Why Breed?

GreenTeaDisease

justam wrote:

You may not care, but one of the most important things about having children is that you learn to WANT to put someone else's needs before your own. It makes individuals grow past their self absorption.

That's not the reason I chose to have children, it was just an added bonus I discovered.

i dunno, a lot of parents I see I around seem pretty f-ing self absorbed. if not, they just become absorbed with their mini-me, thinking that they, as parents, and their children somehow deserve special rights and privileges that the rest of society doesn't in the mean time spoiling their kids to high heaven and feeding them juice boxes which cannot be recycled by the way. A lot of parents put the needs of their children way, way, way ahead of the rest of society...that to me is self-absorption.

there are good parents out there. there really are. it's just that the idea that parents are somehow less self-absorbed than non-parents is completely preposterous. Even if you devote your entire life to your kids, you're basically devoting it to your own genetic material rather than to the rest of society. What have I said about the social costs of having a lot of kids? Someone who thinks along lines like this can hardly be considered "self-absorbed." And on the other side, hello, I've got a freaking mantel full of christmas cards with photos of people's kids on them-that's just a diverting your own self-absorption onto your mini-me! Look, look at my cute little kid! isn't he cute!

(disclaimer: I still stress there are good parents out there. but please, don't tell me that anyone who manages to match a sperm to an egg is automatically more righteous than the next person.)

blackredyellow

Reading this thread, it seems like the people who have kids or want kids pretty much agree that it's up to the individuals to make that decision for themselves.

But the most judgmental people here are those who chose not to have kids, but want to impose that choice on everyone, or judge them if they decide to have kids.

edvedder913

Ms. Haiku wrote:

I got the warm fuzzies just reading this. I don't have a family, but my twin's family is really beautiful. She and her husband totally love each other, and they totally love their daughters. Their house just has a good vibe to it, even the dogs are happy happy. I wouldn't choose their careers, their time committments or anything like that, but it's so beautiful to know that the big lovelove is there.

glad i gave someone warm fuzzies...those are always good

here he is:
http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b286/edvedder913/?action=view&current=myangel.jpg

dunkman

blackredyellow wrote:

Reading this thread, it seems like the people who have kids or want kids pretty much agree that it's up to the individuals to make that decision for themselves.

But the most judgmental people here are those who chose not to have kids, but want to impose that choice on everyone, or judge them if they decide to have kids.

i too got that feeling...

having kids was my choice as having kids for some folk is their choice... i respect both choices...

GreenTeaDisease

blackredyellow wrote:

But the most judgmental people here are those who chose not to have kids, but want to impose that choice on everyone, or judge them if they decide to have kids.

I get that from the original poster, but I must have missed the others.

MattCameronKicksButt

Not EVERYBODY does have a choice...

dunkman

GreenTeaDisease wrote:

I get that from the original poster, but I must have missed the others.

GreenTeaDisease wrote:

to many of us, that is not a good enough reason, but to a lot of people it is. I say great, let them do it and I'll keep my clean house, disposable income, and stretchmark-free abdomen .

i find that to be quite a judgmental post... it implies my house is dirty, i'm poor and my wife has stretchmarks.

you'd be wrong on all 3 i'm afraid

GreenTeaDisease

dunkman wrote:

i find that to be quite a judgmental post... it implies my house is dirty, i'm poor and my wife has stretchmarks.

you'd be wrong on all 3 i'm afraid

THAT was a joke.

Ms. Haiku

MattCameronKicksButt wrote:

Not EVERYBODY does have a choice...

True true, I was born with a heart disease. Some doctors say I'm high risk for complications, and others say I shouldn't have kids, period. I say FUCK 'EM! I'll run a marathon and show them what's what eh?

dunkman

GreenTeaDisease wrote:

THAT was a joke.

i'll be the judge of that i think you'll find

roar

feel blessed that it's even an option...others aren't as lucky.

Magstar

If you can handle them, having kids is cool. They tend to have such a neat perspective on life.

decides2dream

dunkman wrote:

my posts on this thread have been consistent... its up to other people if they want to have kids... its certainly not up to the OP to dissuade people from not having them... and my point is that they used the phrase ''questionable reasons' for having kids and i countered that there are 'questionable reasons' for NOT having kids... but it would never mean i'd try and dissuade someone from doing so just because i have them?

actually i have no idea why you were even debating that with me

so are mine. also respecting choice for all. and i think anyone can say what they like, whether anyone takes someone else's opinion/persuasion to heart is an entirely different matter ...and most definitely not on my agenda.

i was not 'debating' anything with you, i was merely asking you a question. as in, no matter what reasonable or lame-ass reason...or 'questionable reason' anyone may find for not wanting children that simply if that's how someone thinks/feels...dontcha think it's a good idea that those with such beliefs/reasons/whatever shouldn't reproduce? just as those who are so inclined to reproduce? i think more than anything, as i've said a few times...it's good to CHOOSE, either....and not leave it up to fate or lack of BC to make the decision for ya is all.



btw - for those mentioning for many there is 'no choice'...yes, yes there is. even if one cannot have a biological child, they can still adopt! it's still 'being a parent'...and raising a child no matter what!


anyhoo, i had postd my personal choice/opinion on the matter and was enjoying the few posts of other people's 'whys' for having, or not having, children. i was not at any time trying to get into a 'debate'.....people's life choices are always of interest to me.

GreenTeaDisease

decides2dream wrote:

btw - for those mentioning for many there is 'no choice'...yes, yes there is. even if one cannot have a biological child, they can still adopt! it's still 'being a parent'...and raising a child no matter what!

this was my first thought, however, when I gave it more thought, adoption can be prohibitably expensive and difficult to do. people on waiting lists to adopt from within the US may never have their name come up, and even when it does, legal issues can arise. to adopt from abroad is a means around these issues, however, it can be CRAZY expensive. I heard one adoptive parent cite a number like $45,000 (don't quote me on that and I'm sure it's highly variable) plus the trip to china/russia/guatemala,etc. Furthermore, singles and gays may be prevented from adopting in a number of countries.

Jeanie

GreenTeaDisease wrote:

this was my first thought, however, when I gave it more thought, adoption can be prohibitably expensive and difficult to do. people on waiting lists to adopt from within the US may never have their name come up, and even when it does, legal issues can arise. to adopt from abroad is a means around these issues, however, it can be CRAZY expensive. I heard one adoptive parent cite a number like $45,000 (don't quote me on that and I'm sure it's highly variable) plus the trip to china/russia/guatemala,etc. Furthermore, singles and gays may be prevented from adopting in a number of countries.

Along with people with illness.

TrixieCat

Jeanie wrote:

Along with people with illness.

And people on anti depression medication. Well, that is an illness...right?

roar

GreenTeaDisease wrote:

adoption can be prohibitably expensive and difficult to do. people on waiting lists to adopt from within the US may never have their name come up, and even when it does, legal issues can arise. to adopt from abroad is a means around these issues, however, it can be CRAZY expensive. I heard one adoptive parent cite a number like $45,000 (don't quote me on that and I'm sure it's highly variable) plus the trip to china/russia/guatemala,etc. Furthermore, singles and gays may be prevented from adopting in a number of countries.

exactly.

i was just adding that the ability to procreate is a pretty cool thing and it's something not everyone gets to experience...i wasn't talking about 'being a parent'.

MattCameronKicksButt

Jeanie wrote:

Along with people with illness.

That's all besides the point. I said it originally and I just meant, the poster said she couldn't so I was hoping people would be a little considerate instead of just jumping on her back. (Smilie because I don't feel like arguing. )

dunkman

decides2dream wrote:

so are mine. also respecting choice for all. and i think anyone can say what they like, whether anyone takes someone else's opinion/persuasion to heart is an entirely different matter ...and most definitely not on my agenda.

i was not 'debating' anything with you, i was merely asking you a question. as in, no matter what reasonable or lame-ass reason...or 'questionable reason' anyone may find for not wanting children that simply if that's how someone thinks/feels...dontcha think it's a good idea that those with such beliefs/reasons/whatever shouldn't reproduce? just as those who are so inclined to reproduce? i think more than anything, as i've said a few times...it's good to CHOOSE, either....and not leave it up to fate or lack of BC to make the decision for ya is all.



btw - for those mentioning for many there is 'no choice'...yes, yes there is. even if one cannot have a biological child, they can still adopt! it's still 'being a parent'...and raising a child no matter what!


anyhoo, i had postd my personal choice/opinion on the matter and was enjoying the few posts of other people's 'whys' for having, or not having, children. i was not at any time trying to get into a 'debate'.....people's life choices are always of interest to me.

i agree with everything you said... life's too short and i'm in a great mood.

bigbadbill

Urban Hiker wrote:

So people have or don’t have kids for many different reasons. I know a lot of people on here have kids who are the WORLD to them. That’s a done deal, nothing I can do about it except wish you happiness, fulfillment and the strength to get through the trying times.

But, why did you have kids? Did much thought go into to it? My mom used to pressure me into having kids, saying “Everything will work itself out. You have to have kids.” That never really sat right with me.

I’ve chosen not to have children for several different reasons.

-Money. Kids cost a lot.
-If dogs are work, I don’t even want to think about the effort a child requires.
-I like a lot of time to myself. Kids come with friends and their parents, sleepovers, parent-teacher conferences and just a lot of activity that would take away from my alone time.
-My family genes are fucked up, as are my husband’s. We don’t need that bullshit continued.
-Kids are loud! I like them fine in their place, like when they’re playing at the zoo – they’re delightful. But, as soon as some brat comes screaming into my place of work I think, “Holy shit! I think my fallopian tubes just tied themselves!” :eek:

There’s a website I love that examines people’s reasons for breeding and gives answers to each of those reasons. Some good food for thought.

Need a teaser to click?
Here’s one of my faves. Reason given: Want to see a little me Real Reason Self-absorption. Lack of ego gratification. Suggested Alternatives Order custom-made, life-like doll. Create a gratifying life of your own

Here’s the website: http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm ; scroll down about a third of the page for the reasons part.

For those who have decided NOT to have children, please share your reasons. For those who do have children, I'm really not looking for you defend yourself. But, you might take some time to think about the reasons you chose to breed.

Thanks!

Here's why I'm not having children (not to offend those that do have children):

The Cost of Kids November 12, 2007, 12:10AM EST text size: TT
Is Raising Kids a Fool's Game?
Parenting is fulfilling, but the financial burden can be overwhelming—and then there's the crimp it puts in your leisure time
by Karyn McCormack
Like many parents, I'm suffering from sticker shock. It's not just the $375 monthly tuition for preschool. (And that's for just three hours, two days a week; five full days would cost me $1,000.) Little things add up, like the school's solicitation to donate to their school in Africa and monthly dues for Scholastic Book Club (how could you say no?). The school even put a price tag on potty training: If my daughter, who will turn 3 in December, was not able to use the toilet by herself by the end of September, I'd be charged $100 a month until she achieved this milestone. (She did it, whew!)
I know preschool is paying off when I hear her spell her name and see her progress in other skills (she has become quite the negotiator). And you can't put a price tag on the appreciation for life that I've gained from her. In the end, all of the sweat and tears (and dwindling cash flow) must be worth it, right?
In her 1994 book Pricing the Priceless Child (Princeton University Press), Princeton University sociology professor Viviana Zelizer describes how in the 19th century, children were "economic assets" that contributed to farm work and other important tasks. Then, during the early 20th century, the U.S. established laws removing many children from hard labor, sparking the "rise of the economically useless and emotionally priceless child," Zelizer says.
"As children have become less of an economic issue and people have fewer children and wait longer to have them, children have become precious, not in a economic sense but in an emotional sense," says Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families & Work Institute, a nonprofit research organization in New York and author of Ask the Children (William Morrow, 1999). "Having children is a meaningful thing to do in life—it's not just passing on a legacy."
A Future Investment?
Parents are invested in children emotionally by being more involved in their lives, Galinsky says. There's also hope that children will return the care when their parents are older and need assistance. "There's much more interdependence now," she says. "You're investing in your own future relationship."
All of that sounds nice, but what's it going to cost me? The Agriculture Dept.'s latest survey found that households in the top-third income bracket (with average pretax income of $118,200) will spend $289,380 by their child's 18th birthday—or about $17,000 a year (in 2006 dollars).
Parents' largest expense is housing, which makes up roughly a third of expenditures, given that it costs more for a larger home in a town with good schools. In terms of growth, the outlays for child care and education have climbed from just 1% of overall expenses in 1960 (when the USDA started tracking these costs) to 10% in 2006. In 1960 education costs averaged around $362 per year (out of total expenses of $25,229 for middle income families). Health care is also sucking up more of parents' hard-earned cash given that premiums and co-payments have been rising, says USDA economist Mark Fino.
Indeed, the USDA survey is probably understating the cost of raising kids. Considering extras like sports equipment, summer camps, private school, Disney vacations, and a full-time nanny, raising a child through age 17 could cost $1 million or more. Some parents throw extravagant birthday parties and won't hesitate to buy their kids the latest video games and cell phones and splurge on Spanish and painting lessons.
The College Killer
Perhaps these big spenders aren't worried about the soaring cost of college—usually the biggest expense of all and one that's left out of the USDA's price tag (along with all other expenses after age 17). According to reports from the College Board, a private four-year college runs an average of $23,712 per year (up 6.3% from the 2006/07 school year), while a public four-year college costs $6,185 (up 6.6% from last year). The "good news," says the College Board, "is more than $130 billion in financial aid is available."
Then, after college, many parents are welcoming their children back home until they find a job. In fact, 25% of employed parents have kids aged 18 to 29 living in their home at least half the time. Parents contribute $2,200 annually (on average, in 2001 dollars) to children aged 18 to 34, according to a 2003 University of Pennsylvania study. This transition to adulthood "is a very risky period," says Arlene Skolnick, a visiting scholar at New York University and research scholar at Counsel on Contemporary Families.
"It's a period when people can fall into the cracks," Skolnick says, especially if they don't acquire high-level skills to earn at least a middle-class salary to survive on their own. (Whereas after World War II, high school graduates could usually find a decent job and achieve a middle-class life.) Children that earn a bachelor's degree stand to earn over 60% more than those with only a high school diploma, the College Board says. Over a lifetime, the gap in earning potential between a high school diploma and a B.A. is more than $800,000, it says.
Along with college, the USDA report doesn't count "indirect" costs such as leaving the workforce to care for a child. &quotStudies have estimated that indirect costs, such as foregone earnings, oftentimes exceed direct costs, especially if one parent has to drop out of the workforce," says Fino at the USDA. "Many parents forgo promotions to spend more time with their children."
On top of all that, growth in wages for U.S. workers has been minuscule or stagnant, while inflation has crept higher. Average hourly earnings rose just 0.7% last year after declining in 2005 and 2004, versus the peak annual growth rate of 4.1% for 1972, according to the Labor Dept. Meanwhile, prices for food, energy, and other goods keep rising, as measured by the 3.2% rise in the consumer price index last year.
A Lifestyle Choice
It's costs such as these that make 28-year-old Bahar Zaker in Syracuse, N.Y., want to put off having kids, maybe forever. "We can't imagine how we would manage the costs of kids," says Zaker, who has been married for three years to a philosophy professor and is finishing her thesis on French surrealist art at the University of California. One big hurdle for her is the price of education, and she questions whether it pays off. "The costs of education are going up, and you're not always sure the value of the education is going up with them," she says. But she also admits that not having kids is a lifestyle choice. "We both like to travel," she says.
As more young folks like Zaker delay or don't have children, birth rates in Japan, Russia, South Korea, all of Europe, and parts of Asia have fallen below the 2.1 children per woman needed for population growth. Many industrialized countries such as France have introduced or increased economic incentives such as tax breaks, longer maternity leaves, and cash bonuses to get women to have children.
These programs have had mixed results. One reason they may not work comes from Phillip Longman in his book The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It (Perseus Books Group, 2004). Now that "children no longer provide any economic benefit to their parents, but are rather costly impediments to material success, people well adapted to this new environment will tend not to reproduce," Longman writes. "And many others who are not so successful will imitate them, and for good reason." Families might choose to have only one child so they can afford to splurge on one while maintaining their own comforts of living (um, that would be me).
The U.S., on the other hand, still has a birth rate of 2 and a growing population, thanks to immigrants, who on average have higher birth rates (particularly among Hispanics). Still, a great portion of the U.S. population is aging. A low birth rate along with an aging population means there are fewer people of working age and more retirees, making the financing of Social Security and Medicare tougher because these funds for the elderly are raised through taxes on the working population, as in most nations, says Gary Becker, professor of economics at the University of Chicago and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
The problem, experts say, is that U.S. lawmakers and corporations aren't addressing many of the challenges facing families. Longman points to the continuing culture wars between work and family: "Everyone who wants to may join the paid labor force, but almost no one gets a family wage or enough help from government to defray the costs of raising children." He figures the critical moment will emerge during the next decade, "as millions of Baby Boomers start crashing past the boundaries of old age, and as today's teenagers find themselves saddled with massive student loans, rising taxes, and growing frustration over the difficulty of forming or affording a family."
The hope is that some savior will invent policies to ease parents' financial pain. "We need somebody somewhere to think of a new vision of what families can be," Skolnick says."People want to get past the family value wars."
Until then, as Longman puts it bluntly: "Child rearing is fast becoming a sucker's game. Though the psychic rewards remain, the economic returns to individual parents have largely disappeared, while the cost of parenthood is soaring."
Click here to join the debate on whether kids are worth the cost.
McCormack is senior producer for BusinessWeek.com's Investing channel