sentence of a paragraph or post. It's a lot faster than running a full analysis on every post so it's used to choose which posts to respond to.

It's based on a human technique for speed reading, but obviously not having a human brain or an ounce of human empathy and emotion limits the reliability. It's still an efficient means to an end when the goal is to provoke people into an emotional response.

If my parents had thought that way, I wouldn't have been the first born of eight kids left behind when I was age 12 as my father divorced us all leaving me to raise his kids while my mom worked. I think we saw him three times in the last 15 years.

He once asked me when I planned on having my own kids and I replied, I already raised your kids cutting teeth, measles and mumps and broken bones and broken hearts in high school. Why would I want to go through all that again?

The problem is that we often equate 'selfishness' with negative traits. Being selfish is not always a bad thing. In fact, sometimes, being selfish can save your life.

Only when someone does realize how selfish they are.

Huh?

CM --I applaud you for your honesty.

As far as Sex & the City characters -- well, I could never figure out why people liked that show anyway. The characters on that show are the most self-obsessed people ever imagined, especially the main character and her 'Mr. Big'. (the one played by Sarah Jessica Parker).

While I don't know if I would say it is selfish to not have children I did notice this from the article:

Rebecca went on to list what she likes about being a family of two. "Being the only people in this relationship, we are each other's first priority, emotionally and otherwise. We are more communicative and can lavish attention on each other — something we might not be able to do if we were always focused on baths and homework. We also like that we get to live a bit more whimsically without children. We can take bigger career risks — I had my own business for a while and Jim started his own practice two years ago. We travel a lot, and we go out even more than we did when we were single."

So, in her own words, they can be totally focused on themselves, which is something you really should have to give up when you have children, (unfortunately not everyone does and the kids are the ones to pay the price). Good for her for seeing that she doesn't want to give it up!

So I would say not having kids is not selfish, but maybe a little self-centered -- but it's America; you are allowed to be self-centered. (heck you are allowed to selfish if you want). It's certainly not a crime, and it's not the only form of self-centeredness.

I think there's plenty of evidence of other kinds of self-centerednedd out there which is more upsetting; I remember this one story of a woman who had them 'harvest' her dead husbands sperm so that she could produce another child. I was on the fence about it until I heard her say "it MY right, I want another child" --

It was all about her and what she wanted, she wasn't thinking about whether the kid had a right to a dad. (I know kids lose a parent, but she was making the choice -- it wasn't a circumstance she was making the best of or anything). It just seemed like the antithesis of what a mom would say to me -- it seems like a mom should be thinking about their kid,and not just all about what they want.

But it happened, so I have to hope that it turned out okay for them --

Anyway, I'm just saying there are a lot of ways people can be selfish, I don't think this would be the worst -- no one is getting hurt by it.

[[He once asked me when I planned on having my own kids and I replied, I already raised your kids cutting teeth, measles and mumps and broken bones and broken hearts in high school. Why would I want to go through all that again?]]

I have to say, good for you for telling your father the truth. He needed to hear it.

I went to a wedding last year and the mother in law said to the couple when are you going to have a kid I could have rung her neck.

They should have responded: In about 8 months...

Thank you, but not all kids are from Hollywood or Alaska.

I think lilgremlin's comment was tongue in cheek. Being a smart-a$$. I agree w/you George. Too many supposed adults have a child only to regret it. I decided WAY back when I was eight years-old I didn't want children and have never in the 17 years since regretted that thought or decision. In my familial history there are some pretty awful genetic traits that just shouldn't be passed on, of course I didn't know that then, but it sure helps me to stand firm in my decision. I work w/families who use the Head Start program and can assure you - 100% of those ppl should NEVER have had a child let alone the 4-10 that they might. None of them can take care of them financially, emotionally, or even properly physically.

Scotties Rule - very much tongue in cheek. Either my honey rubs off on me a little too much or I just always got really sick of going to family weddings and being asked when I was getting married and reproducing. Marriage and children are very serious endeavors. I don't plan on jumping into either without careful consideration beforehand and planning (planning gooooood). But such smart a$$ remarks do on occaision have their usefulness. Nosy family members who spent the first 20-odd years of your life telling you how evil and sinful sex is suddenly turn around and want to know how sexually active you plan to be. Very very silly I think and such smart remarks make such awkward moments more fun for the interrogated rather than the interrogator.

Also: We plan on trying for our first in about an hour so if you're still here don't mind us.....

It's the same thing with marriage. If you are a couple, it is expected for you to marry. That sickens me. Not every marriage survives and some people are better not being married than if they were. I know a couple who has been together over 50 years. Not married. Someone asked them why they don't marry and she said, "Why? We're happy enough already. We don't want to change it."

Checkmate - you are absolutely correct. My neighbors had been together for 6 years when she decided to join the army. Because she was enlisting they decided to get married so he could go with her; they were divorced within a year (the pressure of marraige and being a military husband was too much.) She finished her enlistment, they were back together within 3 months of her getting out and have been back together for 13 years. They have a 6 year old son, but if you ask them if they'll ever get married again they always say no. For whatever reason, that "pressure" is just too much for them.

Checkmate - you are absolutely correct. My neighbors had been together for 6 years when she decided to join the army. Because she was enlisting they decided to get married so he could go with her; they were divorced within a year (the pressure of marraige and being a military husband was too much.) She finished her enlistment, they were back together within 3 months of her getting out and have been back together for 13 years. They have a 6 year old son, but if you ask them if they'll ever get married again they always say no. For whatever reason, that "pressure" is just too much for them.

In their particular case they have probably made the right decision. At least their son has both parents under the same roof, and he isn't going to care about a piece of paper. It's sad though, because when it comes to practical things like social security benefits they will lose out.

You know, there are some people in this country whose lives don't revolve around what they can get from the government. Personally, I am not assuming there will be anything left of social security when I retire, and neither is this couple. They both have good paying jobs (oh no, how horrible, she works!) and they are both saving for there retirement themselves, like responsible people. Then again, they can afford to do this, they have two incomes.

Actually couples are better off divorced in terms of benefits. My parents' lawyer advised them to get a divorce and that isn't at all uncommon.

I'm an accountant. It depends on individual circumstances, of course. Everybody's situation is different. For example, if a woman is collecting on her dead husband's social security (or vice versa) she would be ill advised to marry a poorer guy. And I'm not saying you should milk the government but you did pay into those benefits your entire life. It would be masochistic not to benefit.

"I actually think I am a worse person for having them, because I sometimes totally regret my decision."

You are a brave one to admit what many women may be thinking, including myself at times. I can appreciate that.

Exactly my feelings, Cathy. I suppose every mother who gave everything she had to raise her kids wonders what might have been had they chosen to remain childless. I know I do.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed them for the most part when they were little. The teenage years were sheer hell on earth but we survived. Too old and worn out to pursue my younger years dreams now but I do enjoy my regained privacy.

Wow, so having children is selfish? Are you especially dissapointed in your parents for their apparent selfishness?

Having kids is selfish. That doesn't make it wrong, because people have a right to make selfish decisions for what they want in their lives, and in fact do it every single day within every single life. But let's not pretend that it isn't selfish to basically say to the poor orphan who is already alive and lacking anyone to care for him/her, "Sorry, I can't be bothered with raising you because I need to create a new child out of my own superior DNA to love and care for instead. Lots of luck with that survival thing. Now stay out of my sight so I don't have to face the decision I've made."

I've got a lot more respect for people who adopt orphans than I do for people who have kids, especially if they have more than a couple of them (replacement levels). In an over populated world with so many poor, orphaned children needing someone to secure them a portion of dwindling resources, how can it not be selfish to pass them by for the sake of children who haven't even been born yet? Your unborn children do not suffer, but there are some walking this Earth right now who surely do.

If I could bear the experience of actually raising kids, I would definitely adopt. As it is, I just send money through various channels to help with the raising of other people's kids.

I would say having children is selfish compared to choosing not to have children. You are forcing your will on another being. Not having children forces nothing to no-one. Parents that say having children brings them such joy is a forced joy. That comes to the conclusion that you are incapable of having joy without the need to foster a child to bring you joy. You shoulld be able to have joy in your own life simply because you enjoy yourself. If you need to receive outside stimuli to bring happiness then you are not comfortable in your own skin.

As for my parents having me or my brothers, I can not speak for them as I was not present in the decission making process, but since I'm here, I try to make the best. I have traveled the world, shared my life with a couple of long time partners (women) and lead a care-free life. I have no anamals, children or even fish to feel guilty about when I go out to dinner, movie or travel at a moments notice. My longtime partner and I travel outside the country at least 3 times a year and she and I both have never had children. We have been together for over 15 years now and couldn't be happier. My passport is almost full of stamps now and looking forward to filling up another at 55 years of age.

should be especially disappointed they didn't teach you how to spell correctly as well.

i understand the point of the article, what with the current trendiness of the me-culture and the "i don't want kids attitude" (health issues preventing children is much different than not wanting children period), but what's with the negativity towards responsible people who enjoy their family? the day my son was born was the most amazing day of my life, and if you haven't experienced it, there's no way you could understand.

agreed, some people are not ready for the responsibility - and yes, some people choose they don't want children at all. as far as i can tell, we all get to choose and have our own reasons for those choices - no need to be negative towards others just to make you feel better about your own choices.

It's not anymore of a forced joy than say, being happy about a birthday present, just because you recieved one. It doesn't mean that you are incapable of experiencing joy unless you recieved a present.

We completely enjoyed our lives before having our child and its been enhanced since he arrived. I'll admit to reminiscing about our old lifestyle occassionally, but everyone in that lifestyle has moved on, as well. However this huge challenge and sacrifice is one that we chose, cherish, and would not change. I didn't realize how awesome kids are until we had our own.

That being said, I think it's up to each person to choose for him or herself and wrong to judge others as selfish or not for making the decision they made.

This is what I meant when I said that too many people equate selfishness as being a bad thing. It almost always has a negative connotation, but it doesn't have to. Of course its selfish to want to have children. But if you're a thoughtful caring person who's committed to the lifelong process of having a child, then actually your selfishness may benefit your community and the world. Being selfish isn't always a bad thing.

"I wouldn't adopt a child, until i have my firstborn, even if you pay me." that was my motto in life, or at least about children. I have had two sons now, twins :T, and now im looking into adoption, now that they've grown up.
I was always considered a strict cold hearted woman, and many people were shocked at my decision of wanting children. I used to hate and despise children, as a girl I would shun my baby dolls. I would think that any one who had a child was just a wretched person putting more of their disgusting filthe in the world.
But one day my mother adopted a little 1 1/2 year old named luke. He didn't like or was scared of everybody and would cry and fuss, ALWAYS. I was 16 and furious and always did my best to ignore him or i yelled at him. I was very mean to him, but he came to me one day, a week or two after he was adopted, and snuggled up to my leg and shirt and looked up at me with his blue eyes and put a weird cheese mustard pickled whatever-he-could-reach-in-the-fridge thing in my hand and he took his own hand and held it there saying- lavesyojule-"LoveyouJulie..." His first sentence! Let alone some of his first real words were to a person who didn't even love him.
It melted my heart and I realized that children weren't filthe, if raised right, forced on the world. I wanted to have at least one genetic heir, and to adopt the rest.
There were so many children like luke who are out there suffering, who have warm little hearts that if people would even consider them it would make a world of a difference.
Alot of what people do every day is to some degree selfish, some good, some bad. just always think of Your desicion and how it will affect your life and other lives as well.

---ps im a still considered a strict and cold hearted woman... :\

Wow, Kenny, I can think of lots of rational reasons to NOT have kids, but the fear that you will give birth to a serial killer just isn't one of them. Do you really have to grow up to be president or a Nobel prize winner to be worthy of life? Most people are reasonably happy and responsible and that in itself is something to feel good about it. You are definitely missing something by not having kids, but then again, it is impossible to have everything in life.

[[But let's not pretend that it isn't selfish to basically say to the poor orphan who is already alive and lacking anyone to care for him/her, "Sorry, I can't be bothered with raising you because I need to create a new child out of my own superior DNA to love and care for instead. Lots of luck with that survival thing. Now stay out of my sight so I don't have to face the decision I've made."]]

But that's based on the false assumption that there a bunch of "orphans" out there. There are people standing in line to adopt every infant who is available. At least those are voluntary adoptions. Many of the "legal orphans" out there have families that love them. Even if they can't be with the parents for some reason, social services turns away relatives every day for very dubious reasons. You are not being a saint when you adopt from the foster care system; you are being a thief and in a way it isn't much better than slavery. BTW it is a very racist system as well. You are far more likely to lose your kids if you are a person of color, AND be denied a relative placement, even though federal law has long said they are supposed to try to find a relative placement.

Oom, I have to give credit where it's due. You are right about the orphans out there. The info I found indicates many of the kids in foster care aren't even eligible for adoption. They were taken from their parents and are essentially stuck there until they are either given back or the parents' rights are eventually terminated.

Your assertion that you are far more likely to have your child taken if you are of color is subjective to where you live. Where I grew up white people had their children taken away all the time, there were virtually no minorities where I grew up. If the places you have worked are primarily colored neighborhoods, you are going to see more colored families losing their children. It is just simple statistics.

Even upon termination of parental rights, whether by the state or themselves, you are not guaranteed that parent won't at some point come along and challenge the courts to regain parental rights. I work with a guy whose wife does foster care, they had a baby from the day it was born, the mother was very heavily involved in drugs. When the baby was a couple of years old the state terminated the mother's rights and they adopted the little boy. Two years later they found themselves in an ugly custody battle because the mother had finally cleaned up her act and now wanted to be a mother.

Just an observation; I haven't heard the word "colored" used since I was about eight, during the Johnson administration. It can be easily shown that minorities are statistically more likely to lose their children on a national basis. I'm not denying the horrific sort of case you are talking about, but it is relatively rare.

You made a good point about having children doesn't make someone a good parent. I have one brother who has been a lousy parent because he is an untreated alcholic. He has binged on beer every weekend for 20 years. (2 cases of beer per weekend). He has never really been there for his three kids and even abused two of them to the point of no return. His wife is bipolar and refuses to take medication. She has been the one who has raised the three kids and has done a lousy job because of her untreated disorder. (bought the kids booze and cigerettes when they were in high school, allowed their 15 year old daughter to have a live in boyfriend, tried to kill herself on her daughter's birthday, showed all of the kids how to steal and breakin to homes,etc.) Neeless to say, my brother and his wife should have never had kids because they can't even take care of themselves.

Thank you thoughtful, you made some great points also. My mother, fortuntely, had me learn from her mistakes in life. She never, ever asked me when I was getting married or when I was having kids to make her a grandmother. I live in a more rural state where women start early having children and/or getting married. I moved away at younger age and lived out my life first. I moved back to my homestate, I got married in my late thirties and had the 1 child. Although I have no wrinkles or grey hair, I get asked if I am my daughters grandmother, simply because I am older than most mothers who have a three year old child in my area.

In fact, either my siblings don't have children or didn't start until after they were 30.

My mom and her mother were the same way. My mom was 35 1/2 when I came along (my dad was 39) and her mom was almost 36 when she had my mom (her dad was 42).

You are absolutely correct, franklyorange.

Oh goodness, I hope my child never brings me to the point of wishing they weren't born. Sorry about what you must have gone through.

Al Fonso....

And, if I had my life to live over we would have had children.

But, it is too late now.

(Life's harsh ironies, eh?)

Let's not assume that its his children that made him feel this way. We all have plans and dreams when we're young and an unintended pregnancy can totally derail that and steal it away from us. Some people never get over the loss of that dream, or they still long for it.

I'm 35 the old lady is 38.

I'm a veterinarian and she is a school teacher.

We are adults.

RealityCheck - that comment you made was rude and completely moronically ignorant. I completely agree with Angry Left. It's more selfish to have a child when you cannot take care of them or know that having a child would not make your life better or happier. I hope to all hells worth that you haven't or don't have children, because your attitude is precisely what is going wrong in the rearing of the little b*****ds in today's society.

Angry Left, you seem pretty grown up to me. I wish more people could get a reality check and be that grown up.

I am kind of amazed at the hostility the "pro kids" side has shown. Not all of them certainly, but I don't get the hostility....if I want to live my life the way I do and be pretty much worry free thats my business. If you want to have kids that's your business.

I wonder if some of the "pro kids" side are jealous......My brother in law is a lawyer married to some sort of nurse.......they have been married just over a year, and she's pregnant......the poor guy will never have the chance to be successful and free.

"Pro-kids" people are like rabbits, they're obsessed with having sex and spitting out babies.

"Pro-kids" people are like rabbits, they're obsessed with having sex and spitting out babies.

Which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Having kids sort of hampers the sex life (they don't call it a c**k block for nothing). There are many more opportunities for sex when the kids aren't around.

(It's summer time now, and my younger son is hanging out on the weekends with his older adult brother a lot more now....ahhhh summertime!)

Angry-- I hope I'm the more moderate middle ground. My wife and I got married, waited 6 years, had one kid, waited 2 years, had a second. Then I got modified so we don't have more.

People are very defensive about your question, "Is it selfish to choose not to have kids?" because they think it implies the reciprocal question, "Is it selfish to choose to have kids?". But where the choice to have children is a long standing societal norm, people who choose not to are often singled out as unusual. So an inspection into the nature of child-free adults is justified and doesn't presume anything about the status quo.

The only time people bug me is when they say things like "Oh, you're going to Costa Rica? Must be nice. We can't take vacations like that because we have 4 kids to support and it's too expensive". This is a direct quote from my Sis-in-law.

My view is I'll give ya the first one, after that you should know where babies come from. Kids 2,3,4,etc., those are lifestyle choices.

Auteur 1536

That is pretty damn general I may be obsessed with sex but not having a bunch of babies. The hubby and I have 2 kids one boy, one girl. And we are done, finito. Definatly not obsessed with having a bunch of kids. My body is still good after 2 kids and I am not going to ruin that. Thank God for IUDs 100% effective. as well as snipity snip snip. If things did change there is always adoption.

Angry Left-532262

Yes I am a little jealous, It must be nice to go and do as you please, spend money solely on yourself. Take adult vacations and have adult parties. I do wish the hubby and I could do that more. We do get to do those things from time to time thankfully b/c of the grandparents. and the occasional sleepover at a friends Also wont be long and my kids will be old enough to stay home. So I will "sacrifice" those 10 yrs.

Still would not trade my kids for anything though. To tell the truth I never wanted kids, I wanted a career. Then surprise I got pregnant. Probably one of the best things that ever happend to me. So now instead of being a successful business woman I am a sucessful mom. Which I never thought I would be.

I have to admit, if people were giving me a hard time about going to Costa Rica or whatever, I would tend to SHUT UP about it. Maybe your immediate neighbors have to know when you travel so you don't get robbed. I still wouldn't be bragging and putting it in people's faces. They may be wrong to be envious, but since I know people ARE like that, isn't it my fault if I give them ammunition?

If it were true, I would love to tell people I was going to Costa Rica to do volunteer work or something of that sort. That might shut them up. For instance, I told people my son was going to Hawaii for a month, but I immediately added that he was there to visit his elderly grandparents and this might well be the last time he sees them both due to medical issues. Amazing how that stopped any rude comments.

Auteur's comment is rather generalized but that's just the way she is. Not all people who have kids do so because they are "obsessed with having sex and spitting out babies." This is a crude comment and is without any logic whatsoever. People should not be judged by whether or not they want children. It is a personal decision between the couple and is no one else's business.

To assume that anyone who has children is obsessed with sex and spitting out babies is absolutely asinine.

To say that anyone who has children cannot take an adult vacation or have an adult party is equally asinine.

I have two children and my husband and I are currently planning a trip just for us this coming October. I just had a girls night last Friday. I am able to do these things because my children have two sets of grandparents that are more than happy to take them for a weekend or week (when school is out) whenever we offer.

As for being able to afford to travel the world, my husband and I made the decision to have children in our early 20's so we would still be young enough for all that travel once the kids had graduated, until then, we take a lot of family vacations and every couple of years the hubby and I do something just for us. With any luck we will have a good 30 years once the kids are out of high school to enjoy our time alone.

And by the way, I am a very involved mother who also happens to be a successful career woman. Some of us are capable of being both.

You are 38 years old and your main concern in life is that you can party and get drunk .....

You forgot going on vacation....I love that too. Also don't forget my medical marijuana authorization and my dispensary...those are important to me as well.The LBFM me and the old lady shared for a week in Thailand...I can't say I love her, but that was fun as well.....I've got all kinds of favorites that you would hate.

I don't know or care what is important in your life...but having and raising kids doesn't make you "grown up".

He's going out and having fun. What's the problem? He's not bothering anyone else. He doesn't want kids. Where does one grow up?

I don't get it...I guess "growing up" means sitting at home and watching 24.

I've got my career, I'm finished with school...Like I said I'm a DVM. I do a good job at work and am working on 2 other ventures as well.

I work like a bitch...I live a fairly comfortable life and don't have alot of complaints.

I should be able to party like a Rockstar.......Your 30's are better than your 20's because you still want to have a good time, but now you got the bankroll to be able to do it right.

Back in the day it was bottom shelf liquor and mexican dirt weed......

Now it's Patron (Goose for the old lady) and blueberry deisel.

Being able to live comfortably and enjoy a drink now and then does not mean you haven't grown up, however, bragging about being a drunk and a dope head does point to a level immaturity.

^^ Someone GETS it. Sometimes we have to explain things 4-5 times to get through the brain of the slower ones.

What, RealityCheck, like explaining birth control to YOU?

AngryLeft, you go! CHildfree and enjoying it! those other guys are just jealous of your ability to do what you want when you want to because you don't have to find a babysitter

wish I was in my 30's again-- blueberry diesel sounds interesting

natedom.... I did not see Angry's statement as bragging.......... you wish you could party like a rockstar don't ya?

checkmate is the one who GETS IT

He's going out and having fun. What's the problem? He's not bothering anyone else. He doesn't want kids.

No, I don't wish I could party like a rockstar, I am perfectly content not being an alcoholic burnout. As for being jealous, I can still go out and do what I want when I want, I have a husband who is more than willing to stay home with the kids if I want a girls night, if we want to go out together both of our mothers are always happy to take the kids, in fact, they wish we would do it more often.

And by the way, if you are going to use quotes, you should probably learn how to use them, you can turn it on and off when you are speaking as yourself, not copying someone else's text.

China isn't a good example. Families are penalized for having more than one child and they tend to favor boys. China has a shortage of females of marrying age for the number of men living in that country. It seems that their birth limits are working against them now.

it wouldn't be a prob if they didn't allow fetal sex selection. thats why they have a sex imbalance. and if the chinese pay bribes to the rite people they get away with having more children. no more bribes no more fetal sex selection.. may be they mite be able to control there prob which is actually the worlds prob

the most populous countries should be the ones with the responsibility to lower there populations.. saying that every body should have less children isnt fair. in a couple hundred years there will stil be hundreds of millions of chinese even if they all only have one child.. but what would happen to small groups say australian aborigines or south american native peoples if they did the same? some groups have to have larger families just for there culture to survive while others can get by even with a huge percentage of their population only having one kid or even none at all

6.8 Billion people on earth....and counting. They aren't all Chinese.

[[it wouldn't be a prob if they didn't allow fetal sex selection. thats why they have a sex imbalance. and if the chinese pay bribes to the rite people they get away with having more children. no more bribes no more fetal sex selection.. may be they mite be able to control there prob which is actually the worlds prob]]

You've got to be kidding. If we allow abortion on demand then we allow fetal sex selection--hey, it's just choice, right? If killing a boy fetus is okay then so is killing a girl fetus--by definition they aren't "human" yet and "women have choices." You cannot have it both ways.

Oom - that comment was in regards to the Chinese and why they have an imbalance in the number of men versus women, because the Chinese government limits the number of children a family can have (generally only one) and families are rewarded for having boys.

I understand. But understand this: it cannot be changed.

What cannot be changed? The sexual imbalance in China or fetal sex selection? Are you aware that at this point abortion is only allowed in the first trimester, which ends at 13 weeks but sex is not able to be determined via ultrasound until week 20? Prior to that the only way to determine sex is with an amniocentesis which is a high risk test that is only performed after many other tests have shown the possiblity of serious birth defects.

Abortion is only allowed in WHICH countries? Because you sound very confused. In the United States, abortion for any reason is allowed in every state for 24 weeks. The woman doesn't have to give any reason.

abortion for any reason is allowed in every state for 24 weeks

No, it isn't.

Abortion laws vary from state to state including the gestation period in which abortions can be performed.

[[What cannot be changed? The sexual imbalance in China or fetal sex selection? Are you aware that at this point abortion is only allowed in the first trimester, which ends at 13 weeks but sex is not able to be determined via ultrasound until week 20? Prior to that the only way to determine sex is with an amniocentesis which is a high risk test that is only performed after many other tests have shown the possiblity of serious birth defects.]]

Actually you can determine sex in the first trimester using chorionic villi sampling (CVS). It is considered much safer than an amnio. They wanted me to have one with my last child just because I was 40. And my son is now 13, so this has been around a long long time. BTW, ultrasound is usually done in the 16th week but it can actually be done at any point.

In what country is abortion only allowed in the first trimester? Surely not the United States or China. Congratulations. You have posted something in which every single fact was wrong.

I will admit, I was wrong about the point at which one can have an abortion done, however, I did not say ultrasound can only be done at 20 weeks, I said that is when they are able to determine sex accurately. As for CVS, I had forgotten about that test, but either way, they are both risky procedures that are not going to be performed simply to determine sex. They are both tests done after other tests (blood sampling and in-depth ultrasound) have given elevated results of likely genital or chromosomal defects. I am aware of these because down syndrome runs in my husbands family and they started the battery of tests with my first pregnancy.

As for the original point of the discussion, do you really believe women in the United States are getting abortions simply because they do not like the sex of the child?

That's not really true; you can certainly detect a penis at the 16 week ultrasound; they did for my sons. I saw it myself. It might depend on exactly how the fetus is positioned, but that would be the case even later. In fact they can detect much more detail than that. CVS isn't considered especially risky; it's certainly safer than aminocentesis. I suspect it will eventually become as routine as ultrasound. A lot of these things are determined by insurance company business decisions, not medicine.

Yeah, there are women in the US who will abort a daughter just because their hubby wants a boy. It may not be as common here as in China or India, but it happens. Please remember, we have a large immigrant population for one thing. Even a woman of European ancentry might do it just to please her husband or herself; it happens. Some people treat children as if they were pets or even designer accessories. One former friend of mine aborted her child at about six months just because she wasn't sure she wanted to marry the father and didn't think she could afford day care, as if she had never heard of "child support". Then she was shocked and upset when the father left her for killing his child. She now calls herself a "celibate lesbian". Go figure. It is crazy to assume nobody aborts for utterly selfish reasons.

I didn't say people don't abort for purely selfish reasons, both of my sisters-in-law have had abortions for purely selfish reasons, I said I can't imagine people aborting based on sex.

Unfortunately, some do. And in most cases, they abort girls. In a few cases, like say hemophilia ran in your family, I could at least understand that people would abort boys because they are more vulnerable. (Do I have to bore you with the biology lesson?) But this is rare.

Some men would prefer boys; this is ridiculously irrational as far as I'm concerned. But some women give in to the pressure. The fewer kids you have, the more likely this is going to happen. My husband is one of five brothers, no sisters, but this is also VERY rare. I have a half-Japanese niece who is like a precious princess because she is so rare.

Please think this thorough; do we really want to live in a world with a very imbalanced sex ratio?

No you don't have to bore me with any biology lessons as I am well aware that not only are boys more susceptible to hemophilia. You have got to be the most condescending person I have ever had the displeasure of having any sort of conversation with. You seriously ought to get over yourself.

I don't need to think anything through, I don't think the world should have an imbalanced sex ratio, I never concerned myself with what the sex of my children were going to be.

My sister and her husband chose not to have children, she just borrows one of the nieces or nephews for her "kiddie Fix" ( love that) when she wonders if she made the right choice and it reafirms her decision.

Well there's over 6 billion people on the planet and not enough resources for all of them. So "too many people" is a good reason.

paprika---

Some countries are truly overpopulated. But the USA is far from that. As a matter of perspective, You could take every family and single person in America right now and they would all fit within the borders of Texas, even if you give each of them a large house on a quarter-acre lot. If you tossed every human being on the planet into the grand canyon it wouldn't even fill it half way up (how weird would that be though). America's agricultural capacity can feed the world.

I'm not pro-breeder, but overpopulation isn't the reasoning in this country.

benkyouburito, Thank you!! It always cracks me up when people in the U.S. proudly proclaim they are saving the planet by not having a child.