00childfreetime

TIME Magazine asks: Who needs kids, anyway?

00childfreetime

I miscarried my first child less than a month ago, so I see babies or lack of babies everywhere. When the latest issue of TIME arrived at my home (it was free, okay, shut up) with the words “THE CHILDFREE LIFE” emblazoned across the cover, I just sort of rolled my eyes. “When having it all means not having children,” read the sub-head. I looked at the cover photo of a young, relaxed couple lounging on the beach. The woman wore giant sunglasses and a little Mona Lisa smile that I guess is supposed to communicate her disdain for her uterus and her utter satisfaction with her size-4, cellulite-free, vacation-filled life.

Cover Photo Lady has lots of company: the American birth rate has literally never been lower in our recorded history. That includes the Great Depression, when people were too busy being Greatly Depressed to have babies. TIME tells us that the birth rate declined 9% between 2007 and 2011, which apparently is like whoa.

In other words, more and more American women are looking at the motherhood and saying, “You know what? No.” And after exploring the many reasons why women might decide not to procreate (and it’s usually looked at as a woman’s decision, not so much a man’s), TIME‘s Lauren Sandler decides that this is a pretty cool decision.

So what are the reasons? Unfortunately, they are painfully obvious and, in my openly biased opinion, tiresome. “Our lives are so great already.” “My mom had 16 kids and she was always tired and her life sucked.” “I wanna do what I wanna do.” “I’m afraid I would be such a devoted and awesome parent that everything else would suffer.” Et cetera.

But in some of the women interviewed for the article, there are – surprise, surprise! – hints of regret. Take Leah Clouse, a 27-year-old Knoxille, Tenn. woman who keeps a “baby box” in the closet “with a pink tutu she once bought for an imaginary infant girl.” Her explanation is that the box is “indulgent of a life I have to grieve. If we decided to have children, we’d have to grieve the life we currently have.”

And what life do they currently have? Leah “commits her time to working on her own creative projects and starting up a bakery.” Her husband writes a blog and works in customer service at a credit card-processing company. Ahem. Ahem hem.

Does anyone else feel like one day Leah and Paul might find the grief for the family they never had far outweighs their grief over blogging and baking?

Hey, it may sound nuts to me to give up the most creative project of all – baby-making – to write blogs and bake, but then that’s me. Who am I to judge? I am one of those rare pro-lifers who doesn’t believe in forcibly impregnating women with the seed of country music singers and Republican senators and replacing all their highfalutin’ books with Bibles and recipes. I know most of you are totally into that, but hey, not me.

Look: if you don’t want to have a kid, no one is forcing you to. But even when I try extremely hard to be objective, I can’t help but think some of the reasons couples give for avoiding parenthood are deeply, deeply lame.

And guess what! This means I’m dumb. At least that’s what Satoshi Kanazawa at the London School of Economics says. He has “begun to present scholarship asserting that the more intelligent women are, the less likely they are to become mothers.” But don’t hang your heads yet, Mom: many of his peers have found fault with those findings. (And may I add, again: surprise, surprise.)

Lest you start thinking the childfree life is all fun and games, it’s not. It gets lonely, especially in your 30s and 40s. I can attest to that, although I am not childfree by choice but because I was kind of a late bloomer when it comes to settling down and having kids. I wasn’t sure I wanted to be a wife and mother ’til I was in my late 20s. I spent most of that decade in creative pursuits and having both a lot of fun and a lot of decidedly not-fun. I’m sure my conversion, at age 28, to Catholicism from Semi-Pagan Agnostic Pantheist Hotmess-ism was instrumental in my recognition of my own desire for children.

 

That's right: before 2006, I was the spiritual equivalent of present-day Amanda Bynes.
That’s right: before 2006, I was the spiritual equivalent of present-day Amanda Bynes.

In any case, at nearly 34 and no children yet, I can tell you it is lonely. It’s hard to find friends who can hang out, and when they can hang out, it’s usually at their place with their kids. Even if you love kids, maybe especially if you love kids, that can be hard after a while.

But the childfree-by-choice have chosen their fate. They don’t want kids. So it’s hard for me to shed a tear for their loneliness. After all, that annoying idea that children are a blessing is as old as time. It’s biblical, in fact. So, when you deny something that’s pretty natural, you may have to – and I say this with gentleness and love - get an app that blocks your friends’ babies from showing up on your Facebook and replaces them with fast cars or kittens or whatever you like. Because apparently that is a thing. And that thing kind of says it all.

See, some women claim they don’t have a maternal instinct. And maybe some truly don’t. But is that always an inborn characteristic – or lack thereof – or is it a result of living in a culture that is increasingly self-obsessed? This is a selfie society. Young people are being taught to share the highlight reel of their lives via Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest, and kind of marvel at their own brand. In another time, all that oohing and aaahing would be directed at our children, not at ourselves.

Although Sandler’s article is dismissive of branding childfree-by-choice women “selfish,” I think she may be lacking objectivity. Whether it’s bad or wrong or what, it is most definitely selfish. “It takes all of you, and I don’t know that I want to give it all,” said Leah Clouse of motherhood. Simple as that.

Furthermore, in my experience, there is far more of an anti-religion, anti-family, counter-cultural attitude to many of these women’s choices than TIME feels the need to explore. “Babies scare me more than anything,” says radical fauxminist Margaret Cho, in a delicious display of the pot calling the kettle scary.

"Look in the mirror, lady." - Babies
“Look in the mirror, lady.” – Babies

I have known many young women who are self-described feminists, radicals, or liberals who delighted in disdaining babies and children and the desire to have them. In fact, in my 20s, I was one of those. Very deep down, I wanted children even back then. But in the circles I ran with, of actors and artists and filmmakers and punk rockers, wanting a baby was a weakness. It was for mainstreamers and sell-outs and church people. If you did have a baby, it was after getting pregnant by accident and considering abortion.

The article does not touch on how many of the couples interviewed use hormonal birth control to maintain their childfree existence, but I’d guess it’s a lot. I’d imagine there have been tubal ligations and vasectomies, too, and to be honest, the thought of human beings sterilizing themselves like animals irks me, and I don’t care if that makes me a lame church person. And of course, many people who insist on remaining childless have “oopsy-daisy” moments that lead to abortion. In other words, they’re not willing to sacrifice their comfort or convenience for a child, but they have no problem sacrificing a child for their comfort and convenience.

Still, if all these people were remaining childfree using a technique such as Natural Family Planning that didn’t end even the teensiest-weensiest human life, I’d probably still be bothered by it. (And, yes, it is okay to feel bothered by something other people do, even while accepting their right to do it.)

I’m all about people finding their own way and choosing their own happiness, but I find it difficult to believe that none of these people are going to wish they’d made a different decision. And that bothers me for them. I read between the lines of Leah Clouse’s interview, I picture her hiding her “baby box” in her closet, and I anticipate pain, regret, and loss. She already describes her feelings as “grief.”

It boils down to this: I’ve met lots of people who regretted not having children, but I have never met a single one who regretted her child.

  • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew

    So sorry to hear about your miscarriage. Praying that you are blessed with all the children God wants you to have.

    • Hope

      Hopefully when her own children decide not to have children she has gotten over the “who am I to judge, but i’m judging you anyway” BS.

      • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew

        Go troll a grizzly bear. It’ll give you a lot more fun of a reaction.

  • Alexandra

    My in-law-family is full of babies. THEY are the ones laying on the beach, taking cruises, and visiting other countries on vacation. My husband and I are childless and are unable to take a single day off of work in any given week. Take a step back and observe the world past your circle of friends and “Time” magazine. And Facebook. Please d not base any of this off of Facebook postings.

    Oh, and my painfully obvious and tiresome reason for not having kids? Going through labor would probably kill me.

    As for adoption, not everyone gets approved by the state.

  • Lilian Stoltzfus

    Well said, Kristen. Hey, if a girl doesn’t want babies, then she doesn’t need to get ‘em.

    And the baby-havers judge the baby-lackers and the baby-lackers judge the baby-havers. It’s easy to judge when people make decisions so different from my own beliefs. Doesn’t mean I should, mind, but it’s easy.
    I’ll admit that a disdain for pregnancy and babies rubs me the wrong way. You despise that end of the human reproductive cycle so much, why not despise the penetration and ejaculation and orgasm bit? Why do you think we’re geared to find that so pleasurable? And disliking babies is disliking an entire category of people – when is any other form of that politically correct or trendy?

    People who like to stay up late are also more likely to have higher intelligence. But that is merely a trend – not all morning people are dumber than all the night people, and likewise not all mothers are dumber than all of the childless ones.

  • Mary Lee

    I knew a couple who made the conscious decision to not have children. They were really, really wonderful, gentle, intelligent, funny, and generous people. They felt it wasn’t right for them. They dote on their nephews and nieces, and love children, but believe they aren’t called to be parents. I respect that. It isn’t really my place to judge. I know another woman who, again, adores her nieces and nephews, but decided to not have a child. She is now 50 years old, and is quite happy.

    Then again, I’ve known women who seem to be incredibly selfish, and then had a child, and turned out to be excellent mothers (motherhood mellowed them and centered them).

    As a pro-lifer, I have no argument for those who wish to remain childless, as long as they are not aborting the children they might conceive. If they are simply taking measures against conception, then, yes, that is a valid and non-destructive decision.

    And if a 27 year old girl says she doesn’t want children, well. Let’s take that with a grain of salt, shall we? It’s possible she may change her mind, and it’s possible she may not. That is for her to decide.

    • Ellen

      That’s what I was thinking when I read that. 27?? You REALLY know you NEVER want children EVER at the ripe old age of 27?

      • Winona

        I did. Well, I actually knew long before that. I’m 50 now – still sure. Might I have changed my mind? Maybe, but I was pretty sure I wouldn’t. Might I have regrets in the future? Maybe, but regrets are just another part of life. If I do, the burden will be mine and mine alone.

      • Em

        My best friend knew at 14. In her late 30′s, she is still sure. She still cannot find a doctor who will sterilize her because of the belief that women cannot possibly make those decisions themselves.

        • Winona

          Maybe she should get a note from her dad. 8^)

      • Logic

        Then I hope you think 27 is also too young to decide that one DOES want children? If it’s socially acceptable for an 18 year old to want and have children, then why is a 27 year old not old enough to know themselves, decide that they don’t want children, and not have them? But if that same 27 year old decided they did want kids, then why would their desire/choice suddenly be more valid? Is it because it’s something you want yourself?

    • Lilian Stoltzfus

      Very well said, Mary Lee. People need to make their own choices regarding this issue.

      If people make these decisions intelligently, that is good. The decision to conceive and raise a child should NOT be made lightly. Nor should the decision not to raise a child.

    • Basset_Hound

      One of my husband’s brothers and his wife never had any children either. As long as the choice to remain childless isn’t enforced by abortion, I’ve got no problem with it either.

    • B.

      27 year old girl? Girl?!? Really?

      The great majority of human beings are biologically mature by the time they hit 17 — a full decade ahead of the “girlish” age you mention. As for intellectual maturity that varies a lot with the individual, but in my experience most people reach their intellectual prime around 20.

      So yeah, a 27-year old may change her mind later in life and still procreate, but that does not diminish in any way the decisions she chose for herself at 27 or any time before that.

      • Mary Lee

        I call myself “girl.” I’m 37.

        Holy cow. Overreact much?

        • Em

          Some women object to being infantilized. Understandably.

          • ByChoiceNotByForce

            Yes, I stopped being a “girl” at 17. Women are called “girls” for much of their lives but men are rarely called boys. The exception is when men are characterized as silly such as “boys will be boys.”
            I am amused that people believe a 27 year old cannot determine her own outcomes. When is someone old enough to do so? If the people in this comments section encountered a 27 year old who was trying to have children, would they tell that woman, “you are ONLY 27…you are not old enough to want and have a child…you will change your mind…wait….”
            It would make more sense that bringing another life into this world would warrant such a response. But it does not. In fact, little girls are able to express the joys of marriage and children as early as 5 without being told they are too young to look forward to such things. Of course, they are told to wait until they are older to attain those things but they are not told to wait until they are older to determine they wish to attain those things.
            I, on the other hand, tell children to wait until they are older before they begin aspiring toward marriage and/or children. We are social creatures but we also have brains and thought processes. I want people to learn early on that they do not have to mindlessly mirror what society is showing them. We are not ants.

          • Em

            If a 27 year old is too immature to determine even whether she wants a baby, why would people suggest she should be responsible for another human being? Caring for a child properly requires maturity and wisdom.

          • disqus_lcgocZ8O6h

            I know right?! Sheesh! I was married the fall of the year I graduated highschool. I wanted to be married and move forward in my life, I didn’t need to go to college or sleep with multiple men or party like a rock start to find myself or become “mature”. We bought our first house and both worked full time and my husband went to school. We waited to have children after he finished school. I got pregnant about 5 yrs after we were married. I have a 7 yr old and a 4 yr old and have been married for 13 yrs today. I am 31.

            Hardly a “girl”. I’ve been a WOMAN for a long time!

            Most women 100-200 yrs ago would be considered “old” women by now and would have already mastered and conquered so much and would already be the upcoming wise women of their community. Today it’s hard to find any “wise” souls under 50. Everyone is so immature and self centered today.

    • Old time Preacher

      Birth control pills abort about 3 children per year in the average woman. http://www.biblicaltruth.info/Articles/Birth%20Control.htm

  • Carolyn Svellinger

    You rock. This IS a selfie society. One that doesn’t even discuss the family or the hard truths of parenting. This society glosses over it because everything is all about ME and no one else, because taking care of someone else? Ew.
    This is the conversation that needs to happen, how can we serve one another? Not, “How can we swerve”? I’m right with you, though, I never wanted kids. never felt a single iota of maternal instinct, right up until I gave birth to my first son. Ballgame changed.
    Thank you for your words!

    • Anthony Stanley

      This “selfish” thing does not make sense to me. How do I owe an obligation of any kind to a child that I have not concieved? Do I owe some obligation to you to validate the choice you made? Do I owe an obligation to someone else to have a child? Where is the obligation that I am “swerving” by choosing a childless life?

      Serious question.

      • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew

        You don’t have to avoid an obligation to be selfish. That’s exactly the point Kristen made in her article. The choice these people are making is inherently selfish because they’re making it for their own comfort and convenience. That’s not necessarily bad, but it is selfish.

        • Anthony Stanley

          First off, thank you for posting a thoughtful response to my question, Andrew.

          But, the author makes no bones about her bias. And acting in a “selfish” way is defined as considering one’s own wants and needs excessively and/or to the exclusion of others.

          “Selfish” is, by definition, and the tone of the author, a negitave state. Furthermore, what makes it negative, is that it excludes the condideration of the needs of others.

          So, again I ask, what is the need of a child that has not been concieved? It is someone elses need that I am inconsiderate of? If there is no one existant, that has a need that I am excluding from consideration, then why not just say that these individuals are focused on thier own lives without the negative association of being selfish? Who would have a problem with someone with no obligation to a person that does not exist, excluding the non-existant’s person’s non-existant needs from consideration?

          • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew

            “Who would have a problem with someone with no obligation to a person that does not exist, excluding the non-existant’s person’s non-existant needs from consideration?”

            Ah… but the people themselves are considering and excluding those needs with their answers to TIME. Kelsey explains it well above.

            It’s kind of like a rich business person these days. They are generally perceived as selfish unless they give tons of money to charity, even though they earned that money and have no obligation to share it. Parents who don’t “want” kids are the same. (note: I’m not talking about parents who legitimately should not have kids because of financial hardship, health issues, etc.)

          • Anthony Stanley

            Hello Andrew. Can you please explain what you mean by this:

            “Ah… but the people themselves are considering and excluding those needs with their answers to TIME. Kelsey explains it well above.”

            I have re-read the article twice and do not understand what you are explaining here. But, I am tired, and it may just be my inability to grasp the concept.

            As for the rich business person analogy, I would not have chosen that one. That individual does have real people with existant needs and obligations to them. This person, assumably, has employees, a community from which they get support, public roads, a family to provide for, vendors and suppliers, coustomers, a network of business associates, a board to answer too, shareholders or investors, etc. They may have competeing needs, or needs contridictary to thier own that must be balanced to achieve a sustainable life. Not to mention that there are whole schools of thought that would take significant issue with the point that the business person is under no obligation to share the money. Marxist economics would be one differing point of view. Various religious teachings, including those of Christ, would also disagree.

            My point is that the painting of individuals as “selfish” if they don’t want to have children is undefendable, unless you believe that they have an obligation to someone or something outside of themselves to do so. I suspect that many think the obligation is to the potential child, or a dieity that wishes it so. If the society was underpopulated, I could understand (but not agree) with the possibility of an obligation to the species or community. But, if not these things, to what or whom is this obligation owed?

          • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew

            It’s odd to me that you can see how a business person owes money to others who have done nothing to earn it (I’m not disagreeing, mind you), and go into detail explaining why, but you can’t fathom why a married couple should consider sharing what they have.

            “Not to mention that there are whole schools of thought that would take significant issue with the point that the business person is under no obligation to share the money.”

            Right, just like there are whole schools of thought that would take significant issue with the point that a married couple is under no obligation to have children. That was my point. As you said yourself, “various religious teachings, including those of Christ, would also disagree.”

            [Context: Jesus is walking to his death]

            28 Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ 30 Then

            “‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!”
            and to the hills, “Cover us!”‘

            31 For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

            Luke 23:28-31

          • Anthony Stanley

            I agree with you that the Christian Bible teaches a moral obligation to be fruitful and multiply. No arguement there from me. In fact, in the Midwest US, where I live, the moral imperitive to do so is stongly held by the majority (who identify as Christian) and supported from the Christian world-view as decribed by a fairly literal reading of the biblical text.

            I will restate my original question for clarity, as I tend to get off topic once I get going :)

            To whom or what are childless couples obligated to have a child. My position is that they owe no such obligation, since the only obligation I can think of would be to themselves, each other, or a potential, but heretofore non-existant child. I was asserting that it was unjust to label these couples “selfish” if they were not avoiding a valid obligation to someone or something outside of themselves.

            So, I was soliciting ideas on what obligation I could be missing in my thought process. My goal was to inform my position with ideas from others that have points of view that I did not consider.

            If the anser to my question is, “They owe an obligation to God.” or “They owe an obligation to thier future selves, who may one day regret not having a child when they could.”, then I have my answer.

            If there is some other rationle, I would like to hear it. If I have incorrectly intrepreted the replies, I would like to be better informed. I have no desire to constuct strawmen, as you do not learn anything that way.

            Thank you for indulging me with my questions. It is rare and valuable for a commentor on a website to be so generious with thier time. I know I have no claim to your attention. Thank you for offering it.

          • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew Ensley

            I think you do have your answer. Really, the simplest answer I can give you is that I believe “they owe an obligation to God.” God has the best plan for our lives, better than any we could possibly imagine ourselves, and He’s given us quite a few instructions on how to live that plan out. That’s the biggest reason I know of to do anything. All the other reasons are valid and supporting, but they are not as important as that reason.

          • Anthony Stanley

            Thank you for your honest answer.

            I think that this is really what sets me ill-at-ease with the line of reasoning that most follow when they express displeasure/distain for the childless-by-choice decision. I can understand if someone says, “You might wish you had, latter.” And, I can understand someone who is very happy as parent projecting onto to childless couple, unable to see that a childless life can also be a fufiling, meaningful, and valuable life.

            I would go further and say, that if future regret is your worry, worry not. You may just as well regret having missed out on a childless life. At any rate, the only one you would be neglecting is your own, and you spouse’s potential selves – at some point in the future. But, truth be told, we make those kind of opportunity cost decisions all the time. All of them have associated risks and rewards. So, I don’t believe it is the real source of the impulse to call childless couples “selfish”.

            But, I do understand where that impulse would come from if the person you are speaking to honestly believes you oue your children to thier god. I think, regardless of the fact that the objector may or may not realize that this is where the objection comes from, this is a reasonable assumption to make.

            But, I will not live my life beholden to the gods of mankind. I once did. In my younger days, I was an evalgelical Christian. But, God could not survive my attempts to know him better. I searched, I read, I prayed, I confessed and strove to do better. I researched, and finally I came to understand that thier was simply no compelling evidence for any gods, that any wishful thinking ever manifested itself in miricle, or that all of the passion and presence I once felt could not be explained simply by reading a few elementary psycology textbooks.

            I was not devistated, I was liberated. I have been happier in my last 7 years of life than in my previous 38 or so in Christ.

            But, that is just my witness, if you will forgive the co-opting of the phrase. I understand how comforting the Christian world view is, but I would rather take on the responsibility of knowing what part of the universe I can (with my limited vantage point and finite capacity) as it actually exists.

            So, I would thank Christians if they would enjoy thier faith without constantly trying to “save me” from the lack of it. I view my non-existant obligation to a non-existant child the same way as I view my non-existant obligation to a non-existant god. And, It seems, that no one has been able to put forth a stronger point for me to consider on the issue of childless-by-choice couples.

          • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew Ensley

            First, thank you for being so respectful in your comments and taking the time to explain your position. Truly, it’s helped me understand you better.

            I’m sorry you didn’t find what you were looking for in the Church.

            “I would thank Christians if they would enjoy thier faith without constantly trying to “save me” from the lack of it.”

            There are a lot of zealous Christians out there (I’d like to think I’m one of them) who can often let their enthusiasm get in the way of prudence and wisdom. It’s an honest mistake, and it’s only because they care that they are so vocal.

            If any Christian truly believes the Word of God, they believe that He is the only hope of salvation and healing. That’s a good reason to share the message and try to show people the joy and hope that we’ve found.

            I know it probably means nothing to you now, but I hope you’ll take this at least as a well meaning gesture: I’ll be praying for you Anthony; you and your family.

          • Anthony Stanley

            Thank you, Andrew. I do take the gift of your prayer in the spirit in which it is offered. Though I would say, if there was a personal god who could intercede at your behest, I would wonder why he never did as I beseeched him for those many years. Perhaps I was simply not part of his plan.

            Your point about the compulsion to share the “Good News” is well understood by me. I once took many an aquantance down the “Roman Road” with uncritical abandon.

            “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” – Mark 16:15

            Of course, you see it throughout the New Testament. Matt 28:19, Acts 1:8, and so on. Christianity is an evangelical religion by design – as it would need to be – competing as it did against the dominant Judaism of the region at that time. I will also give it credit for being a radical, progressive, early attempt at socialism. For the time, in the occupied, bronze-age culture in which it emerged, it was quite disruptive and progressive.

            That credit has limits, however. Jesus clearly had “some good news and some bad news.” His social teachings, while primitive, were an improvement on what was commonly accepted at that time, by those peoples. But, with the “good news” of eternal redemption, he also introduced an entirely new concept of a hell of unspeakable eternal torment for those who did not get with his new program – the ultimate carrot and stick.

            I won’t go on about the existence or non-existence of God (I use the capitalized spelling for clarity when referring specifically to the personal, intercessory, Abrahamic, monotheistic characterization of this particular god – Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, Elohim). This is not the thread for it, and it was not the intention of my original question.

            But, given that I have really enjoyed our conversation, I would be happy to continue it elsewhere if you are interested. I certainly am.

          • patriciacarrasco

            please dont think im jusging just sharing my experience to see if can relate….maybe….u were in a “spiritual wilderness” or “desert” for a time…maybe God was testing to see if u really loved Him (im sure u did)…God is very mysterious and doesnt act the way we think He should…not judging u at all but i was kind of an atheist for a lot of my life after looking for Him and needing Him so desperately and thinking He just didnt care….yet God showed up in my life BIG TIME and now i know He was always there and because of my terrible experience of looking for Him and not “finding” Him, to know He was always there…it makes me appreciate Him so much more…i know He was there in the midst of all my problems…Hes so real to me now

          • Anthony Stanley

            Patricia,

            I appreciate your comment. It is not those who genuinely wish me well, but with whom I disagree, that I take issue with. Nor, can I be overly judgmental, given that I was once a evangelical myself. I have a great deal of empathy for that position, though I am now glad to be past it. I take offense when those who believe claim a divine authority over my affairs, or the common civil society we all have to share.

            I think you misunderstand the cause of my despair. I once would have said that I absolutely felt his presence. I always, certainly, felt the fear of his judgment. It is a seriously heavy trip to lay on someone that a all-powerful, omniscient, holy deity created you personally and expects your perfection to match his own. Dispute his declared capability to do otherwise, he created you with a fatal flaw that assured that you could never, by your own abilities, live up to those expectations. And then, he sent his son to Earth as a man to prove to you that only he, himself could live the way he expects from you, as if to further illustrate the point.

            That is the bad news, but here is the good news: He, as his own son, brings you a great gift and opportunity. If you accept what he says, and put your whole being into it, he will accept your scapegoating of a faultless man (himself) and personal capability for the attendant ritualistic, unjust human sacrifice, as absolution for your flawed soul (that he himself created). You will get to live for eternity in worship and praise of him knowing every millisecond of eternity that you are entirely indebted to him for *loving* you so much as to put you through it in the first place.

            Of course, if you don’t – unspeakable misery and unimaginable torture THAT WILL NEVER END awaits you behind door number two. – That’s the GOOD news…

            My despair is that I did believe this for a long time. My despair is that I spread this vile proposition to the people I loved and cared about. My despair is that even though I could not reconcile this obvious paradox with my rational mind, I shut it off and proceeded on “faith alone”.

            If a human father did this to their human child, we would rightly call him a monster. We would not let “faith” or the compiled and heavily edited scrawlings of the oral stories of bronze-age sheep headers blind us to the obvious injustice of it, or excuse ourselves of our obligation to speak against the evil of it’s regressive effects on humanity.

            My despair was that I allowed myself to be deluded into thinking that this was the only moral thing to do. The conflict between what my rational mind was screaming, and the strength it took to suppress those thoughts as heretical, or as the “influence of this world, ruled by the prince of this world”, exhausted me. So, I went through a second conversion experience, where I decided that I would go where reason and evidence took me.

            So, now I am as free as any human mind can be. I am still guilty of having been deceived by some well-intentioned and some not-so-well intentioned people into believing without evidence so damaging a belief. I now strive to learn the unknowns; indeed admit that they exist. In a world where God is mysterious, irrational to our mind, and has a plan that we are not equipped to understand, that drive to learn is extinguished – and sometimes punished by death. It is no coincidence that those old stories tell us that man’s original sin was to eat of the tree of knowledge and assume to know the mind of God.

            Now, here is the actual good news:

            There seems to be no credible evidence that we are actually in such a pickle. You do not get to live forever, and there is no divine dictator that has every moral choice answered for you – no thought required.

            Instead, you get to actually BE moral. You get to take credit for, and live with the consequences of, your actions. You can be a moral person FOR IT’S OWN SAKE. Not because you live in fear of punishment, or hope for eternal reward for living with the honesty, integrity, curiosity, agency, passion, empathy and love you should strive for god or no. You only have one life to live, indeterminate and finite. So, you had better get crackin’ if you want to leave the world better than you found it. You have obligations to those around you and everyone you share the Earth’s resources with. Reason, evidence, empathy, and love are much better guides and tools for navigating that life than any holy book.

            It has become clear to me that the first admonition is the one that should concern believers most. When you eat of the tree of knowledge, you realize that god has no power over you; you crated your own god in your own mind.

          • Em

            A businessman’s workers are hardly people who do nothing. They are the reason for his wealth and are as entitled to it as he is.
            Comparing nonexistent children to real workers is disrespectful of workers and shows a strange bias in which you prefer hypothetical people to real ones.

          • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew Ensley

            I never said a business man shouldn’t pay his workers. I was talking strictly about charitable donations to people/organizations other than his own. That is generally expected of any person with more wealth than they need.

            I also said that I don’t disagree with that mindset. I actually do think we are supposed to give our excess to others, even people who have literally done nothing to earn it (the government’s involvement in that is another discussion altogether).

            Please read more carefully before attacking a strawman.

          • Em

            There was no strawman and no attack. I was explaining why businessmen who have become wealthy from the labor of others are indeed obligated to use some of that money for good.

          • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew Ensley

            You said my comment (which wasn’t mine, but your misinterpretation of it) was disrespectful of workers. It wasn’t.

            You said I showed a bias in which I prefer hypothetical people to real people. I didn’t, and I don’t.

          • Em

            Claiming disrespect and bias is neither a strawman nor an attack.

          • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew Ensley

            Yeah… ok. I think you just like disagreeing with people.

          • Em

            Is that what you say to everyone you disagree with? I hope you see the irony at least.

          • Elizabeth517

            I think you have a point, Anthony. I am also a recent convert to Catholicism and when you enter into that worldview you start to see having children as a God-given, mystical responsibility. But for someone who doesn’t subscribe to that worldview, that makes zero sense. I remember how that felt.

            However, you could also say that not having children is selfish because it is bad for society. If the birthrate falls below replacement rate, there are consequences down the line, as the aging population starts to outnumber the youthful population that’s entering the workforce, paying into Social Security, adding money to the economy. There are economic reasons that European countries are desperately trying to get their birthrates back up, basically paying young couples to have babies and whatnot. We’re staring at the same future now.

          • Anthony Stanley

            I understand the issues Europe is having with maintaining a viable population base. You are correct that they are facing some difficult issues there.

            But, we are no where near that point here as the census data shows. We have manifested a liner population growth since 1875 that is evidenced by the chart here:

            http://www.census-charts.com/Population/pop-us-1790-2000.html

            So, I recognize the obligation to society to produce children. But, that dosen’t seem to be a pressing issue in the US.

            In fact, there is a compelling counter-arguement tied in with labor wages that tracks individual income growth with productivity growth (as measured by GDP) in the US. It makes the point that the US had a historical labor sortage before 1975 that resulted in wage increases that roughly increased in parity with GDP growth. Since that time, real wages (those adjusted for inflation) have been statistically flat, while increases in productivity achieved by computers and telecomunnication technology and industrial automation, and decreases in labor costs caused by moving labor-intensive industries to countries where labor is cheaper, have created an economy where adding more people at our current rate can only lead to wage depression, increased crime, and increased need for social services at the expense of the very taxpayers this condition effects most.

          • Anthony Stanley

            Oh, I am sorry I did not mention this in the other reply to your comment.

            Thank you for acknoledging that those who do not hold religious belief are not obligated to respond to that rationale for having children. I do appreciate you expressing that point of view.

            Thank you.

          • Em

            We are so far from birth rates being below replacement. In fact, our birth rates might be the end of human life as we know it. The breeders (and I am one of them) are far more selfish in this regard.

          • john

            in russia and other eastern european counties there is an underpopulation crisis to the point where they will pay couples to have children. economists in that area of the world are predicting an even greater economic crash because of the lack of people to work.

          • VictoriaGA

            Thanks for mentioning societal concerns, Elizabeth. Everyone thinks about having children in purely individualistic terms… “We do or don’t personally want children.” But what they are actually saying is, “I want someone else to shoulder the costs and responsibilities for raising the children who will be my doctors, lawyers, firefighters, police officers, farmers, shopkeepers, and all the other caretakers I need now and will need as I get older, while I spend all my time and money on me.” They don’t stop to think that if other people make the same decisions, we won’t have enough doctors, lawyers, etc. to take care of people. And the few caretakers we may have can charge exorbitantly for their services, which means only the richest will have care.

          • Anthony Stanley

            Victoria,

            If insuffient total numbers of people to fill these roles in society were at issue, or the issue was the cost, avalibilty, and quality of education, I would agree with your point.

            However, our birth rate is in no danger of falling below the threshold to maintain a viable population. In fact, as a species, we are approaching the opposite end of that specrtum and will be increasingly running into the natural limiters of our habitat.

            No one is sugesting that everyone should stop reproducing. I think allmost everyone acknowledges that fact.

            The question at issue in this article is this:

            “Are childless-by-choice couples selfish.” I have not found a satisfying arguement that they are.

      • kelsey

        It is like saying I would rather spend all my time and money on my self. Why should I share it with a child. You don’t have an obligation, you are willing choosing to not share what you have. Hopefully this makes sense :)
        Good question

        • Anthony Stanley

          But, I am not choosing be selfish with my child. I would have no child with needs to negelect. That is like saying it would be selfish not to share food with my neighbor in need, except I live on a deserted island by myself. If I had no neighbor, how can I be selfish if I do not share with them? Wilson dosen’t count! LOL

          • Noelle

            Continuing in this vein, saying “Childless parents need to have children or else they’re selfish!” is like saying “you’ve got so many coconuts and king crabs on your deserted island, you should get another guy on your island so that you can share your food with them, or else you’re selfish!”

        • Winona

          Well, I DO share what I have. Just not with a kid of my own.

  • Hannah Mallery

    As a mother of one toddler, with another one of those scary babies on the way, (insert chuckle) there is no way to have it all, as Time seems to be claiming.
    I often wonder how much of this “having it all” idea just comes down to image. You want to have a cool job, show off your latest Instagrammed vacation, go out to a fancy party or dinner without worrying about a sitter, wear clothes that aren’t smeared with snot at any given time, but at the end of the day, what does it really matter except to impress other people?
    I think investing in the life of another human being ultimately outweighs all those things. Children are seen more and more as a barrier to happiness, but that simply isn’t true.
    As you said, not every woman has to have children,but it’s sad that not having children has become so invariably interchangeable with not liking children.

    • Lilian Stoltzfus

      People out there who truly do not think raising a family is your thing? Okay. They don’t have to raise a family. Having kids is hardly something that should be done lightly, anyway.

      But it bothers me when people claim to hate children. How can that sentiment even be permitted in this PC society?

    • Mary Lee

      Yeah…I don’t think anyone (male of female) can ever “have it all.” What does that mean? And once you get it, then what? Then what?

      My one rule about our decisions is: Don’t kill anyone. As long as you aren’t killing anyone, then it’s up to you to decide what you want and don’t want and then change your mind and regret it or nor regret it.

    • Melissa Richard Hall

      WELL SAID HANNAH! (APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE!)
      From a mommy of a 3 yr. old (daughter) & a 3 month old (son)
      ! =) =)=)=)=)

  • James

    What about nuns? They don’t have children, but I would hardly call them self-obsessed.

    What about women who have no particular desire to marry or opportunity to marry during their reproductive years?

    • Ellen

      How many Nuns were interviewed for that Time article? Nuns give up marriage to devote their lives to Jesus and the world at large. These “childfree by choice” folks aren’t giving up sex to serve the poor and pray 10 hours a day.

    • Ginnie

      Nuns are “married” to God, and thus dedicate their lives to serving those in the Church, sometimes focusing on one group such as the poor. They live celibate lives as a way to totally dedicate their lives to serving others and God in every way possible, so I hardly see that as “selfish”.

      And I don’t think single women (or men for that matter) are being included in this article, since this mainly focuses on married, childless couples.

      • James

        My point is that having children or not is not necessarily the mark of selfishness or unselfishness for women and that plenty of good unselfish women may not want children.

        • Grace Daigler

          James, are you a Catholic? This isn’t a slam or said to be mean, but the Church has given us so much documentation about how marriage is meant to be entirely open to life, and if the couple is not open to having children, they are not really getting married. It is grounds for an annulment, which means the marriage is invalid. This is because the purpose of marriage is making a family, and because to not be open to life is to contracept the meaning of marriage. It is not only a mark of selfishness, but a mark of not understanding marriage. Again, that isn’t said to ruffle feathers, but I notice you are coming from a Catholic standpoint, talking about nuns, and this is what the Catholic Church says. If you are going to abstain from family-making, you have to abstain from sex and marriage as well.

          • James

            Yes, I am Catholic. I also purposely did not address marriage.

            There seems to be the implication that people who don’t have children are selfish, without qualifying whether they are single or married.

            Marriage is a vocation. Not everyone is called to marriage and some people are not called to marriage until past their reproductive years. Even within marriage, family sizes will differ, and not necessarily because of contraception. The idea that all Catholics must marry and have large Catholic families goes beyond what the Church actually teaches.

          • Grace Daigler

            I don’t think anyone here expressed the idea that all Catholics must marry and have large families. The article is about married women though who wish to have no children. And that is what we are discussing. To draw upon people who have vocations other than marriage (nuns) and say that not wanting children isn’t necessarily selfish then is really a misnomer. You are talking about a different topic than the subject of the article. It is selfishness for a married woman. It can happen to us all, and it doesn’t mean the person is a “bad” person, but that particular desire as a married person to not have children is a temptation of selfishness, and a misunderstanding of what marriage is.

          • James

            That’s funny because I saw a unmarried woman on twitter very angry that she was judged as being selfish for not getting married and having children.

            I didn’t read the article as being limited to married women, but as being applied to all women who choose not to have children, which is wrong.

          • Grace Daigler

            … Like I said… I don’t think anyone HERE expressed the idea that all Catholics must marry and have large families. Some people do have vocations to be single or to be consecrated to the Lord and not have children. But I really don’t see that as the point of this article. She is not insulting women who are called to do other things. You are not addressing this article. The author says, “I can’t help but think some of the reasons couples give for avoiding parenthood are deeply, deeply lame.” She isn’t saying all people who chose not to have children are being selfish. But she IS saying that a lot of the reasons she has heard are lame, and she is tired of the promotion of childlessness in the media. She is basically making a commentary on the social push for barrenness and telling us she thinks women are being tricked into giving up something that is supposed to be a joy, not a burden. It is a commentary on how society has started to look at children as primarily burdensome, which is wrong.

  • Jeffrey Weiss

    Very well written. My only quibble is with your kicker. Those folks are out there and not all that hard to find. And those who are at least ambivalent are even easier to find.

  • Ksong

    “Hey, it may sound nuts to me to give up the most creative project of all – baby-making – to write blogs and bake, but then that’s me. Who am I to judge?”

    I hate the whole “who am I to judge” disclaimer, because that’s exactly what you’re doing. I don’t know why this is still even a debate – if you’ve chosen to have children, then that is what’s right for your family, and those that have decided against, that is what they’ve chosen and feels right for them.

    I also don’t understand why they’re lonely, if they’re childless. Does being childless mean you have the inability to make friends?

    Your own opinion on having children is just that, your opinion. Not every one feels the urge to procreate. And not everyone that is child-free disdains children/pregnancy, etc. I’d like to believe that most have decided they enjoy the life they live, or just don’t feel the call to parenting. Again, it’s up to each couple.

    I don’t know much about the so-called research asserting claims of intelligence levels based on motherhood, but to me that seems crazy. You can be a moron with or without kids.

    The main point should be – why is it so necessary to constantly scrutinize the decisions of others and the choices they’ve made for themselves?

    • Sanya

      Well, I think it’s fine if people don’t want to have kids, but then they probably shouldn’t be having sex, because the purpose of sex is to procreate, not indulge in self pleasure.

      • Anthony Stanley

        Why do you think the exclusive purpose of sex is to procreate? Is self-indulgement a problem when not taken to the point where it neglects the needs of others? What is your basis for this statement?

  • Tracy C.

    I’m now quite conservative and pro life, but I spent decades buying into the “no kids are cool” lie. By the time I finally married and settled down, it was too late. WAY too late. BTW, years of BC pills rendered me effectively sterile, for a variety of reasons. I don’t really care what women who have kids think of me, I just really wish this “You can have it all” BS would die out. You can’t. I watch them struggle so mightily with careers and kids, but at the end of the day, the kids (should) win. I am happily married, with a thriving career, but I wish I’d taken a longer look at things in my 20′s.

  • JiggyWithIt

    no one will ever admit regretting having children..

    • A.

      Unless they happen to be some serial killer’s parents. (I think I’ve heard one such parent in a documentary a while ago…)

    • Basset_Hound

      Unfortunately, that’s not the case. In November, 1975, Ann Landers asked the readers of her column if they had it to do all over again, would they have children. Over 70% said they would not, and Ann said some of the responses were the most disturbing mail she had read in a long time. It was sad the way some of these malcontents took their own personal failings out on their kids.

      • JiggyWithIt
      • patriciacarrasco

        yes!! most people just wanna fit in and have kids just to fit in and be “normal” yet dont care about thier kids unless they can brag to their friends about their accomplishments! so many people are very narcissitic in that way yet its the way of the world! they only look to their kids as something to prop up their own standing in the world…and us children are the ones who suffer when we cant live up to their accomplishments and actually NEED a parent that they cant be

        • Basset_Hound

          From what I’ve read of your posts, your mom and mine were cut out of the same cloth. My mom believed that others existed to cater to her multitude of ailments, rather than to have separate existences of their own. I’ve been bound and determined not to repeat her mistakes. I can truly say that having children was one of the best decisions I’ve made. Although having to find out of home placement for a mentally disabled son and dealing with a moody teenage girl with thyroid problems wasn’t easy, I would do it again.

  • Sara E. James

    One of my closes friends, now in her mid-forties, and her husband had decided not to have children. Neither of them had specially fond memories of childhood or thought they’d make good parents. I lamented this myself, as I thought they’d be great parents and were a doting aunt and uncle. Surprise! She accidentally got pregnant in 2011 and in June of last year had a baby boy.They were nervous and there were a lot of emotions before he was born, but now they are so happy and have no regrets. It makes me so filled with joy to see the love they pour out on that boy and get from him in return. So, although we may make decisions and think we know how we would feel about parenthood, life (God) can surprise us.

    • JayJay

      The only thing that God –any one of them, really– could surprise us with is to actually provide a credible sign of its existence. Everything else has already been attributed to any number of imaginary friends by now.

      • Drew Belsky

        If we don’t hear from JayJay again, it’s likely because he suffocated under the colossal burden of proof that just fell on him.

        • fattyfan

          LMAO!!!!

      • Will

        LOL. JayJay wins.

      • Sara E. James

        And yet, I am unmoved in my beliefs. Thanks for choosing to focus on what was not the main point of my comment. Have a nice day.

        • fattyfan

          Sara, girl—you ROCK! And little ol’ loser(that would be willie) lost BIG.

          • Sara E. James

            Thank you, you kind of made my day. :)

          • ProLifeDynasty

            You are most welcome!

          • ProLifeDynasty

            You are most welcome!

          • ProLifeDynasty

            You are most welcome!

      • fattyfan

        Hey, jays—PROVE that God does not exist.

      • Guest

        Hey, jays—PROVE that God does not exist. Knew you just couldn’t.

  • INNOLA

    I used to be passionately against having children. I did not like children or being around them until my best friend had her first child. Even at that, unless I had some relationship with one or both of the parents, I found most kids irritating as heck. I was SURE I’d never have kids. My parents had a marriage from hell and when our bio-dad left, I had to miss a lot of my late teens and 20s helping raise my much younger siblings. What I took away was that I had no desire to be married and chance going through the crap my mother had, and I had kinda been there done that as far as raising kids was concerned. It wasn’t until my late 30s that I met a man who changed my whole perception and made marriage and even parenthood sound like a not so horrible thing. I am happy being a wife and mom now and would not trade my daughter for anything in the world, but you don’t know what you don’t know. I have a good friend who has been married for a long time and is not even thinking of having kids. She gets all kind of grief for it, but she is happy with her life as it is. I was happy with mine, too. It was just a different kind of happy. Having been at both extremes of the issue, it drives me insane when women who don’t want children are judged or bullied for their choice, HOWEVER, my caveat was always that, if I did get pregnant despite my efforts not to, I would woman up and deal with the consequences and try to be a good parent. Same with my friend. As others have said, as long as abortion is not the means by which they maintain their childless lifestyle, I say more power to them.

  • ME

    My concern with this group is that when they come to the end of their childbearing years, many will suddenly decide that they need to spend thousands of dollars on fertility treatments and abnormal methods to have children. Even if they don’t try to have children later in life, how happy will these people be when they reach their retirement years and beyond. They’ll have no children or grandchildren to come visit them. They’ll be in a nursing home somewhere, with few visitors. I can’t foresee how this will help the stability of the mental health of the culture over the course of the long term.

    • Alex Hunter

      You assume that childless adults want to die in a retirement home. Some people like to live life to the fullest, which means taking risks from time to time. That’s something that you’d have to give up if you became a parent because of the newfound responsibility.
      And I agree with you on the topic of aging couples turning to fertility treatments when they could adopt an underprivileged child.

      • Em

        They also assume that people in nursing homes who have children are less lonely. IME, children often do not visit more than once a year so there is little difference.
        I have a large family because I wanted one. Don’t want one? Cool. Honestly, my family obligations prevent me from participating as heavily in other prosocial activities, so I can see how I am a selfish person for choosing my own children over thousands of others who could be helped if I was not a mother.

  • ME

    My concern with this group is that when they come to the end of their childbearing years, many will suddenly decide that they need to spend thousands of dollars on fertility treatments and abnormal methods to have children. Even if they don’t try to have children later in life, how happy will these people be when they reach their retirement years and beyond. They’ll have no children or grandchildren to come visit them. They’ll be in a nursing home somewhere, with few visitors. I can’t foresee how this will help the stability of the mental health of the culture over the course of the long term.

  • Me

    If people don’t want to have children, fine. I admit, though, that I’m not crazy about these oh-look-at-me-I’m-so-cool type of articles about it. (I haven’t read this one, but I’ve read others on the subject) and they seem kind of braggy, if that’s a word.

  • voice of reason

    the child free life. huh. I looked at my brand new husband of 2 months after we lost our first baby 2 weeks ago and said “what do we do if we CANT have kids?!” that scares the beejeezus out of me. I DONT want that life. I know it will be full of pain and loneliness. at least for me. since I am an only child, he is also an only child, we don’t have nieces or nephews to dote upon, we both would like a big family and even if I can only have 1(like my mother) would be AWESOME. better than none. but God has a plan for my life and I HOPE AND PRAY it involves having kids. I don’t know why it wouldn’t, if so many others don’t want to have them and I do, why wouldn’t God just send them to me and other people who want them and cant have them and not the people who don’t.

    • Alex Hunter

      If you feel ready to be a parent but are having trouble with a natural conception, there’s always adoption. Not only would you be helping an unwanted child have a decent life, you’d get kudos from both sides as well, if that’s any reassurance

      • Spectator65

        As an adoptive parent, it is not always that easy. Age, health, income and other issues play a role in whether or not one can adopt. My adoptive children were “special needs” children and a sibling group with behavioral/health issues. My matron of honor lost her first and only child a month after I had my only biological child. Because they wanted an adopted child who was an infant and was the same race as she and her husband they waited on a list for eight years until they were able to adopt their one and only. My special kids languished on a list for 18 months. We actually adopted at almost the same time, but I already had a 10 year old daughter and simply wanted to open our home to more children and did not want the continual stream of visitors that is part of being a foster parent.

  • Tom Lewis

    I suppose that having a marriage that is childless would simply be perfect for couples that are in the mid to late forties, Nature would prevent pregnancy, all though having sex like a twenty year old’s might be a bit physically painful. I always thought that the rewards for being married was great sex, and having as many children as God provides. Maybe I wrong, but how does one not have at least one child accidentally over a 25-30 years of married life, unless your naturally sterile, use NFP perfectly, get sterilized, used the pill, use a condoms, or have abortions?

    The whole process of getting married must somewhere in the mind of the adults who are prepared to do this life long commitment, should include accepting the reality that children are part of the equation. To say, we’re getting married and we’re not having children, I believe is like saying we will be totally fulfilled in our marriage by having unlimited sex, (with my partner of course) but we’re gonna give God the finger, when it comes to doing His will if we get pregnant.

    • Winona

      A childless marriage doesn’t necessarily equal “unlimited sex,” whatever that even means.

      • Tom Lewis

        Please don’t use the ‘doesn’t necessarily equals’ analogy, for there is no such thing as equal anything in this life especially marriage. Many individuals use this analogy merely as means for political confrontation when there is none. The quotation, “All is fair in Love and War,” portends no equality.

        Marriage and the sex that goes with it is a chosen reality. Obviously you can choose what you want, but your ability to perform “unlimited sex,” is up to you, and your spouse and both of your bodies capability. If you cannot perform sex with your body because of a personal choice, or a physical disability, obviously you may choice to be celibate. But then the question arises, why would you commit to marriage, if there is not sex. Choice has always been a human process. Choose what you want. But then the question is, if you don’t want sex, why get married?

        • Winona

          Oh, my pithy comment was pretty self-explanatory. While your two-comment, multi-paragraph word salad . . . well, I’ll just let you figure it out. I’m surprised you tried to delete them, since you obviously put a lot of work in.

          • simplynotred

            Actually pithy is pith and it ain’t pretty explanatory is not even expository, but plain silly. But since your on a subject, which has not made sense yet, short or long, you still haven’t answered the question “Why would you commit to a marriage, if there is no sex to it. Why marry at all? Oh but you do have sex, its just children that you don’t have. Still why have a marriage, if you just want sex? I do believe that answering the simply question is the pithy issued. Why have marriage?

          • Winona

            There is no answer. You crave justification; no one owes you that, of course.

          • simplynotred

            Your reason for making any comments are reflective in your inability to answer a simply question. No answer, No reason for comments.

      • Tom Lewis

        Being childless because nature has made it so, being childless because age has made it so, being childless, because, you choose to make it so are three reasons than can occur in a childless marriage.

        Unlimited sex, means that you (a) don’t use contraceptives to establish a childless marriage (b) you can have sex with your partner when ever the both of you want to have it, (c) you didn’t get married for the sake of having no children, but the circumstances of life did may or may not provide you with a child.

        As I see it, getting married just to have sex, for the sake of sex alone is a glass half empty.

        This idea frustrates, Nature, likely one of the partners at one time or another, and in the case of those who believe in the Jewish, Christian and/or Muslim faith would concede that spilling ones seed to frustrate the birth of a Child is considered wicked in the sight of God. For those who only believe in a secular faith of the State, unlimited sex needs no description you will do whatever the “State” does not inhibit.

        • Em

          Please leave Jews out of it. We understand that Onan was punished for disobeying God rather than for masturbating. Jews are overwhelmingly prochoice and procontraception because we read those laws in their original language, without biased interpretation.

          • simplynotred

            What are they some kind of aliens?

          • Sarah Eilerson

            “But since your on a subject, which has not made sense yet, short or long”

            I guess your question above is a sterling example of “being on the subject.” What subject that might be is anyone’s guess.

          • simplynotred

            Pardon me Sarah but was that the “Chat That You Did Not Do” track 49, and you spoke out of time.

            Say WHAT? Subject Marriage. Purpose – Why? No Children, No Sex. Your promoting a type of Marriage for convenience so that you can pay less taxes to the STATE. Lets see, lets be cheap on the marriage, cheap on the kids thing and cheap regarding taxes paid to the State. OK I get it your just CHEAP.

          • Guest

            Idiot.

  • Diane

    For the record, you’ve only met good people and parents if you’ve never met anyone who regretted her child. I have seen the flip side of that coin.

    • Em

      I know Catholic mothers of eight who thoroughly despise being a parent. They cannot say so, but it shows in how they treat their children.

      • patriciacarrasco

        yes! they will never say it or people will see how selfish they are but the kids always suffer dont they?

        • Moxy

          I don’t think people who regret becoming parents are selfish. I just think that they got into a life that they weren’t cut out for. It’s sad but it is what it is. Which is why I strongly disagree with the author’s response to the Time article, even though I am very much pro-life. I feel that people who choose not to have children put a lot of thought into it and have decided that not becoming a parent is best for all involved. As long as they can do this without resorting to abortion, I say more power to them. However, I would also say to those who reach age 40-50+ and decide they want children…um , unless you are adopting, “you made your bed, now lie in it, and don’t cry to the rest of us”.

  • NancyCNM

    From a Catholic point of view, we keep in mind that for those of us who are mothers, there is a phrase somewhere in the bible that says we will be saved by childbirth. It is not talking about the pain of labor or pregnancy. It is talking about raising the children and having to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of another. Not that we can’t do that in other ways, like in our interactions with our spouse – but one has so many more opportunities when there are children involved. Think about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, comforting the grieving, etc etc. All the spiritual and corporal works of mercy we find possible within our own families. That, and the fact that God wants us and our children for himself. By deliberately choosing NOT to have children, we are both depriving God and the possible children of their chance of eternity together in heaven. How sad. I can say that if I had stopped at just one or two children, I would have grown into a completely different person on so many different levels. I would be a materialistic snob- to say the least. Children help form us and help us grow just as much as we help them form and grow. Of course there are reasons that some people can’t or don’t have
    children, and those folks still have plenty of opportunities to good outside themselves. For those that are not able to have children. perhaps adopting or being foster parents would be a good option, doing missionary work, working in soup kitchens, food banks, clinics or other places that need volunteers. There are lots of options.

    • Timmehh

      You know, many people who have “just” one or two children are not “materialistic snobs.” And yes, there are women with many children who are. Having a lot of children does not automatically turn someone to in a good person, which is really how your comment reads.

      • VanTed

        It’s obvious she wasn’t saying all people that do are materialistic snobs, but it’s possible SHE would be. My gosh, people are always so quick to pounce on someone……READ PEOPLE and stop taking things so personal!

        • Timmehh

          I read very well, thank you very much. And maybe if you read my comment you would have seen that I said “which is really how your comment reads.” I know she might not have meant all, but she really worded it terribly.

    • Alex Hunter

      Sounds like you want pregnancy to mandatory.

  • Anonymous

    I’m choosing not to have kids. Am I selfish? Yes. I am. I’m not denying that at all. I’ll also admit that may change, as I’m young and unmarried, but I think I’d do a better job of being an aunt than a mother.

    • patriciacarrasco

      well if u really feel that way tehn dont have any kids who u might abuse just cuz u cant stand them…im not implying ur an abusive person but there are many selfish parents out there who make their kids lives a living hell, and if u dont think u can give a child the love and support he or she needs and deserves…dont do it! i will thank u for it

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/NaomiChambers Naomi Chambers

    SEVEN BILLION

    Think about it

    • Anonymous

      What’s your point?

      • Anthony Stanley

        I think her point is that with a global population of about 7 billion people, there is no is no need for a net positive attitude about human propogation.

        We have been sucessful as a species in ensuring that our numbers are more than sufficent to secure our place as the dominant form of life on the planet. This has not always been the case, as our genetic material tells us that we have been through population bottlenecks in our distant past. The emergence of homo sapiens as a well-distributed, genetically-robust species has not always been a given. But, we are now approaching the other side of a population limit. All species have natural limiters below which a species is not viable, and above which the species experiances mass die-offs to bring the numbers down to a sustainable level, given the resources avaliable in the habitat.

        For deer hunters in the US, you have seen this first hand. That population is carefuly managed to control the population for our utility. With the commercial potential for deer meat, our industralized efficency potential at harvesting and processing deer for consumption, unregulated collecton of deer species would eradicate deer as a species. We very nearly did this to the bison population in the American West.

        But, if hunting of deer was banned, given the species prolific capacity to reproduce and our near-extermination of the natural preditors of the deer, the population would grow to a point where there is simply not enough viable habitat to sustain it. As invididuals got closer together, weak from hunger and malnutrition, desease would spread until the population density reached a point of equalibrium with the avaliable habitat’s ability to provide the things the species need to survive.

        Humans are not immune to this population limit effect. The biological drive of all species is to reproduce as prolifically as possible. Some individuals within the species may choose not to, choose to defer it, or simply not have the opportunity to do so. But, humans have the ability to conceptualize the larger world around us on a scale and level of complexity not evident in any other species on our planet. That allows us to make choices about our reproduction, and relationship with our habitiat. it allows us to change our attitude and manage our population size at an individual level, should the individual choose to do so.

        So, for some individuals, the choice not to have children is informed by a desire not to contribute to overpopulation of our species, or to choose to have fewer children to minimize that impact.

        Naomi, please correct me if I misstated your position.

        • Alex Hunter

          Well said, Anthony.

  • Basset_Hound

    My relationship with my own mother was rocky to say the least. I did not want my own children. I didn’t get married until I was well into my 30′s. The first year, we both had professional jobs and lived in a funky, artsy part of town where we could walk to a wide selection of restaurants. Then my husband wanted to start a family. I was VERY ambivalent. When I found out I was pregnant with our son, I was scared out of my mind. By the time my due date approached, I had decided that since God was gracious enough to allow me to have a child, I was going to be a SAHM and raise him. Two and a half years later we had a daughter. It wasn’t easy. My son was diagnosed at 18 months with severe autism. We eventually had to seek out of home placement for him.

    The women in my networking society were disdainful of my choice to walk away from my job. One said “EEEEWWWWW what DO you do all day”. Another sniffed “well that’s OK for you, but I want to use my brain and make important decisions, other than do I do the cooking or the laundry today”. I decided the length of my job title, nor the size of my paycheck was no measure of how well I utilized my intelligence. I then put my brain to work. I researched recipes and planned meals with an international flair. I bought computer books, and taught myself C++, and various Microsoft products. When my kids went to school, I compiled the phone directory for my daughter’s elementary school. I learned to relish my role as a mother. When a feminoid sneered “what DO you do all day”, I would cock one eyebrow and say “wildlife management”.

    • Winona

      My own relationship with my mother was fraught with difficulties. I don’t know what it is to yearn to be a mother, but not a day goes by that I don’t wish I could hug my mom and tell her that, even though our road was so rocky, I loved her so much.

    • Em

      What is a feminoid? I cannot identify the group you are trying to dehumanize.

    • Erica

      wildlife management. Lol I love that.

  • Brooke

    I saw this issue yesterday when I was sitting in the waiting room at my doctor’s office. I couldn’t make myself read the entire article, but I read quite a bit of it and was disgusted. I have been thinking a lot lately about how selfish our culture has become and how depressing it is that so many people choose to have one child or none at all.

    I am currently a happily married mother of a 1 year old little boy. I can’t wait until he has at least a couple of siblings to run around with. Just the thought of limiting our love to 1 child pains my heart. I don’t know how else to put it.

    • Alex Hunter

      You accuse others of being selfish because they don’t breed like livestock, then brag about how you’re going to have as many children as possible because you feel like it?
      There’s more to life than propagating the human race.

      • Brooke

        You act like having children isn’t a worthwhile venture. My son fills my life with meaning and joy.

        There is more to life than careers, belongings, vacations, and whatever other unnecessary (or selfish) desires we may have.

        If a person (or couple) does not wish to have children, fine. They are perfectly welcome to choose that life. As long as they take precautions to avoid pregnancy and don’t rely on abortions to attain that dream.

        • Em

          If you are having children for the emotions they give you, then you are more selfish than the childless people in the article.

          • Brooke

            Where did I say that I have children solely for the emotions they give me? It is wonderful that my child (and the thought of future children) gives me joy, but that is not the only reason I have decided to have them.

          • Em

            ‘Solely’ is your word, not mine. I can only go by what you say, which is that you receive emotional benefits from parenting. As a mother, I agree. I come out way ahead in the parenting equation so it is weird to consider it selflessness.

          • Brooke

            Not necessarily selfless, but I would say that it is fairly close. I hardly consider it selfish to give up so much of your life and yourself to give life to another person and care for them for countless years. Not to mention the emotional investment that comes with loving and caring for your children.

            Yes, there are emotional up-sides to the situation. But I hardly think that enjoying those gains makes one selfish. Not being willing to sacrifice your life or career is definitely more on the selfish side of things.

            Now, do some people just honestly not want kids? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent. But there is a difference between absolutely not wanting kids and wanting kids, but wanting a certain lifestyle more.

            Either way, it is a choice. That each person (or couple) is perfectly fine to make for themselves.

  • Faline

    I’m 38 and love my married, no children life! I could not relate to anything in your narrow minded immature diatribe. You obviously need to broaden your circles if you’re naive enough to think it’s some sort of mythical legend that a parent(s) could actually have some regrets, it does happen; and I’m not even talking about how overwhelmingly over populated the foster care system has become. Talking with your immediate circle does not qualify as research so do some more to find out why the birth rates are declining gee could it be that it’s the teen birth rates that have dropped, which, umm would ultimately be a fantastic idea or is it the ever increasing infertility epidemic? Neither was mentioned as if it never crossed your mind. I really found your rant all over the place; and I’m left with the impression that because motherhood has not come naturally for you, you’d never consider the advances in medicine or even adoption for that matter because it wasn’t a la natural, but see you’re insecure immature self is the very reason why I selfishly don’t want to have any children left to deal with the likes of you.

    • Steph

      Okay, that was harsh & uncalled for. If you’re offended by something written on a site that focuses on ending abortion, why are you even offended that this is the opinion? Did you not read that she miscarried her child less than a month ago & you’re attacking her because she can’t have children & saying that she’s the reason you don’t want them? That’s just heartless. Maybe she offended your way of life, but that doesn’t mean insulting her makes it any better. What if something so monumentally painful happened in your life that caused you to pour yourself into your work just to feel better, and then someone came along & insulted you about that very same thing you’re trying so hard to cope with? You’d be crushed, hurt beyond imagination, & probably pissed off as well. I don’t care which side you take in this argument. Your comment was cruel & unnecessary. Compassion is obviously something that people just don’t consider in this day & age. I feel awful for the children that grow up seeing adults posting this kind of stuff to each other. You may not have children of your own, but you’re setting an example for everyone who has access to the internet. This includes many, many children. So the fact that a 38 year old woman says she’s glad she doesn’t have kids so they don’t have to deal with people like the author of this article, makes me sad that my child & other people’s children have to grow up learning to be hateful & without compassion because of the influence of harsh comments like yours.

      • Em

        The author basically called her selfish and immature for making an adult, well-thought-out decision. She has a right to her anger.

  • Stormii

    This reminds me of my mother. She had my sister when she was twenty and single and she said she never wanted children. She kept the resolve when she married my father a couple years later and seven years after their marriage, when she was forty, she had me – accidental of course. She once told me she had regret of not having more when she married my father but since she was older at time (really, who starts having kids at 40?) the opportunity was gone. So it could depend on circumstance and past experience when it comes to wanting kids or not. On the other, I don’t see why women (or men) who don’t want kids get bad rep and same goes for those who have a litter of children. As long as no one is killing anyone, I’m find with it.

  • pierzstyx

    The declining birth rates are not good at all. The popular dmeonization of having a family will come back to hurt society, badly. A while back WSJ did an article on how the declining rates in child births are something to be worried about. It impacts everything from the economy to technological progress. The article is definitely worth reading. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html

    • Alex Hunter

      With natural resources declining at a faster rate than they’re being produced, a lower birth rate is just accommodation. Also remember that metropolitan areas would cease to expand and wildlife and the agriculture industry won’t be threatened.
      If its the surplus number of elderly people you’re worried about, there should be some consideration of whether or not their health insurance should cover them well past retirement age when all its doing is stretching their lifespans past the point of function.

      • Spectator63

        Wow, “there should be some consideration of whether or not their health insurance should cover them well past retirement age when all its doing is stretching their lifespans past the point of function.” My maternal grandmother was born in 1916, she is 96 and sharp as a tack, lives with my parents who are 74 and 82 respectively and are still active and sharp. All of them retired at or before 65. 5 years ago my grandmother, who is ready to die whenever God is ready to take her, had an tumor removed that would have yes shortened her remaining years and caused a large amount of pain and suffering. Are we then debating old age as a punishment equal to inflicting pain and torture by withholding treatment, or perhaps we should have euthanatized her or pumped her full of pain killers and dulled that wonderful mind, as her vision was dulled by undiagnosed diabetes 45 years ago? What a wonderful thought, or perhaps the prostate problem of my 82 year old father should be untreated, leaving the two old women alone. Of course I could uproot them and bring them all to my house and ruin their dignity and independence. Hmm, probably a great idea to debate health insurance coverage. Of course, they can afford to pay for their care, so the only people really affected would be those who once again are poor. Odd how that so often is the “bottom line”.

        • Alex Hunter

          My grandfather lived to be 96. He wasn’t nearly so lucky in his remaining years, suffering dementia, incontinence and simultaneous loss of both his hearing and vision. My dad invited him to live with us after my grandmother died and his dependency nearly ended my parents’ marriage.

  • princessjasmine45

    On a side note, there is little to no excuse to still be (and satisfied with) a size 4 if you are childless. They should have picked a chick with a tinier waist to display the greatness of childlessness.

  • FrancesParker

    In my late teens and early 20s, I was pretty vitriolic against the idea of having children. I hated – HATED – children and especially babies. At 28, I’ve mellowed out and I’m ambivalent about it. Do I adore children and babies? No, not really. Would I make a good mother? Most definitely.

    The primary question in my mind, when I consider this as a lifestyle decision, is that of economics. I’m carrying around tens of thousands of dollars in student debt, and while I absolutely love and excel at my job, as a newspaper reporter, I’m not really likely to strike it big or pay down all that debt anytime soon. Put quite simply, kids are a luxury I don’t think I could ever afford.

    I think I will have a happy life regardless of whether I bear any children, though. That’s not a question of where or how I choose to find my family and friends, but of how I choose to see the world and my life.

  • Mike

    Care about the quality of life of your kids? Have less or none of them. Population is the great multiplier. US Pop doubles every 60 years and we are NOW way beyond a sustainable pop. Stabilizing is the the best thing we can do for the environment, the economy, and for our kids.

    • Basset_Hound

      So when we have an older population, with fewer workers will the elderly and the disabled be just as expendable as the unborn?

      • Mike

        We should be valuing quality of life, not just the stupid dogma.

        • voice of reason

          We do value the quality of life. Human life has quality, more so than a dog or cat that suffers so you put it to sleep. Christians are called to have compassion for the sick and all that suffer, it doesn’t mean killing them so they don’t have to suffer, or killing the unborn because you perceive that they would have a terrible life if they were other-abled( I hate the term disabled, they still have a reason to be here) thou shalt not kill. love your neighbors as yourself. Jesus wasn’t talking crazy, He is the ultimate role model even if you don’t believe in Him. its up to us to make this a BETTER place to live not one that we cant wait to get out of.

          • Em

            Better for everyone to die than a few not be born? I hope you understand if I respectfully disagree.

          • voice of reason

            a few? there have been MILLIONS killed in abortions. Now we are under the replacement rate. everyone who is yelling about overpopulation is not concerned about the earth, they care about themselves. they are selfish and greedy. they want to keep all the resources to themselves. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/12/us-births-decline/1880231/ http://www.numberofabortions.com/

          • Em

            We are not under the replacement rate. Quite to the contrary, our growth is immense and unsustainable. The people who care about keeping the human population do so not out of selfishness, but out of concern for the future humans who will live with overcrowding and disease.

          • voice of reason

            And you have facts and figures that we aren’t under the replacement rate? or just your opinion because you buy into all those lies they are selling. instead you are making human life sound like deer hunting “were doing it for their own good”

          • Em

            Meanwhile the world population is higher than it has ever been and growing exponentially. I would say that plenty of people are having children. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text

          • voice of reason
          • Em

            Your link says it *may* happen in the future, not that it is happening now.

            And that is not exactly a reliable publication. Meanwhile, actual NUMBERS as in a count of the world population show we are growing more than ever and inching closer to the line at which we cannot sustain the population.

          • voice of reason
          • Em

            Obviously English is not your first language. “May” implies a future possibility, not a current reality.

            You chose to ignore multiple scientific references to the effects (which can now be seen) of over-population while instead referencing an online magazine that has little more credibility than Star. Very telling. Meanwhile, the population continues to grow at an exponential and soon-to-be unsustainable rate.

    • Alex Hunter

      Exactly. Humanity is spreading like wildfire, consuming all in its path. When a wildfire runs out of things to burn, it inevitably burns itself out.

  • Justsomegirl

    And pray tell, who do you expect to make up for those who choose to have 3, 6, 10, 19 children? I know, a pro-life, Catholic vegan environmentalist is not welcome on this blog so I won’t say any more. There are some good comments below already that are more balanced and rational than this author.

    • disqus_CxUjhR1v0v

      Why should you feel not welcome. Honest dialogue is what makes this country so awesome. I am Catholic also and have always believed that children are a blessing from God. We had a priest in our parish from Africa and he would tell us about his village and how much families value children there, unlike this country. We have four children. Honestly? raising children has not been easy (one has autism and has had many challenges-but definitely enjoys life ) I never for a minute regretted having them. They are the joy and comfort of my life and I cannot wait to have grandkids!

      • Em

        Large families are a blessing there because more than half are lost before their fifth birthday to starvation and disease due to over-crowding. It is the strangest paradox.

    • Em

      I am thankful for childless friends, who generously give me permission to do the breeding for them. I enjoy being a parent and can do so guilt free because I am making up for their lack of fecundity.

  • Rachel Lynn Woodruff

    I met a couple last year in their forties, maybe fifties, I am not sure. Who had lived a pretty full life, except their biggest regret was not having any children. When I met them my husband and I were going through adoption classes to become adoptive parents and so was this couple. We stayed in touch after the adoption classes and I was one of the people that they called with the heartbreaking news that it was decided they were too “old” to adopt. They had spent their whole lives thinking that some time in the future would be better to have children only to eventually run out of time.

  • Erin Donn

    I’m having a very hard time with the decision as to whether to have children. I’ve been plagued with health problems all my life and my health continues to worsen and confuse me. I don’t function on the level others do due to overwhelming pain and exhaustion. I’m on many many necessary medications that would be dangerous to unborn children and thus my husband and I must use condoms to prevent pregnancy at this time, even though we’ve been married for over 7 years now.
    We go back and forth on the idea of becoming parents, but realize our circumstances are unfortunately compromising. My primary doctor has even told me getting pregnant would not be a good idea in my situation. I always pictured being a mother one day, and the desire grows stronger, so it can be heartbreaking to wonder if it can or should happen. Adoption is not likely due to my illnesses because I lwould not be up to their standards as there are health requirements.
    I know that if we do decide to go forward with getting pregnant, that the road ahead would be scary due to having to withdrawal from medications, enduring intense side effects (including blood pressure issues), depression, pregnancy complications, etc. I find it almost impossible to picture never becoming a mother and to deny my husband ever becoming a father. I don’t know what to do. I just believe there are some situations out there that no one but the couple themselves can truly understand.

    • Em

      The author considers you selfish. But most people do not. Decent people do not. I am sorry for your situation, this must be very difficult. That difficulty made worse by the judgment of others, showcased in this article.

      • Sanya

        I don’t think the author means that all people who choose not to have children are inherently selfish, but rather that many people who choose to not have children make that choice for selfish reasons. Not everyone, but many people make that choice, because they don’t want to take care of another person– they want to focus on only themselves. They don’t want to have to spend their money or time on another human being, because then they have less for themselves. I think what the author means is that our society is generally quite selfish. We live in a capitalistic world, where everything is focused on making lots of money and stepping on others in order to get where you want to go. This type of selfish mentality of focusing on oneself, rather than others, contributes to the rising tendency of choosing to not have children. In other words, choosing to not have children does not make someone selfish (there are many cases where it is not a selfish decision at all), but being selfish often contributes to the decision to not have children.

    • Elisabet

      Erin, with your Health problems wouldn’t it be best for you to have a tubal ligation and then adopt Children with your husband?

      • Erin Donn

        I have considered adoption, but unfortunately I have found that most every agency has health requirements that I would have trouble meeting. Even if I did, the birth mother could likely reject me on those grounds alone, or easily rule me out as the “best” fit.
        Also, my heart issues are inconclusive as testing shows nothing structurally wrong other than mitral valve prolapse . The symptoms vary quite a bit as my central nervous system is often out of whack for other reasons…so it’s possible it could be done without real complications.

        • patriciacarrasco

          u could try adopting a grown child? i know most people want a newborn but a grown child needs love too and is desperate for it, and u are desperate for a child to love, i think it could be a perfect fit 4 u….

  • ckomives

    Why is invitro such big business?? Because people who decided to have it all suddenly discovered they were unfulfilled and it is too late for them to have a baby… It is completely natural to want children. You can try to fight the biology, but you’ll have to pay a heavy price….

    • Em

      In vitro is not generally successful with older mothers. The people using it are mainly younger couples with other health issues. Your argument is not based on fact.

      • ckomives

        Success is not the issue, but the fact is that people who pay the fees are supporting the invitro business. Many try who want babies but it is unsuccessful. Thus, your reply is not based on logic.

        • Em

          My reply is based on fact, unlike yours. The average women getting in vitro is 36 years old. Studies have found that only a quarter of IVF is for women aged 40 and older. http://theconversation.com/ivf-treatment-for-older-women-is-age-the-greatest-concern-4141

          • ckomives

            How is 36 “young”? To be having your first child that is not “young.” Why did they wait until 36? That is the AVERAGE age?? That means that lots of people go there who are older than 36, about half, according to your statistic. Your own argument proves you wrong on this issue!

          • Em

            As a 36 year old in perfect health, I consider it young. I had no idea you consider 30s to be geriatric.

  • Shannon

    Loved your response, Kristen. I saw this article in Time and was slightly disturbed, although not surpised, by the bias they vomit all over their readers.

    I think the whole kid-free movement is just another piece of the puzzle in the liberal agenda to desanctify America. Women not wanting to “inconvenience their lives” with children is just a symptom of the sickness America has been developing for years: the desacralization of marriage and family.

    If marriage is no longer a sacred and cherished covenant between a man and woman, then the roles of both parties in that relationship become expendable, interchangable, un-important in and of themselves. Anyone can be a “wife” or “mother”, and they can also stop being either of those things the second they choose. This is evidenced today by record-high divorce rates, abortion rates, child-abandomnent rates, etc.

    There is a lack of emphasis on the family unit and the very glue that holds a family together – a successful marriage. Once marriage loses its importance, then the family unit loses its importance. Once the family unit loses its important, then being a mother loses its importance as well. We’re seeing this manifested now by the very mindset that Time so kindly shared with us – “Being a mom isn’t important – be whatever you want, and sacrifice all else on the altar of your immediate happiness, because it really is all about you!”

    I could go on about the underlying cause of this downward societal spiral, but at the core of that argument is really this: I truly believe traditional marriage and the family unit are under attack so heavily in mainstream culture for one critical reason: marriage is a representation of Christ and His bride (the church). Once marriage is dismantled at its core, the clearest representation of Jesus Christ’s relationship with and love for His covenant people is destroyed as well.

    • Em

      Traditional marriage was the sale of a legal non-entity (a female) to a man. I fail to see how gay marriage threatens that institution more than my love marriage.

      • Shannon

        Em, I’m not advocating to institute modern-day slavery or “the selling of a woman to a man”, as you put it. My use of the term “traditional marriage” was contingent upon the fact that the vast majority of people still interpret that term to mean the covenant union of a male and female in a relationship called “marriage”, and was by no way meant to be interpreted as the advocacy of an ancient practice in a current era.
        Furthermore, in response to your statement regarding the threat (or lack thereof) of gay marriage to the institution of marriage as a whole, I only have a few thoughts, but first I think it’s worth stating that we probably having differing views on the subject because of an underlying theological difference. My perspective of marriage is based on the Biblical covenant of marriage that is ordained by the Lord and outlined in the Holy scriptures, not just a legal contract approved by a court system. If you don’t believe in God or subscribe to the Bible, that’s between you and God, not me and you, and I am in no way trying to force you to believe what I believe, just trying to articulate why I believe what I believe.
        With that being said, I think our opinions differ on the threat to the institution of marriage for one key reason: we have a differing view of the purpose of marriage. The Bible articulates numerous reasons for the purpose of marriage, of which I think the following are the most important:
        1) Companionship
        2) Procreation
        3) Holiness
        Marriage is a tool to use on the road of life to provide us comfort, sustain life on earth, and bring us closer to God through the process of sanctification. When you subscribe to the view that the main purpose of marriage is to make you happy, it’s easy to see why so many marriages are failing. As soon as the fun stops or the momentary “happy” runs out, people quit and the marraige collapses.
        Gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage as a whole because, not only is it clearly defined as a sinful abomination in scripture, but I’ve heard no other argument for it than the parties’ immediate happiness. Some may argue that gay marriage does satisfy the first bullet listed of companionship, but it most definitely fails on the purpose of biological procreation, and I am certainly not talking about adoption and IVF. Furthermore, gay marriage can in no way satisfay the last purpose listed above, based on the previoulsy mentioned statement that the act of homosexuality is a sin, and sin cannot bring you closer to God, thus making a person less holy, not more holy.
        As I said earlier, if you don’t believe in God or subscribe to Biblical living, then we are arguing apples to oranges in futility. Debates on sensitive subjects are not worth the emotional investment, if they have no common ground.
        Outside of the Biblical perspective, I still find that gay marriage fails on any other purpose besides happiness, which as stated earlier, is a dangerous platform on which to base a marraige. Moreover, homosexuality does not result in procreation and physically defies the natural order of human biology. If you’d like to present an arguement in support of homosexuality that presents a purpose other than happiness, I’d be interested to hear it.

        • Em

          If you believe in Biblical marriage the way God made it, then you should believe in polygamy (after all, God rewarded men with multiple wives and concubines so obviously He approves!) and also in the sale of wives without their consent, such as we can see with Jacob and Rachel/Leah.

          • peter

            in reference to the claim that buying and selling of wives ( your reference to leah and racheal). the purpous was not a profit to made or goods to be sold. by “buying” or working ( like jacob did) for a wife, the man would prove to the the father of the bride that he could work to provide for the daughter. the father would “give” the daughter as a sigh of giving responsibility for taking care of her. it wasnt a business transaction.

            and shannon correct me if i am wrong, but em, i think when she said biblical marrige she was refering to the fist couple books in genesis when it is mentioned that when a man married a woman, he leaves his father and mother and the 2 become one flesh. the idea of a unity of opposites, one man and one women, creating something new.

            this idea wasnt just biblical. in plato’s symposium they talk about men and women being halves of a circle, and that thy were made to unite and complete the circle. just wanted to through that in there as a response to the claim that Marriage between a man and a women is a simply judeo christian idea.

          • patriciacarrasco

            i know that God did not intend for polygamy in the beginning which is why he created a man and a woman and not a man surrounded by a harem,yet permitted it. Maybe it’s because of the war-culture back then in which women were taken as slaves of war and used and abused very much. maybe God let them get married to the king who took them so they would be treated better than a slave and not abandoned so they would have to become a prostitute and have their kids w/ no father. maybe it was the lesser of two evils, and also there was no fornication w/ wives or concubines

          • Shannon

            Patricia, thanks for contributing to the discussion. I firmly believe the Lord absolutely did not intend man to have multiple wives. I think the answer of “why” then does it happen, or is it “allowed”, has more to do with man, than God. God actually warns agaisnt taking multiple wives and entering into marriage relationships outside of the fold of his covenant people many times in the scriptures. Many scholars believe that this disobedience is largely in part the cause of Solomon’s (the wisest man to ever live) great fall away from God. Solomon was God’s chosen servant to lead his people, errect His Holy Temple, and reign victoriously. So why then was he “allowed” to have so many wives that eventually led him astray and ultimately resulted in the fall of Jeruselem? The same reason women today are allowed to have an abortion or men commit heinous acts against humanity all over this planet – because men have free will. God didn’t create puppets on strings, but man with a brain to understand the difference between good and evil and a conscience so that he might choose good.
            I find it particularly annoying when people (like Em) try to take the horrid outcome of decisions made by men who choose evil and somehow extrapolate that onto a loving God. Such a false argument if I’ve ever heard one – I want to be able to make my own decisions, but I want to be able to blame God for the horrific outcome of those same decisions that I chose.
            The sad news is, evil will continue to occur in the world as long as men choose it. The good news is, there will be a day when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord, and he will put an end to the evil debauchery of this life. Come Lord Jesus!

    • patriciacarrasco

      i totally agree! google henry makow for more info on this, he has great articles talking about this

  • Rachel

    I just wanted to say thanks for what you said regarding hanging out with friends and their kids while having none yourself. I try to deny those feelings but they’re there! (been married 8 years, trying to conceive 6 years, been a catholic for 1 year)

  • Valerie

    I have a slightly different perspective on choosing a child-free life. I honestly don’t think these intellectually over-inflated Y chromosomes have considered being alone in a home for seniors with no one to check on them. Imagine losing your mental faculties and your posh institution has gone bankrupt like the federal pensions across the nation and you have been sitting in your own stuff for 3 days. Your spouse is dead, there is a senior male who actually a rapist w/ dementia using you and giving your herpes or AIDS. I just think that that might be the “having it all” !
    I hope that with an intact marriage and raising a healthy family I don’t have to worry about some of that. It really happens a lot. The disease rate in these homes have been rising alarmingly over the last 15 years.
    My two cents for what it is worth.

    • Em

      I used to work in a nursing home. Almost 100% had children, about 1% had children who visited them even once a month.

      • Valerie

        Those seniors were more likely to be born before the sexual revolution.

        Also, places like Manhattan where abortion rates are high will be among the first in non familial guardianship.

        Then there are the disease rates. When families where intact disease was rampant only in certain circles. The sexual revolution brought a fresh wave of STDs. There have recent articles in the rise of syphilis in affluent communities among teens.

        Nursing homes across the nation will suffer from the pension deficits. That are and will continue to plague the elderly.

        http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/detroit-s-bankruptcy-marks-the-tip-of-the-iceberg

        You USED to work in a nursing home.

        • Em

          I am not sure why it is relevant when I did it–I did it in undergrad, so it is definitely a thing in the past. Your reply does not address my observation that these seniors with children ended up just as alone in their old age.

  • sarah5775

    I totally disagree with this article – in fact, I find it offensive. There are many reasons why a couple may not want to have children – it does not mean that they are selfish. Some people aren’t the type to make the sacrifices necessary to have a baby – people have a right to live their life the way they want to – not everyone is cut out to be a mother. Not to mention that some people don’t have a situation that is ideal for a child – they may not have enough money, they may not have a stable relationship, they may have a physical or mental disability that would affect their ability to care for a child, etc. I also feel the author of this article does not have the perspective to write it. She has never been a mother herself, and therefore does not know enough about the sacrifices it entails. You can’t compare the life of having a child with a life of not having a child unless you’ve experienced both.Also, I have chosen not to have children – I do not consider myself to be a selfish person. I think the author needs to think twice before branding everyone who doesn’t have her views on having a family selfish

    • Calvin Freiburger

      Yes, there are many reasons why a couple may not want to have children. Then it’s a good thing the author didn’t attack all of them, just a certain mindset.

  • Em

    I am in a field where many of my colleagues are childless. It is hard for me to call them “selfish” when they are spending more time with people in need on a daily basis while I run home to the comforts of family. They spend vacations volunteering in the developing world while I spend them on a beach with small children. Who is really selfish in this equation? I am the mother of a large family and also a career woman. I get more than I give. Sure, I come home to hours of cleaning and laundry, but I come home to a house full of people who see me as a conquering hero.

    The work of parenting is miniscule compared to the reward, if you are doing it right. Someone who forgoes that reward for the greater good of humanity should not be called selfish. These are the people who keep the world going while I am joyfully limited to a tiny corner of it due to my decision to have children.

    • Valerie

      “It is hard for me to call them “selfish” when they are spending more time with people in need on a daily basis spend vacations volunteering in the developing world while I spend them on a beach with small children.”

      Take your children and teach them something valuable.

      You are using an emotional argument about “selfish” without a factual context.
      This topic is factually easy to defend but far too lengthy for this type of forum.
      Even for an economically secure nations birthrates are important. The US is more interested in uneducated immigrant rates rather than skilled workers. There is a difference, I’d rather be importing doctors and engineers than anchor babies for Obamacare.
      We can’t even replace our existing workforce which is good because the government is shutting down business.~sarcasm~
      But you, Em are a little near sighted. Go show your kids a soup kitchen.

      • Em

        My kids and I volunteer together, but nowhere near the amount of work that a childless person does (at least, the ones I know). Because some of my children are very small (in diapers), my volunteer life is severely hampered. Parents have to teach a giving spirit, but also safety and a variety of other things. My occasional work with homeless teens and the elderly is a drop in the bucket compared to spending a vacation in Ghana repairing cleft palates.

  • ByChoiceNotByForce

    People know they do not want children the same way people know they do want children. And people who do not want children tend to spend more time thinking and researching than people who do want children. Most people around the world do not ask themselves why they want children. They just have children–planned or unplanned.

    Since Ms. Hatten took the time to share her opinion of this childfree TIME article, I would like for Ms. Hatten to explain why she wants children. I would like for her to explain why she plans to keep trying despite her miscarriage. Why does she consider children a desired and necessary part of her life? In the event that biology is determining the outcome for her, would she be willing to adopt?

    As for Ms. Hatten’s conclusion of “I’ve met lots of people who regretted not having children, but I have never met a single one who regretted her child”: Surely you jest. You have definitely met parents who regret having children. They did not tell you their regrets because it is not socially acceptable to be a regretful parent. That is why the regretful parent sites were created. Moreover, why would they share such regrets with a “childless yet trying” woman? You are swift enough to know the routine. There would not be hundreds of thousands of abandoned and abused children in the U.S. and abroad if there were no regretful parents. Even a parent who smiles and cooos over their offspring could be hating every single minute of it.
    It boils down to this: Having children is a choice. In societies that permit, there are methods to prevent pregnancy over 90% without abstinence. In societies that permit, there is a method to abort a pregnancy. Those of you who want children, good luck and enjoy. Those who do not want children, good luck and enjoy. There is a much higher probability of regret for having children than for not having children. That is just basic probability statistics with millions of births considering most people will have children. Still, I would much rather regret not having children years down the road than regret having children. I would hate to join the latter club. It already has a waitlist.

  • Valerie

    It is perfectly acceptable for people to make their own choices regarding children. This isn’t parenting fascism.
    The article is merely explaining consequences which are a direct result of any decision.
    The comments reflect that some people just don’t like it and whine about it.
    No one is suggesting that you HAVE to have children. But lets not begin to equate with “having it all”.
    The objectivity required for some to see what the author is saying is proving too difficult.
    This is why even the pro life message is difficult to transcend because as a feelings based society the idea of sacrifice is too much. We just want to write a check so we can pat ourselves on the back because it FEELS soooo good.
    Frankly, I have no incentive for the golden rule because it is taught with moral relativism.

  • belgianchic

    There’s nothing wrong with having kids, or wanting kids, or not having kids, or not wanting kids. It’s someone’s own choice whether or not to embark on parenthood.

  • Pingback: Selfishness or Sacrifice? | The Spitfire Grill

  • Elisabet

    There have always been people who have chosen not to have children in order to better take care of their nieces/nephews. Some have even suggested that this is the natural purpose of homosexuality. I would say the same for asexuality as well.
    Anectodatal: my mother had nine siblings, and half were never married, being instead devoted uncles and aunts to DIFFERENT nieces and nephews. Kind of neatly ordered!

  • Pingback: TIME Magazine asks: Who needs kids, anyway? | Live Action News | A mí, háblame en Cristiano

  • Pingback: TIME Magazine asks: Who needs kids, anyway? | Live Action News | Lunch time forum

  • Damien Johnson

    Three words; Population control agenda.

  • Louise Clark

    I found this article very hurtful indeed. I am 45, a practicing Catholic, birth-control free, and I have no children. The assumptions you made in this article really hurt. You are very ignorant of why some people do not have children. I would have loved to have children and a family, but that did not happen for me, through no fault of my own. My Catholic faith is the only thing in my life that keeps me going in such a lonely, messed up world. How dare you be so un-Catholic and un-Christian in your accusations and assumptions. Your sarcasm is not Christ-like. I am hurt. Your article did nothing to help me.

    • Marisa

      The author was writing about an article that exposed the reasons some people CHOOSE to be childless. As someone who struggles with infertility herself, she would hardly attack others for not being able to have children. There is a difference between choosing to remain child-free and not being able to have them due to biological or other factors.

      • Louise Clark

        I repeat: The author’s tone was sarcastic and un-Christian.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          I feel for you, but Kristen did not generalize about your situation. She wrote about a specific mindset highlighted by the Time article; she did not cast aspersions on anyone and everyone who happens to be childless. Nothing insensitive or un-Christian about that.

  • http://www.chrisjeub.com/ Chris Jeub

    Kristen, you are awesome. I love the way you write… http://www.chrisjeub.com/rebuttal-to-lauren-sandlers-childfree-life/

  • Larry

    My wife and I have 2 sons, and she had another son and daughter before we met. Her first two are happily married each with two grand daughters. One of our sons just finished college and the other just graduated high school. My biggest regret is not having more children. We made decisions based on supposed economic conditions at the time, but having children always increased our wealth believe it or not. I know some who have decided to not have offspring. They brag about how they don’t have to deal with kids when we all get together with other former co-workers. No of us who have children ever regret it and cannot even imagine a life without our children. They gave us more love then we could ever imagine and are the greatest blessing we have. Now that we are too old to have any more, we are very glad to have the miracles that we do have.

  • Ester W.

    Or we could just stop judging people for making what they believe is the best choice for their lives and keep on making our own choices. I am a single woman and content to be single but there is enormous pressure all around for me to find a guy and have kids, neither of which I want. However I am also pro-life. Children are a gift, but sometimes not everyone want or needs every gift. We all have different roles and biology isn’t the only contributing factor. Just as a godless society is discouraging women who from having children when maybe they should the church seems to have the knee-jerk reaction of encouraging women to have children too soon when maybe God has other work for them before they settle into raising a family. I guess my main complaint is all people and couples are different so please just let it be.

  • Kate

    I’m pretty sure no one is saying that she is “too immature to decide not to have a baby.” I think they are saying she is not even halfway through her life and may very well decide that motherhood sounds awesome. Also, I totally agree with you Kristen. I can understand a married woman not trying to have a baby, as if she will just take what comes… But deliberately trying to not have a baby throughout your entire marriage? Some people may feel they are not fit to be parents, but I think if someone has the conscience that tells them that, they probably WOULD make great parents!
    Also, why is it that “intelligent”, successful, married women with responsibility do not want to care for children, but poor, uneducated women do? It seems to me that with all those things going for you, having a kid or two should not be that big of a challenge… To each their own though..

  • Noelle

    I don’t want to be shamed for my decision not to start a family.

    What I took issue with was the fact that this article has nothing to do with abortion, and was speculating about the selfish attitudes of couples who choose not to have children. I know some probably did choose abortion, and that’s sad considering that there are plenty of non-violent birth control options.

    Abortion was only mentioned once in this article, and even then it was only speculation. It’s clear that the real issue the author takes issue with is couples who choose not to have children, no matter the form of birth control. The TIME article only spoke of childless couples who used some unnamed form of birth control to prevent procreation. They could have been using condoms, or an IUD, or the husband could have had a vasectomy. It’s not said. The Live Action article is based on speculation and the authors belief that every couple who doesn’t have children is selfish.

    Check the fourth to the last paragraph. It’s the only one where the author touches on birth control. This is the only part of the article that mentions abortion, and even the author admits to speculating about the rate. I agree that the rate of abortion and hormonal birth control that destroys fertilized eggs is too high, but what does that have to do with deciding not to have children?

    What’s so bad about not wanting kids anyways? Or baking or blogging for that matter? People who don’t want to start a family need non-violent birth control options, not shaming for not starting a family. If we attack people for not wanting to raise children, this pro-life group will polarize, separate, and cripple its ability to influence anyone outside ourselves.

    I plan to use non-violent birth control. Does that make me selfish? Am I selfish for not wanting to raise a child? Am I going to grow old, full of regret that I didn’t pop out babies like BBs from an air-soft gun?

    No. And if I do regret it, I’ll adopt, and give someone a better life.

  • Liz

    “In other words, they’re not willing to sacrifice their comfort or
    convenience for a child, but they have no problem sacrificing a child
    for their comfort and convenience….It boils down to this: I’ve met lots of people who regretted not having
    children, but I have never met a single one who regretted her child.” Great article. That is so true! I understand that not everyone should be a parent but it is becoming a trend to not have kids and this scares me. People want to live for the here and now but they don’t realize that one day they will be in a different phase of life and feel alone. Family is one of the greatest things to live for and strengthens us to keep going. We are teaching a new generation that life is all about them and what they want. A very selfish generation…I have two kids and I have no regrets!

    • Anthony Stanley

      I am glad you enjoy the life you live with your children. I hope they continue to bring you joy and happiness all the years of your lives together.

      But, if someone fears that they will grow old and alone if they do not have children, then perhaps one should take some time to reflect on what personality deficits one might need to work out that would leave them love-less in old age.

      At minimum, getting to the root of that pre-existing condition will make you a much better parent if you choose to do so. Your future kids will benifit from that thought-work.

    • Moxy

      A child should not be brought into the world just to relieve a person from being lonely. That is like getting married just so you won’t die alone. Children require a huge personal investment and so many people create the child without being prepare to properly take care of it.

      I will say this: If a person isn’t even ready for the responsibility of taking care of a puppy from birth to death (including all food, vet visits, vaccines, proper grooming, obedience classes, etc.) then for DAMN SURE they have no business taking on the responsibility of a tiny human being.

  • Cassandra Sabrina Powell

    I feel like most people missed the point of this article. It wasn’t whether or not they should be able to choose that for themselves, It was about how selfish our society is becoming now and days. It is about how people who do choose to have children are looked down upon , as if they are wasting their lives.

  • patriciacarrasco

    “IN OTHER WORDS, THEYRE NOT WILLING TO SACRIFICE THEIR COMFORT OR CONVENIENCE FOR A CHILD, BUT THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM SACRIFICING A CHILD FOR THEIR COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE”

    wow! the definition of selfishness is it not?

    reading this article really gives me mixed feelings…next month is the big 3-oh (30) b-day and im not married and dont have kids. im def. pro-life and love kids so much, however…..this really is an evil, evil world and it really scares me to have a child in this day and age. we really are in the end-times and i dont look forward to the future…why bring a child in this environment? and let me tell u that not all people who have kids do it for the right reasons. i grew up in a very abusive family and my mom is a narcissist. anyone dealing w/ this kind of person knows that agony, but most people dont and think that all mothers are saints….this is false there a LOTS of terrible mothers who never shouldve had children at all and my mom is one of them, she doesnt know what motherhood or love means…..she only had kids to “fit in” and cuz its what everyone else does!! and most of her family is the same. they have kids in order to try and keep a man or manipulate him into staying w/ her, in other words the baby comes into this world w/ a JOB already! and if they fail to make the dad stay?….then the mother hates the child who is not a band-aid!! yet to the world, theyre a “great mother” cuz NOBODY wants to think that mothers are human an fallible and not all sweetness and light…..

    it has taken me a LOT to forgive her, a whole lot!! forgiveness is always best but i was suicidal and wished i was never born many times…why? cuz my mom is SELFISH! not EVERYONE who has kids can love them and can be a good parent, u cant stereotype people and paint all childless people as selfish! l many times in my depression and pain wanted to have a baby to love me and take away the loneliness…but knew that would be selfish cuz a child needs a family….some people really do want children not to suffer so they dont bring them into this world and im one of them. however, if i do get married ill def. think about having a child and loving them to oblivion…

  • R. J. Smith

    “The thought of human beings sterilizing themselves like animals irks me.” Well, so what? You’d rather they have abortions or use hormonal birth control? Even if it has a personal “ick” factor for you, wouldn’t you rather see sterilization than other forms of birth control used?

    • Moxy

      I agree with you, R.J., and will also add that, for the spiritually-minded, G-d made animals to procreate the same way that He did human beings. And we screw with their natural design all the time. So why do we see it as responsibility to spay/neuter our pets but soooo wrong to do the same thing for ourselves when children are not desired?

      • fattyfan

        Uh…because a human being is—INTELLIGENT!!! OMG–you libtrded-pro-aborts are SICK. You can’t control yourself? ‘course! Forgot. That’s why you’re in the mess you’re in in the first place. Btw, how do YOU know God? And that He “made animals to procreate the same way…”? You’re too scared to even write His whole name, for pete’s sake!

        • R. J. Smith

          It’s funny I didn’t mention God at all in my post, yet both replies go straight there. For the record, I am non-Christian and there is nothing wrong with humans choosing self-sterilization.

          • fattyfan

            Dude, just because ‘rj’ says something(anything), doesn’t make it right. There ARE other BETTER options other than the ones you decree. (btw, you happen to have any associations with plannedparenthood? Cuz that’s their strategy, too: Don’t tell women the WHOLE TRUTH). Maybe you ought to give Christianity a try, because, you know, Truth ain’t relative. Just sayin’…

          • R. J. Smith

            Truth is often relative. And I certainly don’t see any reason that “truth” as defined by Christianity is any more valid than my own. Just because you say something is in the bible doesn’t make it right.

          • ProLifeDynasty

            Truth is God. Truth is NOT relative. You do not see all the reasons, because you are blind. There is no ‘definition’ in some Christian ‘dictionary’ for you to compare to your world of make-believe(this is what yours is, as opposed to the majority of Christians around the world because, let’s say…when one is in jeopardy of one’s life, does one scream out: “OH, RJ’S MADE-UP GOD, PLEASE, HELP ME!!!” ?—No. Instead, those in trouble usually plead for God’s help.)
            Umm… “something” is in the Bible because it is there. Open one up. Look up something. Find it. It is there. See?
            You may want to try an example and get back to me, otherwise, I win;)

        • Moxy

          For one…I will apologize to R.J. and actually, while I am pro-life, my pro-life beliefs have nothing to do with my spirituality. I would be just as pro-life if I was an atheist.

          Secondly, fattyfan, quit being a screaming lunatic. Seriously. And my writing of the name actually has significance which is rooted in respect…which you might know if you actually knew anything about it. Or even Google searched it. I would actually go into more detail but have a suspicion it would be lost on you. My only hope is that you are among the infertile because you are exactly the sort of unhinged nutjob that makes people think all pro-lifers are, well, unhinged nutjobs. Furthermore, you don’t need to be spreading your shouty lack of self-control and ignorance on to future generations. For real.

          • fattyfan

            Why don’t you try and make me, mox? Thought so.
            Hang on—you use insulting language and then make a lame attempt to use “respect”— in the SAME SENTENCE, mind you!!! (fyi, caps are for emphasis, but try and tell a vile and hateful hater like you?) Oh wait, it’s the diabolical, libtarded way. Got it.
            And I gotta go and take care of my 8 BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN!(Guess I beat you on that one, too:)

  • Pingback: Searching for God – Finding Original Sin | A Plea to Reason

  • Pingback: Mediocre Mommy

  • fattyfan

    Why are pro-aborts so hateful? Why won’t pro-aborts CHOOSE to HELP a mom&dad in distress? You know, pro-abort, cut them some slack. Give them the love&support that us humans(as opposed to fauna)intelligently know how to give. Ever seen Fido donate the knuckle bone you just tossed him to the mongrels at the local shelter? NO. We humans can resort to…(gasp!)COMPASSION. NO methods that kill unborn human beings—EVER. No need for medication-you-don’t-need-because-you’re-not-sick-you’re-pregnant& btw, the pill causes cancer. Use NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING. Look it up. Clip the cat(not yourself). Humans deserve better, the best.

  • Jock Doubleday

    The Rothschilds’ “Time Magazine,” ha ha, what a joke. The Rothschilds are desperate to see 90% of human beings gone from the planet, leaving 500 million serfs to serve them and their insane pals.

  • http://thetattooedengineer.com/ Paul Berge

    It is often difficult to imagine that there are different paths for different people that can all lead to a happy life.

    I am 34, my wife is now 40 and we are not lonely at all. In fact, we are making more friends now than I ever have in my past. Between other childfree couples, couples who no longer have children at home and the parents with children old enough to leave with a sitter for the night, our calendar is always full. I’m not asking for anyone to shed a tear for the way I choose to live my life.
    The women interviewed for this article are not representative of all women who choose not to have kids. The couple with the baby box will most likely feel regret, but there are women out there who knew from 14 years old that they never wanted children. There are women who don’t get all weak in the knees in the presence of a newborn, have never dreamt of having a big family with multiple kids running around. You admit that you wanted children at a time in your life when you felt the need to deny those urges. What about those who never felt the urge? How can you claim to know what they are feeling or will be feeling in the future, when you came from a different starting point?

    I don’t think anyone is claiming that there is zero chance of regretting not having children. But as is often stated by the childfree, I would rather regret not having children than regret having them. You may not have ever met a person who admits openly to regretting having a child, but a simple web search will reveal that they do in fact exist and may not be quite as rare as you think.

    I don’t understand the hostility of parents towards the childfree and vise-versa. My choice to not have children is not an attack on the parents of the world. This isn’t a contest to see who has made the best decisions in life. If someone doesn’t not want to be a parent, no matter how lame you think the reasons are, they should not become a parent.

  • Jock Doubleday

    Even uber-narcissistic celebrities are humbled by childbearing and child
    raising. Their stories are always the same: “I had to think of someone
    other than myself.” There can be no better journey.

  • Pingback: Why The Mass is Like a Dictionary | 4life4life

  • Pingback: "Protégete"...de comerciales engañosos

  • Logic

    “but I have never met a single one who regretted her child.”

    You haven’t met my parents then…

    But in all seriousness, you’re pushing your issues onto other people. You don’t know that someone is lonely because they’re childfree. The difference between you an them is that they don’t want children and you do. You’re not “living the childfree life” because you’re not childfree, your CHILDLESS. Big difference. You feel lonely without a child because YOU WANT ONE. Someone who doesn’t want one, obviously isn’t going to yearn for the company of a child they don’t want. Just because you (as a person who wants a kid) feels lonely without one, doesn’t mean that other people (especially those who don’t want a kid) are lonely too. Not everyone is you.

  • Guest

    “there are – surprise, surprise! – hints of regret”

    You do realize that your sense of, well, glee, over others’ “regrets” makes you sound rather shallow and immature, don’t you? If you really wish to be an effective writer, I’d curb that tendency, if I were you.

  • Pingback: Rebuttal to Lauren Sandler's "Childfree Life" | Chris Jeub

  • ProLifeDynasty

    Hey, jays—PROVE that God does not exist. Knew you just couldn’t.