Is it selfish to not want more kids?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darken @ May 21 2007, 03:21 PM) [snapback]446829[/snapback]</div>

I believe most times this is suggested so that the one child will have a built-in playmate.

My ex-wife and both my sister-in-laws were "only children". After my ex and I had our first and I was making noises that perhaps one was enough, the subtle (and not-so-subtle) pressuring began that it was "lonely" growing up as a single child, that they wish they had siblings to play with (being the youngest of three boys myself, I could have made the reverse case, where "play" sometimes resembled a dog fight ), etc. Some of their reasoning appealed to me, some of my own reasons came into play; the decision, in any case, was both of ours, not one more than the other as is sometimes the case.

Some will make the argument that having one risks the spoiling of that child (which, actually, the first part of your post sounded a bit like ), since they will never have to share, especially if they aren't socialized in a daycare-type setting. I know some kids and adults who fit into this category (can you say "ex"), and some wh don't. I also know parents with more than one child who manage to spoil them all, giving them everything they want just so that they don't have to be a parent (as opposed to being friends with their kids) and learn how to say "no".

BTW, I applaud you and your spouse for your decision to adopt and your reasons for doing so.

 

To all those people spouting this "more than two is irresponsible" and "we're over populated as it is, don't add to it", you guys should be ashamed. This is a personal choice, and one person's decision isn't going to effect things in the long run. For your information, the following is a list of the estimated national fertility rates for the US, over the past 50 years or so:

2.09 children born/woman (2007 est.)
2.01 children born/women (2000)
1.90 children born/women (1990)
1.81 children born/women (1980)
2.48 children born/women (1970)
3.76 children born/women (1960)
3.69 children born/women (1950)


It seems to me that we, as a country, are doing just fine keeping our portion of the worlds population growth in check. If you want to go on this crusade to stop the growth of the world population, try going to places like Africa, which has something like 6 children born/woman and preaching.

So to the OP: Don't let them guilt you into not having a child if thats what you really want. Somewhere else in this great nation of ours, some couple will stop at one or none and make up for it (on a grand scale).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 21 2007, 04:30 PM) [snapback]446892[/snapback]</div>

:blink: This is really the only way things ever get changed. It's just that a large number of people need to make personal choices that effect these changes.

This statement seems out of character for you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ May 21 2007, 03:43 PM) [snapback]446906[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

Unfortunately, we've only had a small subset of views expressed in the threads here since i joined... i think many of my views would seem "out of character" based on what i've posted on my views on Iraq, etc.

I'll agree, things only change when people decide to start making a change... however, I don't feel that it's at all appropriate to be forcing one's views on family life and child care on others, as a few in this thread have tried to do. Developed countries like ours generally are facing fertility rates around 2 children/woman or less. There's nothing wrong with that, but in my book that means that, out of the 300 million people living here, one additional soul to one family won't hurt things. By contrast, developing countries have fertility rates of 4-6 children/woman. There is an argument that the death rates in those countries are higher, fewer children make it to adulthood, etc... But all the same, that seems to be where the problem is, not in a country whose fertility rate is so close to 2.

While i may have strong and specific opinions about what should be done in our government, I also have very strong opinions that family life should be regulated by that family, not by the government, religious groups, or people posting on message boards.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 21 2007, 04:30 PM) [snapback]446892[/snapback]</div>

To me having children is selfish. The two most common reason I hear people give for why they have children are:

To carry on my legacy / family name.
To take care of me when I'm old.

The US may not be over-populated but the world as a whole is. If you want to make the world a better place and enjoy raising a child, adopt a child. You can still find many unwanted children in the US, but they will be minority toddlers. If you really must have an infant there are millions off unwanted infants available throughout the world. Why conceive another child so that you have "genetic attachment" to the child. Isn't it enough to love and care for another human being? Why do they have to be "Your's"? Your genetics aren't that special.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 21 2007, 04:59 PM) [snapback]446926[/snapback]</div>

I agree, none of the above should be regulating families. I don't think anyone on this board is attempting to do so, nor do I feel that anyone is forcing their views on anyone; the OP was asking for opinions on the topic, and that's what he's getting.

 

I don't think "more than 2" is what people are calling selfish.
It is the folks having 6, 8, 10, or 12 kids that are selfish and/or irresponsible.

In nature, the animals that reproduce in large numbers, do so because they expect to lose most of them to predators and disease. We don't have that problem, so just have your 2.5 and be happy. If you have an "oops" 3rd, or even 4th, no one is going to care. When you have 8 or 10 kids, you're being selfish and/or irresponsible. Esp. if you don't have the income to support them.
But, then again, to each their own....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darken @ May 21 2007, 03:21 PM) [snapback]446829[/snapback]</div>

Agreed: recycled kids are great. Our first has proven free of defects in materials or workmanship. We're under contract on another, but no closing date yet.

The cost is a little high, but then again, we did go with an import. I'm sure Malorn will appear presently to chide my failure to "Buy American."

However, the ~30K price tag meant that my wife didn't have to "metabolize for two," which helped shave our carbon footprint , and also prevented a very fuel-inefficient race to the hospital.

So OP, buy a recycled child and help save the planet. :lol:

NOTE (to anyone who is mentally composing a flame-filled response or calling the cops): This is just a little mischievous frivolity. We adopted, legally, and didn't really "buy" our kids.

 

If you consider the question in the cold light of overall energy expenditure per person per lifetime, preventing one unwanted birth (which I know is not the question here, strictly) in the US saves a large amount of energy compared to a birth in a country that doesn't spend energy hand over fist like we do (ie, most third world countries).

If you don't really want more children, don't have them, and use a sure birth control method.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ethereal @ May 21 2007, 09:02 PM) [snapback]447054[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol:

 

I don't have any children.

I don't plan on having any children.

Why should I have children if I don't want them?

Is it selfish not to want ANY children?

I have dogs. Is it selfish to have more than one dog at a time?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 21 2007, 07:42 PM) [snapback]447101[/snapback]</div>

This is Bob Barker. Help control the pet population. Have your pets spayed or neutered.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 21 2007, 10:42 PM) [snapback]447101[/snapback]</div>

I have no children; I have two pets, a cat and a dog. I think it's selfish to HAVE kids, at all.

It's the ultimate selfish thing to do. To 'recreate' yourself. There is no need for brats, er, kids. Other then to have something to 'carry on the line', so to speak.

Hey, if you want to have kids, great. Just don't expect everyone to think it's a great thing you have done.

For some of us, not having kids is a sacrifice of sorts. My wife and I don't have many friends, real friends, since we don't have kids, and therefore don't have any common area to socialize around.

My brothers have kids; I have four nephews and one niece. They are always complaining about being broke, or not having time to do this and that. Meanwhile, I can do what I want, and not have to worry about any one's future but mine.

In that way, I guess I am selfish, for sure. But then again, I am doing what I can to help the planet. And I pay taxes for schools that I have no need for. Nor ever will.

We are all selfish in one or another. So what?

 

Chris, first off, congratulations!

But ya gotta think about the drop of 0.00254 MPG when you put a baby in the Prius.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 21 2007, 09:42 PM) [snapback]447101[/snapback]</div>

Very, very selfish. Did you know that Americans own approximately 73 million dogs and 90 million cats? Given the 300 million people living here, most in family groups of 2-4, you can figure that would mean just about everyone has a pet living with them... but think of all those poor children who can't have a dog because you and others like you just *had* to have two.

On the other hand, i have one, my mom has two, and my sister has one, and we all live alone, so we aren't helping either :lol:

 

Ethereal- That's was hilarious!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VABeachPrius @ May 21 2007, 01:18 PM) [snapback]446746[/snapback]</div>

I'm late on this one, but in a word, No. There's nothing selfish at all about wanting to be able to provide a better environment for your family.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ethereal @ May 21 2007, 09:02 PM) [snapback]447054[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ May 22 2007, 02:27 AM) [snapback]447189[/snapback]</div>

I hear you on this one. My wife and I have run into the same problem. One thing we've tried is going to events offered by our local No Kidding! chapter. If there's a chapter in your area, you can check them out. The website is: http://www.nokidding.net/

 

No offense but I think it is selfish (to our kids) to even have one!

Why do we want kids at all? We are getting old and we will be relying on their hard work to feed us (ie, social security, if it still exists) Besides, do we want our kids to suffer from damaged environment? Energy shortage? Crimes? War?

I am doing my most responsible share to my kids -- not to have them born.

(Okay... I mean birth control, not abortion)

 

Since when does the term "selfish" apply to people who choose to have kids or not? I must be missing something... My brother has three kids and my wife and I have none. No problems but we just didn't want to be tied down with kids. Why is that selfish?

We both have careers and like to perform service work. What I would consider selfish would be having kids and putting them in daycare, essentially abdictating parenting dueties for a significant portion of their lives...

A few years back we were able to obtain a Rotary grant with our Rotary Club to build a self maintaining Aids Hospice in South Africa. I like to think that we are giving something back to people and we can make more of a positive impact if we keep our own expenses lower (no children) which allows us to help other more.

 

I'm voting for the health of the planet, here...

Will you raise your children to be socially responsible, environmentally aware people? Will they learn from you tolerance, peace, love for others, and joy? then have more.

Will you raise your children to fear those that are different, to see the earth as their personal playground to abuse as they see fit? Will they discriminate against others, hate others, and think that they are the only ones that are worthy? then, please, do not have more.

Thanks