Pregnancy - a lifestyle choice?

JC 2K3

I firmly believe it is. I think having children is an indulgence (not that I think it's bad), and I don't agree with the biological imperative arguments, because as individuals it doesn't matter to us whether there are future humans or not.

Some people on the other thread seemed to reject the idea that it was a lifestyle choice. I'd like to hear why you think so.

I'd like this to ignore edge cases like accidental pregnancies. I'd really just like a discussion on whether you feel it is a choice like any other in life, or if it should be accepted as the done thing, the norm, and be accommodated at all costs.

bronte

Just on the other side of it, if it is actually a lifestyle choice, then I have been refused a hysterectomy several times so as to avoid it.
If it's going to be considered a choice, can we please start allowing people to eliminate it 100% from their lives.
Fair is fair.

shellyboo

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I firmly believe it is. I think having children is an indulgence (not that I think it's bad), and I don't agree with the biological imperative arguments, because as individuals it doesn't matter to us whether there are future humans or not.

Some people on the other thread seemed to reject the idea that it was a lifestyle choice. I'd like to hear why you think so.

I'd like this to ignore edge cases like accidental pregnancies. I'd really just like a discussion on whether you feel it is a choice like any other in life, or if it should be accepted as the done thing, the norm, and be accommodated at all costs.

It's not a lifestyle choice in the same way that sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice. It is ingrained in some of us to WANT to procreate... and denying that impulse is, of course, a valid choice. But following it, I don't think that's a choice. I think it's nature, simple as that.

I do think it is the norm - we are animals after all, and animals breed. I don't necessarliy think it should be accommodated at all cost, but equally I don't think it should be dismissed (and yes, to me this seems dismissive) as a lifestyle choice. Doing drugs is a lifestyle choice, staying single is a lifestyle choice, being celibate is a lifestyle choice... but I just do not agree that fulfilling nature's purpose is a lifestyle choice.

Just coming from a personal point of view, I don't view my will to have children as a choice. I did not choose to want to have kids, I just DO want to have kids. And I don't think that following that impulse is a "lifestyle choice", I think it's as natural as eating or breathing or having sex.

Das Kitty

It would be pretty self important of the human race to think it's the only organism in the known universe that does not have an instinctual impulse to multiply.

There was a point made somewhere that we've evolved past it, seeing as reproduction is a prerequisite of evolution that doesn't make a whole lot of sense!

paperclip2

My tuppence'hapworth.

In my case I have two children, one planned, one unplanned. My husband and I would love more but have decided that we just cant afford another child. That it would compromise the quality of life we and our two existing children enjoy. So we are making a lifestyle choice not to have another baby.

My sister in law and her husband have been trying for a baby for 14 years and no joy, occasional pregnancies result in miscarriage. They have undergone endless unsuccessful medical tests and treatments and they still try. For them its definately transcended a lifestyle choice issue and its become a fundamental part of who they are as people and as a couple.

I dont know if its possible for someone who doesn't want children or want them with that level of desperation to completely understand the bone deep urge that can drive some people in their need to have children. I look at my s-i-l and at everything she has gone through and part of me wants her to stop trying, to stop putting herself through this hell. But I know she wont and I keep my mouth shut because I know just how important it is for her. Its not in the same league as a choice about where to buy a house or become vegan.

At the end of the day whether its lifestyle or whether its a biological imperative is something that the individual and individual couples have to figure out for themselves.

Morgase

For me (and me only!) it is a lifestyle choice in that I have made the decision to not ever procreate.

bronte wrote: »

Just on the other side of it, if it is actually a lifestyle choice, then I have been refused a hysterectomy several times so as to avoid it.
If it's going to be considered a choice, can we please start allowing people to eliminate it 100% from their lives.
Fair is fair.

Amen to that!

Das Kitty wrote: »

There was a point made somewhere that we've evolved past it:)

I haven't seen that point, but if I am following it correctly I suppose that what was meant was that we have developed a level of consciousness whereby we can override what our genes or bodies "want" us to do as we can think things out rationally and think about consequences - which other animals cannot do (or at least to the same extent).

shellyboo

paperclip2 wrote: »

My sister in law and her husband have been trying for a baby for 14 years and no joy, occasional pregnancies result in miscarriage. They have undergone endless unsuccessful medical tests and treatments and they still try. For them its definately transcended a lifestyle choice issue and its become a fundamental part of who they are as people and as a couple.

I dont know if its possible for someone who doesn't want children or want them with that level of desperation to completely understand the bone deep urge that can drive some people in their need to have children. I look at my s-i-l and at everything she has gone through and part of me wants her to stop trying, to stop putting herself through this hell. But I know she wont and I keep my mouth shut because I know just how important it is for her. Its not in the same league as a choice about where to buy a house or become vegan.

Great post. I agree completely. I think the difference may lie in the fact that some people don't have that urge to procreate, where others do; and it may be difficult for two people from opposing mindsets to understand the other.

CathyMoran

I dont believe that it is a lifestyle choice and think that the right to breed or not breed should be protected.

I have gone through 5 miscarriages in the past 10 months, one at nearly 10 weeks all to try for a baby for my husband who is adopted (he wanted me to stop trying as it has been so emotionally draining on both of us), I think that pregnant mothers should be fully protected. Am 7 weeks pregnant at the moment.

ALincoln

CathyMoran wrote: »

I dont believe that it is a lifestyle choice and think that the right to breed or not breed should be protected.

I have gone through 5 miscarriages in the past 10 months, one at nearly 10 weeks all to try for a baby for my husband who is adopted (he wanted me to stop trying as it has been so emotionally draining on both of us), I think that pregnant mothers should be fully protected. Am 7 weeks pregnant at the moment.

That post is completely contradictory - you don't think it is a choice...yet you want to protect the right to have a choice...right...moving on so;

Of course it's a lifestyle choice. If you want a child, there's a way to go about it. If you do not want a child, there are ways to prevent it. Both instances involve a choice on the part of one or both partners.

The Big Red Button

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I firmly believe it is. I think having children is an indulgence (not that I think it's bad), and I don't agree with the biological imperative arguments, because as individuals it doesn't matter to us whether there are future humans or not.

Some people on the other thread seemed to reject the idea that it was a lifestyle choice. I'd like to hear why you think so.

I'd like this to ignore edge cases like accidental pregnancies. I'd really just like a discussion on whether you feel it is a choice like any other in life, or if it should be accepted as the done thing, the norm, and be accommodated at all costs.

It's not quite as simple as being "a choice like any other in life."

It's a case that some men and women will simply never feel "fulfilled", or as though they've lived a full life, without becoming parents. Other men and women, as mentioned above, never want to become parents. And there is a full spectrum of in-betweens.

I think that one's attitude to parenthood is, perhaps, comparable to one's sexual orientation. It's what and who you are. If you've always felt the need to become a parent, then you'll do your best to overcome all obstacles and find a way no matter what. And so long as you're not hurting anyone else in the process, you should be fully entitled to do so.

At the other end of the spectrum, if someone who has actively never wanted children accidentally becomes pregnant, they are not going to keep the baby. And if they do, I don't believe that it would be in the best interests of the child. This is why, as bronte mentioned above, it's ridiculous that optional hysterectomies are so difficult to get. All other methods of contraception can and do fail, and it's very unfair that people end up in that situation after taking all precautions.

Personally I'm somewhere towards the end of the spectrum that yes, I would like children someday (at a time of my choosing and on my own terms!), but for me it's not something that should be accommodated at all costs. For a start I wouldn't sacrifice my career or my desire to travel and to have a comfortable lifestyle. For that matter I wouldn't have children until I was at a place in my life where I could be fairly certain of being able to provide them with a good standard of life (both emotionally and financially). If this means that I leave it too late and don't end up ever becoming a mother, then I can absolutely live with that.

However I also understand that some people couldn't live with it, that they would exhaust every possible avenue and make all possible sacrifices. I don't see that so much as their "choice" to become parents - more their "right" to do all that they can to fulfil their natural instincts and do what they deem to be necessary to life a happy and fulfilled life. And fair play to them! It's just that it's not for everyone, and those who have never felt the want/need to become parents should not be judged for this and should be treated with equal respect.

Mr. Incognito

Having children isn't a choice it's an URGE. It's biologically programmed into us to procreate and spawn a new generation.

Designer handbags and decking are lifestyle choices.

Children are life.

There is a difference

metrovelvet

I dont know. Is heterosexuality a lifestyle choice? Is homosexuality a lifestyle choice?

How do you distinguish a lifestyle choice from a moral one?

The Big Red Button

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Having children isn't a choice it's an URGE. It's biologically programmed into us to procreate and spawn a new generation.

Yes, it is biologically programmed into some of us but most certainly not into all of us!

In fact it would be completely irresponsible to act on this "urge" if we cannot provide for the children "spawned" (your word not mine!) And yet many many people do, leaving the country's taxpayers to pay for the individual's fulfillment of this "urge".

barbiegirl

First CathyMoran Congrats that's great.
Fingers crossed and I'll say a little prayer for you and the babs.
On the lifestyle choice issue, I am on the side that for some people, me included, it is a biological imperative to be a parent, whether that be naturally or through adoption. Would it be easier and cheaper not to? Would my career benefit if I didn't? Yes definitely, however I am very maternal and my nieces and nephews no longer satisfy that need. A new puppy is actually making it worse cause now the house really feels like it needs a child.
It is the right of those without this need, which I believe is hormone driven, to not procreate, but for those of us who are so driven, then the right to do so and the allowances that that entails should be in place.
Is this question or issue driven by a work issue with a pregnant co-worker, the assumption by others that you must want a child, or just generally that yoy don't understand the need to have one?
It is very hard for, as mentioned earlier for those people from two polar opposites to understand each other.

metrovelvet

chatterpillar wrote: »

Yes, it is biologically programmed into some of us but most certainly not into all of us!

In fact it would be completely irresponsible to act on this "urge" if we cannot provide for the children "spawned" (your word not mine!) And yet many many people do, leaving the country's taxpayers to pay for the individual's fulfillment of this "urge".

Hmnn so those above what income should procreate?

You do realise that most likely you and most of everyone you know would not be existing right now as historically the Irish were poor. Were most of the country irresponsible? Should they have only allowed the anglo-protestant classes to reproduce?

metrovelvet

bronte wrote: »

Just on the other side of it, if it is actually a lifestyle choice, then I have been refused a hysterectomy several times so as to avoid it.
If it's going to be considered a choice, can we please start allowing people to eliminate it 100% from their lives.
Fair is fair.

Even though you were willing to pay out of your own pocket? Was this because insurance said it wasnt a medical necessity?

Sleipnir

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't agree with the biological imperative arguments, because as individuals it doesn't matter to us whether there are future humans or not.

It doesn't matter to animals whether there are future generations of their own species or not, so why do animals procreate? Lifestyle choice?
Or do you think that we have separated from the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution that preceded the last few generations of human beings?

On a personal level, I also disagree with your statement. Knowing that a part of me will walk the earth long after I am gone makes me feel...content. And also makes me feel connected with the generations that preceded me.
In a way, it makes me feel.....immortal.

In a way.

The Big Red Button

metrovelvet wrote: »

Hmnn so those above what income should procreate?

At an income level at which they can realistically afford to provide their child with the basic essentials throughout their life i.e. food, clothing, shelter, education. For my part, I'd want to be at an income level at which I could afford a lot more before I would have children, but that's just my choice. And of course people from less well-off backgrounds can have happy childhoods; my own family weren't exactly loaded when I was growing up. However we were never denied the basics.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You do realise that most likely you and most of everyone you know would not be existing right now as historically the Irish were poor. Were most of the country irresponsible? Should they have only allowed the anglo-protestant classes to reproduce?

Yes, historically many Irish families had far more children than they could afford, leaving to a very high child mortality rate. Being hungry all the time was the norm for these children. Do I think this was irresponsible - yes I do. How could you knowingly bring a child into a life like that? I'm most certainly not saying that only the anglo-protestant classes should have been allowed to reproduce - I'm saying that if you already have nine children that you can't afford to feed, having a tenth child is a pretty selfish decision.

metrovelvet

chatterpillar wrote: »

At an income level at which they can realistically afford to provide their child with the basic essentials throughout their life i.e. food, clothing, shelter, education. For my part, I'd want to be at an income level at which I could afford a lot more before I would have children, but that's just my choice. And of course people from less well-off backgrounds can have happy childhoods; my own family weren't exactly loaded when I was growing up. However we were never denied the basics.



Yes, historically many Irish families had far more children than they could afford, leaving to a very high child mortality rate. Being hungry all the time was the norm for these children. Do I think this was irresponsible - yes I do. How could you knowingly bring a child into a life like that? I'm most certainly not saying that only the anglo-protestant classes should have been allowed to reproduce - I'm saying that if you already have nine children that you can't afford to feed, having a tenth child is a pretty selfish decision.

I suppose you are right. That is why a lot of them were farmed out to America.

bronte

metrovelvet wrote: »

Even though you were willing to pay out of your own pocket? Was this because insurance said it wasnt a medical necessity?

Exactly. I got fobbed off for ages and was told that at my age(25) I'd have to have 5 Kids to be considered. :mad:

paperclip2

metrovelvet wrote: »

Hmnn so those above what income should procreate?

You do realise that most likely you and most of everyone you know would not be existing right now as historically the Irish were poor. Were most of the country irresponsible? Should they have only allowed the anglo-protestant classes to reproduce?

Social norms were different. Having a large family was seen as being one of the the best way of providing for ones old age.

SeekUp

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Having children isn't a choice it's an URGE. It's biologically programmed into us to procreate and spawn a new generation.

I think that the urge itself would be considered the norm, even though not everyone appears to have it.

That being said, I think there's a difference between the urge to mate and/or procreate and the active choice to have a child. It's the same as actively choosing not to have a child, right? I mean, whether it's IVF or a hysterectomy, or birth control, or whatever you're doing to have/not have a child, it's a choice. One that will impact your lifestyle.

stovelid

It's patently obvious that there is a basic imperative in most species to procreate and further life. Not to mention the social and emotional benefits of being in a family unit.

That said: individual humans are more than capable (and are perfectly entitled to) to opt out of this imperative. As much as they are entitled to opt of other sexual and social (so-called) norms if they see fit.

The term lifestyle choice is unfortunate as it has negative connotations of selfishness and triviality when it is, of course, quite a serious choice with far-reaching results - both personal and societal.

metrovelvet

bronte wrote: »

Exactly. I got fobbed off for ages and was told that at my age(25) I'd have to have 5 Kids to be considered. :mad:

What about tubes tied? I think it was medically correct advice not to operate on you unless its medically necessary. Surgery involves risks and it is no easy thing.

One could argue that they werent going to pay for your lifestyle choice NOT to have children.

bronte

metrovelvet wrote: »

What about tubes tied? I think it was medically correct advice not to operate on you unless its medically necessary. Surgery involves risks and it is no easy thing.

One could argue that they werent going to pay for your lifestyle choice NOT to have children.

You can have a tubal ligation in the uk at my age without major fuss.
It's still only 99% effective though. I'd prefer complete peace of mind.
I understand the risks involved, however it's something I'm prepared to go through for once and for all.
They wouldn't be paying, (in monetary terms if that's what you mean) I would.

metrovelvet

bronte wrote: »

You can have a tubal ligation in the uk at my age without major fuss.
It's still only 99% effective though. I'd prefer complete peace of mind.
I understand the risks involved, however it's something I'm prepared to go through for once and for all.
They wouldn't be paying, (in monetary terms if that's what you mean) I would.

Yeah I can see what you are saying, but I can also see a surgeon's perspective here. You would get a hysterectomy even with all the consequences that come with that, like HUGE weight gain and lots of other bi products. Tubes tied, much better option.

How much is a hysterectomy btw?

Maguined

Doctors are probably only covering their asses, if you get your tubes tied you can get that reversed, if you get a hysterectomy its irreversible so they are probably afraid that if they do them that down the line someone will turn around and change their mind and sue the doctor for performing an irreversible operation on them, sounds stupid but it happens and doctors are very concerned about any future lawsuits.

The people that say it is not a choice seem to focus on the natural and instinctual urges some people have to procreate but the entire point is that it is your choice how you respond to these urges, it is still a choice over whether you indulge them or try to restrain them. People constantly have urges and instincts emotionally affecting them but that does not remove responsibility for their actions as society we hold people accountable for how they choose to respond to these urges.

bronte

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yeah I can see what you are saying, but I can also see a surgeon's perspective here. You would get a hysterectomy even with all the consequences that come with that, like HUGE weight gain and lots of other bi products. Tubes tied, much better option.

How much is a hysterectomy btw?

You'd be looking at several thousand in the uk anyway.
I know what you mean, will just have to wait till my 40s or whenever they are more likely to be forthcoming.
If only I'd been born a boy!

bronte

Mikaboshi wrote: »

Doctors are probably only covering their asses, if you get your tubes tied you can get that reversed, if you get a hysterectomy its irreversible so they are probably afraid that if they do them that down the line someone will turn around and change their mind and sue the doctor for performing an irreversible operation on them, sounds stupid but it happens and doctors are very concerned about any future lawsuits.

I agree. I think they are.
I am willing to sign an iron clad agreement that states that it's my tough cookies if I change my mind down the line, I'm that sure. I can understand why they have their reservations though.

metrovelvet

bronte wrote: »

You'd be looking at several thousand in the uk anyway.
I know what you mean, will just have to wait till my 40s or whenever they are more likely to be forthcoming.
If only I'd been born a boy!

Seriously get your tubes tied you dont want to deal with hormone therapy, and all the other crap that goes with a hysterectomy. You will never ever be out of the doctor's office.

bronte

Yeah, as soon as I have a spot to take time off for recovery I'll be heading that direction.

..

shellyboo wrote: »

It's not a lifestyle choice in the same way that sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice. It is ingrained in some of us to WANT to procreate... and denying that impulse is, of course, a valid choice. But following it, I don't think that's a choice. I think it's nature, simple as that.

I do think it is the norm - we are animals after all, and animals breed. I don't necessarliy think it should be accommodated at all cost, but equally I don't think it should be dismissed (and yes, to me this seems dismissive) as a lifestyle choice. Doing drugs is a lifestyle choice, staying single is a lifestyle choice, being celibate is a lifestyle choice... but I just do not agree that fulfilling nature's purpose is a lifestyle choice.

Just coming from a personal point of view, I don't view my will to have children as a choice. I did not choose to want to have kids, I just DO want to have kids. And I don't think that following that impulse is a "lifestyle choice", I think it's as natural as eating or breathing or having sex.

Totally agree with you Shelly. We are animals and being gay, wanting children, pedophilia, and all the rest is not lifestyle choice. So happy to have seen your writings.

Maguined

You are comparing having urges to acting on urges. If you are in a relationship and you see someone else that you find attractive this does not make you a cheater, choosing to act on those sexual urges and and sex with that person would make you a cheater.

People are responsible for their actions not for their thoughts or urges.

Novella

CathyMoran wrote: »

I dont believe that it is a lifestyle choice and think that the right to breed or not breed should be protected.

I have gone through 5 miscarriages in the past 10 months, one at nearly 10 weeks all to try for a baby for my husband who is adopted (he wanted me to stop trying as it has been so emotionally draining on both of us), I think that pregnant mothers should be fully protected. Am 7 weeks pregnant at the moment.

Congratulations! I hope all goes well for you and that you have a healthy pregnancy. I extend my sympathies for your losses. Five miscarriages in ten months is huge and I really respect you for continuing to try. You're very brave.



Back OT, I wouldn't consider pregnancy a lifestyle choice because if a young woman decides nah, she doesn't want children and seeks a hysterectomy, she is told no. It is almost expected that at some stage a woman is gonna wake up with some kind of yearning to have a baby. This means it isn't a choice. A decision is made by a woman to have a hysterectomy and she is denied on the basis she has no children. Yeah, because she doesn't want any!!!!! No one really seems to understand it.

I think some people just know that they never want to have children and in order for pregnancy to be a lifestyle choice, I think firstly maybe that needs to be respected.

Macha

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I firmly believe it is. I think having children is an indulgence (not that I think it's bad).....

I'd really just like a discussion on whether you feel it is a choice like any other in life, or if it should be accepted as the done thing, the norm, and be accommodated at all costs.

You say that you don't think it's a bad thing but then you go onto query if it should be "accommodated at all costs".

What costs are you referring to?

metrovelvet

Novella wrote: »

Congratulations! I hope all goes well for you and that you have a healthy pregnancy. I extend my sympathies for your losses. Five miscarriages in ten months is huge and I really respect you for continuing to try. You're very brave.



Back OT, I wouldn't consider pregnancy a lifestyle choice because if a young woman decides nah, she doesn't want children and seeks a hysterectomy, she is told no. It is almost expected that at some stage a woman is gonna wake up with some kind of yearning to have a baby. This means it isn't a choice. A decision is made by a woman to have a hysterectomy and she is denied on the basis she has no children. Yeah, because she doesn't want any!!!!! No one really seems to understand it.

I think some people just know that they never want to have children and in order for pregnancy to be a lifestyle choice, I think firstly maybe that needs to be respected.

They cant just remove organs because the patient demands it. The organ has to be causing an illness. Im not expert but I dont think fertility is classed as an illness, and they certainly wont do that when there are so many other options that wont be as complex or traumatising as a hysterectomy.

Khannie

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't agree with the biological imperative arguments

Maybe when you've felt the biological imperative you'll change your mind. :pac:

edit: Congrats Cathy. I'm delighted for you both. Really hope things work out for you. I think you're a legend.

Maguined

Novella wrote: »

Back OT, I wouldn't consider pregnancy a lifestyle choice because if a young woman decides nah, she doesn't want children and seeks a hysterectomy, she is told no. It is almost expected that at some stage a woman is gonna wake up with some kind of yearning to have a baby. This means it isn't a choice. A decision is made by a woman to have a hysterectomy and she is denied on the basis she has no children. Yeah, because she doesn't want any!!!!! No one really seems to understand it.

There are other options of course, it's not a case of you either get a hysterectomy or else you have to get pregnant, a hysterectomy is just one sub-choice out of the initial choice to try to avoid pregnancy rather than intentionally become pregnant. Just because other contraceptive methods as condoms and the pill are not as effective as a hysterectomy does not invalidate the choice altogether it just might make it less appealing to you.

If you truly do not want to get pregnant you can of course not have sex, it is a completely valid choice to make, not one i would ever entertain myself but nonetheless it is still a viable choice however if you choose to engage in sexual activity than as an informed adult you have to accept all the responsibilities that entails including the risk of pregnancy.

Novella

Well some guy just tried to sell me his kidney over in Long Term Illness haha so removing organs might not be such a big thing anymore!!! :rolleyes:

Ah no. It's not that I think doctors should be whipping out reproductive organs left, right and centre but a few ladies on here seem definite that they never want children and I don't think a hysterectomy would be traumatising for them. Perhaps what would be traumatising for them though would be finding themselves pregnant which is always a possibility, even with the use of contraceptives.

bronte

Mikaboshi wrote: »

If you truly do not want to get pregnant you can of course not have sex

I'd sadly last all of 24 hours I'm afraid.

Novella wrote: »

Perhaps what would be traumatising for them though would be finding themselves pregnant which is always a possibility, even with the use of contraceptives.

Agreed. I mean I'll be fairly safe with the tubal ligation, but it's a shame there's not a less invasive 100% method.
Oh well.

Miss Lockhart

Mikaboshi wrote: »

You are comparing having urges to acting on urges. If you are in a relationship and you see someone else that you find attractive this does not make you a cheater, choosing to act on those sexual urges and and sex with that person would make you a cheater.

People are responsible for their actions not for their thoughts or urges.

Whilst it is certainly reasonable to expect a person in a relationship to resist the urge to have sex with another person (ie cheat), I cannot see that it is reasonable to expect a person to resist the urge to have sex entirely. Most people, in this day and age, would agree that sex is a natural act - a biological urge, that everyone should have the right to enjoy. Most would feel that a person who wants sex should not be denied the right to choose to follow this urge as they would definitely be unfulfilled and unhappy. (paedophiles obviously a different story as sex cannot be consensual)

Likewise, I feel it is not reasonable to expect a person to entirely resist the urge to have a baby - as I definitely believe it is a biological urge. Again, I feel that such a person should not be denied the right to follow this urge as otherwise they would be unfulfilled and unhappy.

I think the arguments about humans having evolved beyond biological urges is arrogant and unrealistic. Humans have certainly evolved to have greater control and the ability to put greater thought into their decisions. However, when it comes down to it, they are still animls subject to biological urges and I believe they will be unhappy if they choose not follow the ones they feel strongly.

I think we are obviously facing some major problems in reconciling our beliefs and expectations as a modern society with our biological make up. Personally I think it can only be a bad thing to fly completely in the face of biology and nature because of societal beliefs. Obviously any decisions an individual makes due to their own feelings is an entirely different matter.

chocgirl

Having an urge to do something and having the right to do them are completely different things and shouldn't be confused.

Sex is of course a natural act, part of life and all that but the urge to have sex can't always be acted upon. I think most people would agree that if it's not consensual it shouldn't happen even within a relationship.

I'd feel the same way about getting pregnant. Some people may want to have children, maybe most people want to have children even but ultimately I'd classify it as a lifestyle choice. It can be avoided so there is choice there. I also believe strongly that people who don't have the means to raise children well for whatever reason shouldn't have them.

Maguined

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Whilst it is certainly reasonable to expect a person in a relationship to resist the urge to have sex with another person (ie cheat), I cannot see that it is reasonable to expect a person to resist the urge to have sex entirely. Most people, in this day and age, would agree that sex is a natural act - a biological urge, that everyone should have the right to enjoy. Most would feel that a person who wants sex should not be denied the right to choose to follow this urge as they would definitely be unfulfilled and unhappy. (paedophiles obviously a different story as sex cannot be consensual)

I personally don't see it as reasonable either to expect people to not have sex, i do believe it is reasonable for people to accept the responsibility that when they do engage in sex they are accepting the risk of pregnancy. I am just pointing out that it's a choice, maybe not a very appealing choice but it is a choice all the same.

I also do not expect people to resist the urge to have children, i expect them to have children if they so choose as that is their own personal freedom to make, however my point is that they have the choice to have children, an urge towards certain behavior does not remove the responsibility of acting in that behavior. Having a sexual urge is neither moral or immoral by itself its the choice of how that person acts upon the urge that determines its morality ie its fine if they have sex with a consenting adult but its not fine if its not consensual.

b3t4

Can someone please tell this to my hormones?

When I'm ovulating my head and body wants to be pregnant or get pregnant. I see babies EVERYWHERE and families and all that jazz. I even have dreams about being pregnant!!!

When this passes I return to my sensible, practical self but for those few days the only thing my body wants is to get pregnant.

I'm 99% covered now with an IUCD but when we were relying on condoms I found I was willing to take more risks when I was ovulating.

Thankfully, I put my urges to one side for practicality sake but it was a hard won fight with myself

I get that there are women/men out there who don't feel like this but it's upsetting to have my emotions put down to a lifestyle choice. I don't put down a woman's/man's choice not to have children so I don't see why it can somehow be implied that it's unnatural to feel like you do want children.

Sure it's a choice but I'm not sure I'd call it a lifestyle choice. To me calling it a lifestyle choice seems so dismissive of those that don't want children and those that do.

I think supporting either choice in society is beneficial. If you support the kids then you will hopefully have well rounded kids to pay for your pension and if you support the people who don't want kids you'll have less unwanted kids in your country. Win, win if you ask me.

Also, if we were to decide that it's a lifestyle choice and shouldn't be supported does that mean we wouldn't have public funded education? What about the people who have enough to feed and provide shelter for their children but wouldn't have enough to pay for private education?

Are we saying that only the super rich should be able to reproduce?

How about if the super rich were only able to get that way with both parents working? For a women, perhaps, she puts her fertility on hold till it's too late. What then? Perhaps, they can use the people who couldn't afford education as surogates.

hmm it all seems a bit deluded to me

rs

bronte wrote: »

Just on the other side of it, if it is actually a lifestyle choice, then I have been refused a hysterectomy several times so as to avoid it.
If it's going to be considered a choice, can we please start allowing people to eliminate it 100% from their lives.
Fair is fair.

I can only assume that the doctors won't operate for two simple reasons.

1. It's major surgery, and carries all the same risks that major surgery involves. Are you really willing to risk death to ensure you never have children? Seem pretty severe really.

2. How can you be 100% sure now that you never want to have kids? A lot can change in 10 years.

I mean, I can't be 100% sure I'll still want my kids in 10 years time. But I can always sell them off for medical experimentation.

Why are you so dead set against having children? Sure, you may get pregnant even if you use the regular precautions, but it's pretty unlikely.

Even if you were to get pregnant, you could give the child up for adoption. There is no shortage of people looking for babies these days. Getting pregnant is not a life long commitment to be a parent.

I certainly think you should choose to have children or to not have children. It is a choice. However, calling it a "lifestyle choice" seems to trivialize it. It's not like choosing a handbag or a car.

The Big Red Button

Mikaboshi wrote: »

I personally don't see it as reasonable either to expect people to not have sex, i do believe it is reasonable for people to accept the responsibility that when they do engage in sex they are accepting the risk of pregnancy. I am just pointing out that it's a choice, maybe not a very appealing choice but it is a choice all the same.

I am currently in a long term relationship. I do my best to avoid pregnancy, as I do not currently want to have a child. However, the pill (along with many other contraceptive methods) does not suit me (for various health reasons) and my doctor will not allow me to get the coil due to infertility risks. (And yes, I could go to a different doctor, but due to those underlying health issues that's just not feasible at the moment.) Therefore I am currently relying solely on condoms, and take this into consideration each time I have sex. My back-up plan is adoption, as I could not personally go through with an abortion. You may not believe me, but I know myself best: if I got pregnant, I would put the interests of my child before my own, and without a doubt I would give my child up for adoption. After having the healthiest possible pregnancy.

Had I the choice, I'd much rather just get the coil. I'd willingly put up with the risk of infertility; my doctor won't let me as I haven't had any children yet. I'm an intelligent mature woman; however I amn't allowed make that decision for myself.

Similarly Bronte is willing to take the more permanent measure of having a hysterectomy. I am certain she wouldn't even consider this unless, as an intelligent mature woman, she was aware of all the risks and willing to accept all financial responsibility and other less quantifiable costs. However she isn't allowed to do so - no matter what waivers she is willing to sign.

So neither I nor Bronte nor others in our position are allowed make educated decisions about our situations (taking into account all of the risks.) Yet if a child of fourteen becomes pregnant, there is no question about her being permitted to become a mother.

Don't you see that there's something fundamentally wrong there?

The Big Red Button

rs wrote: »

I mean, I can't be 100% sure I'll still want my kids in 10 years time. But I can always sell them off for medical experimentation.

rs wrote: »

However, calling it a "lifestyle choice" seems to trivialize it. It's not like choosing a handbag or a car.

Isn't there a contradiction there somewhere?!

bronte

rs wrote: »

I can only assume that the doctors won't operate for two simple reasons.

1. It's major surgery, and carries all the same risks that major surgery involves. Are you really willing to risk death to ensure you never have children? Seem pretty severe really.

2. How can you be 100% sure now that you never want to have kids? A lot can change in 10 years.

I mean, I can't be 100% sure I'll still want my kids in 10 years time. But I can always sell them off for medical experimentation.

Why are you so dead set against having children? Sure, you may get pregnant even if you use the regular precautions, but it's pretty unlikely.

Even if you were to get pregnant, you could give the child up for adoption. There is no shortage of people looking for babies these days. Getting pregnant is not a life long commitment to be a parent.

I certainly think you should choose to have children or to not have children. It is a choice. However, calling it a "lifestyle choice" seems to trivialize it. It's not like choosing a handbag or a car.

Oh hey, I'm still on the fence on whether it's a lifestyle choice or not!
Yes, I am willing to chance the death if it were to prevent me having kids for good. Childbirth itself can result in death too.
I'm willing to take the gamble.
Lol on the medical experimentation!
It's very hard to describe to someone who wants kids how you do not want any.
I think someone mentioned earlier on this thread that people at opposite ends of the extreme will have trouble understanding one another.
I certainly agree with that.
All I can say is I don't want them as much as I don't want to get mown down by a lorry.
I'm actually adopted myself and it's something I don't think I could ever do (give a kid up for adoption) I suppose I'm not as selfless as my birth mother.

bronte

chatterpillar wrote: »

I am currently in a long term relationship. I do my best to avoid pregnancy, as I do not currently want to have a child. However, the pill (along with many other contraceptive methods) does not suit me (for various health reasons) and my doctor will not allow me to get the coil due to infertility risks. (And yes, I could go to a different doctor, but due to those underlying health issues that's just not feasible at the moment.) Therefore I am currently relying solely on condoms, and take this into consideration each time I have sex. My back-up plan is adoption, as I could not personally go through with an abortion. You may not believe me, but I know myself best: if I got pregnant, I would put the interests of my child before my own, and without a doubt I would give my child up for adoption. After having the healthiest possible pregnancy.

Had I the choice, I'd much rather just get the coil. I'd willingly put up with the risk of infertility; my doctor won't let me as I haven't had any children yet. I'm an intelligent mature woman; however I amn't allowed make that decision for myself.

Similarly Bronte is willing to take the more permanent measure of having a hysterectomy. I am certain she wouldn't even consider this unless, as an intelligent mature woman, she was aware of all the risks and willing to accept all financial responsibility and other less quantifiable costs. However she isn't allowed to do so - no matter what waivers she is willing to sign.

So neither I nor Bronte nor others in our position are allowed make educated decisions about our situations (taking into account all of the risks.) Yet if a child of fourteen becomes pregnant, there is no question about her being permitted to become a mother.

Don't you see that there's something fundamentally wrong there?

You put it so much more eloquently than I did hun.
It is immensely frustrating to be told no.
If I'm old enough and mature enough to bring a child into the world then I'm old and mature enough to make a decision to eliminate that from my life.

Maguined

Chatterpillar I agree that yourself and Bronte and whoever else should be able to get whatever procedures you want, I understand the reasons behind why a doctor would not go through with it and would not support those reasons as they are mostly selfish ones as the doctors are just trying to cover their own asses however the choice to engage in a sexual relationship is still a choice in itself.

Not to mention all the other various forms of contraception, you say the pill is not viable but I thought there was several different kinds of "the pill" available each with its own different side affects and reactions. If you are in a long term relationship your partner could get his tubes tied as well. They might not be acceptable options for your situation but the fact remains they are still choices and you choose whether they are acceptable to you or not. Just because one even if not your preferrential choice regarding preventing pregnancy is not available to you does not invalidate all other preventative choices including the ultimate choice itself to engage in sex in the first place.

Just because i cannot afford to buy an aston martin DB9 does not mean i have no choice in buying a car, i still have all other choices to consider, look at what cars i can actually afford, taking the bus, cycling or even walking are also valid forms of transport. They might not suit directly to my circumstances etc but ultimately buying a car is a choice the same as engaging in sexual activity is a choice and you have to accept the responsibility and the consequences of that choice, so ultimately in my opinion anyway you choose to be sexually active then it was a lifestyle choice if you become pregnant.

This all of course assumes the sexual activity was consensual of course as we all unfortunately know that rape does happen and pregnancy can occur from that but i am automatically excluding this and wouldn't ever dream of telling a pregnant rape victim it was her lifestyle choice.

3DataModem

chatterpillar wrote: »

ll other methods of contraception can and do fail, and it's very unfair that people end up in that situation after taking all precautions.

Don't have sex. There's your "choice".