Couples who CHOOSE not to have kids

simu

ionapaul wrote:

Is it not true that some women's plans to have their first child in their mid-to-late 30s might come back and haunt them? A doctor friend of mine once told me that some modern women expect to be as fecund at that age as in their early 20s, but it doesn't always work out like that.

True - but most people are too busy with uni/travelling/starting a career/having fun etc in their 20s to think about kids.

Also, I'm not sure that procreation can be defined as a by-product of the desire for sex...any evolutionary theorists in the house to help with this? Surely the desire for sex and associated pleasure is an evolutionary development that facilitates greater / more successful procreation, and the 'desire' (unconsious and unfeeling though a simple organism's tendency to reproduce may be) to procreate predates the desire for sex.

Yeah, that would make more sense from an evolutionary pov but I'm thinking of it from the point of view of an individual. Most people most of the time have sex for pleasure/other non-reproduction-related reasons and not to get pregnant.

seamus

neuro-praxis wrote:

I can't believe that the idea that procreation is a social construct is getting the time of day.

It's the first I've heard about it, and it's rare I find something that I'm so completely, 100% in disagreement with.

I'm 23, my gf is 23, we both know we'll have kids someday. Not because we *should*, and certainly not from peer pressure. It's something I'm personally driven to do, it's an urge that I can feel as distinctly primal. Exactly the same as the urge to eat, or the urge to provide for myself. Sure, sex is also a similar urge, but the underlying urge behind it is also there.

I in fact believe, that the more complex the social construct, the *less* you are driven to procreate. Modern social constructs either convince people that procreation may not be the best idea (not a bad thing), or actually prevent people from going ahead with it.

If you don't want to have kids, that's fine, that's your choice. I wouldn't question it, or exclude or berate you for not having kids.

simu

seamus wrote:

It's something I'm personally driven to do, it's an urge that I can feel as distinctly primal. Exactly the same as the urge to eat, or the urge to provide for myself. Sure, sex is also a similar urge, but the underlying urge behind it is also there.

Really? Personally, I find the idea of having another human growing inside my body and feeding off me revolting and disturbing. However, I would consider putting up with it for a while because I think it's good way to transmit features I find good in myself through to the next generation and that it would be very enlightening and enriching observing another person coming to grips with the world from zero.

But maybe I'm just strange.

Modern social constructs either convince people that procreation may not be the best idea (not a bad thing), or actually prevent people from going ahead with it.

Do you have an example of this? I mean, the way I see it, the most "popular" model for life (or social construct) we have at the moment is the college, career, find partner, have kids one.

RainyDay

ionapaul wrote:

Is it not true that some women's plans to have their first child in their mid-to-late 30s might come back and haunt them? A doctor friend of mine once told me that some modern women expect to be as fecund at that age as in their early 20s, but it doesn't always work out like that.

Been there, got the t-shirt. Like many of our peers, we concentrated on getting our house up & running, having the wedding, and having a fair oul time travelling round the world before thinking about kids, with the expectation that they would just pop out on demand once we were ready. So we were ready in our mid-30's, but our bodies weren't. Then followed a difficult 5 years of trying, failing, drugs, trying, failing and ending with successful IVF treatment to bring our beautiful daughter into this world. So it's just a note of caution to those who plan to have kids later on - nature may not be bought into your plan.

seamus

simu wrote:

Really? Personally, I find the idea of having another human growing inside my body and feeding off me revolting and disturbing. However, I would consider putting up with it for a while because I think it's good way to transmit features I find good in myself through to the next generation and that it would be very enlightening and enriching observing another person coming to grips with the world from zero.

But maybe I'm just strange.

I'm not female, I can't give that perspective.

Do you have an example of this? I mean, the way I see it, the most "popular" model for life (or social construct) we have at the moment is the college, career, find partner, have kids one.

Well, the world is a perfect example of this. Most places where we find the modern (western) society, we find dropping birth rates and stalling population growth. In less well-off or backward places, we still find massive population growth. In general, the rule follows that the more educated you are, the less children you will have. And IMO it stands to reason that more educated you are, the more you "subscribe" to modern social ideas and trends.

As it were, I believe that Natural selection has come full circle and bit us in the ass.

My 2c.

Beruthiel

seamus wrote:

It's something I'm personally driven to do, it's an urge that I can feel as distinctly primal. Exactly the same as the urge to eat, or the urge to provide for myself..

really?
I've never, ever felt that!

I find the idea of having another human growing inside my body and feeding off me revolting and disturbing

ever see that old sifi series V?
the episode where a woman became pregnant by an alien and the alien baby attached itself to her major organs so she couldn't abort without killing herself, that's what being pregnant felt like to me

bonkey

MorningStar wrote:

What are the later problems and has anybody experience/knowledge of growing older and not having kids?

The only one I can think of is a change of heart after its too late to remedy.

My grand-aunt (100+ and still going strong) never married and never had children. I don't see that it caused her any problems.

jc

MorningStar

seamus wrote:

I'm 23, my gf is 23, we both know we'll have kids someday. Not because we *should*, and certainly not from peer pressure. It's something I'm personally driven to do, it's an urge that I can feel as distinctly primal. Exactly the same as the urge to eat, or the urge to provide for myself. Sure, sex is also a similar urge, but the underlying urge behind it is also there.

That is a weird statement. You can't be driven to have kids like the desire to eat. That is like saying you have the desire to hunt to eat the desire is to eat not hunt. You can be driven to have kids but that's not primal urge like sex. The society pressure doesn't just mean peers it the whole thing and there is certainly pressure to have children. Some is direct like family memember and other is indirect like TV ads showing families.

seamus

MorningStar wrote:

That is a weird statement. You can't be driven to have kids like the desire to eat. That is like saying you have the desire to hunt to eat the desire is to eat not hunt.

Not necessarily. And who says to hunt isn't a primal urge? The hunt still exists (although it's taken a different form).

You can be driven to have kids but that's not primal urge like sex. The society pressure doesn't just mean peers it the whole thing and there is certainly pressure to have children. Some is direct like family memember and other is indirect like TV ads showing families.

Well IMO, the evidence would seem to indicate otherwise.

nesf

Ok, I hope the following makes sense. My views on this topic, aren't straightforward or easily summed up into a few short lines.

Eh, does the whole primal urge thing really need to be debated? We're (generally) born with an instinctual need to have sex that kicks in at puberty. The vast majority of us go through this.

Sex != Children. That's a modern phenomenae, Unprotected sex between two fertile partners (obviously of the opposite sex) will eventually result in pregnancy in most cases. That's a fact of life.


The whole issue is different nowadays though. Now it's feasible to not have children and not abstain from sex. You can have your cake and not need to pay for it. (I'm speaking from "a masses" viewpoint here).

So now people can take a step back and ask themselves, "Do I want kids? Would I make a good parent? Is it fair for me to bring a life into the world? etc"

This is one of those, well it wasn't a problem 100 years ago, so there really isn't a lot of tradition and history to fall back on.

My view, is that the choice of having children and the choice of deciding you don't want them are both equally valid. I really think that it is something that should be left upto the two people involved.


Like, for instance, take me. I'm single atm. I'm 23. And I'm male. Do I want kids? I really don't know. I love children and would love to raise some, but I'd need to meet the right person to have them with. The important point is, if my partner isn't the right person to have kids with, but she is the right partner for me, then I will be happy. Or adoption. I'd be cool with that too

But there are more important things to me. I do not exist to procreate!

Having kids, really does not bother me. It'll either happen at the right time for the right reasons, or it won't. And I don't plan on taking risks about it either. I'm not the kind of guy that could walk away from a pregnancy. *shrugs* Guess it's the way I've been brought up.


What gets to me is the attitude some people have. The whole, oh look at that couple, they have no kids, there must be something wrong with them.

I mean seriously. It's completely understandable for a couple not to want kids in my mind. I think the arguments for it are very valid and more meaningful as the usually impassioned pleas that some groups come up with against them.




But my serious issue here is with ****ing muppets having kids. The generations of "trailer trash" knackers who all manage to get pregnant by 16.

I'm sorry, but those people should just be ****ing neutered or something (j/k). I mean, having kids is a serious ****ing decision. There is no excuse for not taking the matter seriously.

And no, there are plenty of young mothers in my extended family and my family helps them out and such. I've no illusions about how easy a thing it is to happen. I just don't get people's cavalier attitude to having kids.

It's not a right. If you can't support them or care for them, you shouldn't have them!!

</rant>

Macmorris

The problem isn't so much with people choosing not to have children. The problem is that it tends to be the more intelligent, more educated people who don't bother with children, usually for reasons to do with putting their career first. The result is that there is a deterioration in the quality of the gene pool because the genes for high intelligence are not passed on to the next generation.

That was the great tragedy of the birth control campaign. Back about a hundred years ago, it was predicted that contraception would have a eugenic effect because it was expected that the poorer people would have a greater incentive not to have children. The opposite happened however, as it was the educated people who had the foresight to use birth control and limit their reproduction, while the welfare state came along and made sure that the irresponsible poor were looked after regardless of how many children they had.

Even though having children is a personal decision, I think it would be better if the intelligent and educated minority of the population were less selfish and less career-oriented and realised that having children and passing on their genes is one of the most important contributions they can make to their country.

nesf

Macmorris wrote:

The problem isn't so much with people choosing not to have children. The problem is that it tends to be the more intelligent, more educated people who don't bother with children, usually for reasons to do with putting their career first. The result is that there is a deterioration in the quality of the gene pool because the genes for high intelligence are not passed on to the next generation.

Intellegence isn't purely genetic. It's only about 50% so.

Just because the parents are smart doesn't the child will be and vice versa.

Macmorris

nesf wrote:

Intellegence isn't purely genetic. It's only about 50% so.

That's true, the environment is also very important. Things like good nutrition and education play an important role in shaping a person's intelligence.

The problem though is that there is plenty of attention payed to the quality of the environment and very little payed to the effects of genes. If genes are just as important (i.e. 50%) in determing a person's intelligence as the environment then you would expect that the government would be just as concerned about the quality of the population's genes. This is clearly not the case though. There is hardly ever any mention made of the problem of dysgenics caused by the high birth-rates of the less intelligent and the low birth-rates of the more intelligent people.

And as well as that, this isn't a case of choosing between either a good environment or good genes. Both are important and we should try to find a balance between the two. Good environments usually comes along with high intelligence because intelligent people usually provide a better environment for their children. They are usually wealthier and take more of an interest in their children's education. I think high intelligence is more likely to lead to a good environment than a good environment is to lead to high intelligence.

Just because the parents are smart doesn't the child will be and vice versa.

Again, that's true, but it is more probable that intelligent people will have intelligent children just as it is more probable that tall people have tall offspring.

Catsmokinpot

Macmorris wrote:

Again, that's true, but it is more probable that intelligent people will have intelligent children just as it is more probable that tall people have tall offspring.

just wondering what you define as intelligence? aptitude for learning or actual knowledge? cause pretty much every child has an enormous aptitude for learning at a young age. and its the correct nurturing and feeding of that aptitude that makes intelligence.

intelligent people can just as easily have a stupid child as an intelligent one, intelligence is mostly learned aptitude however is different.....

e.g. my neighbour back in wexford parents are really intelligent + he's as dumb as a post

utopian

Catsmokinpot wrote:

just wondering what you define as intelligence?

Surely everyone means by intelligent "intelligent the way I am intelligent", whether that be good at sums, making money or whatever.

The amateur eugenicists who posted above think Ireland would be a better place with more people like them, and fewer "knackers" and "unintelligent" people.

Some might think it better to be stupid than to be so smart that you make jokes about compulsory sterilisation.

Catsmokinpot

yeah i was going to ask them did they think sterilisation would be the best way to go but u bet me

Neuro

seamus wrote:

It's something I'm personally driven to do, it's an urge that I can feel as distinctly primal.

Check out this site:

http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#reasons

Your reason for having children is first on the list...

disillusioned

Neuro: cool link - cheers.

Originally I set up this thread in the hope that someone of older who'd decided not to have kids would respond and say "it'll all be ok" but now that I've read over a lot of the responses I am as sure as ever that I don't want kids. Thanks everyone.

seamus

Neuro wrote:

Check out this site:

http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#reasons

Your reason for having children is first on the list...

Ah yes, vhemt, an utterly sane, reasonable and non-biased organisation.
Curiuosly enough, it's not an urge I can't control, rather one that I would like to act upon.

Swarfboy

Both my partner and I were of the same view....no kids...
9 years later she got pregnant (an accident)
Both of us didn't want to go through an abortion so decided to have the baby... He's the best 4yr old boy I know and has thought me so much in such a short time....
He also "saved" me when my father died.... he makes my life feel fulfilled and now I can't wait till we can have another....
Just my perso.......however I did have a friend of me mums ... who is now well in her 80's and lost her dear old Charlie (husband) about 10 yrs ago... he was considerably older than her and they decided not to have kids way back in the 50's..... They had a happy and fulfilled life to the end and their love never faltered................

It's your life ................!

Neuro

nesf wrote:

The whole issue is different nowadays though. Now it's feasible to not have children and not abstain from sex. You can have your cake and not need to pay for it. (I'm speaking from "a masses" viewpoint here).

Yet 50% of all pregnancies are still unplanned despite the widespread availability of cheap and effective contraception.

The Corinthian

nesf wrote:

Intellegence isn't purely genetic. It's only about 50% so.

Actually the jury is out on that one. The nature versus nurture debate is probably the oldest one in psychology and as yet no definitive answer has been agreed, although there is a general consensus that it is a combination of both - in what ratio, we don’t know. One of the problems with measuring intellectual development with a view to the above debate is that often the offspring of stupid or intelligent individuals will be brought up in a similar environment as their parents.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

just wondering what you define as intelligence? aptitude for learning or actual knowledge? cause pretty much every child has an enormous aptitude for learning at a young age. and its the correct nurturing and feeding of that aptitude that makes intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_%28trait%29

utopian wrote:

The amateur eugenicists who posted above think Ireland would be a better place with more people like them, and fewer "knackers" and "unintelligent" people.

Fewer "knackers" sure, but not too few "unintelligent" people. After all, someone’s got to dig ditches.

Some might think it better to be stupid than to be so smart that you make jokes about compulsory sterilisation.

Try making a rational rather than emotive argument. You’ll find it carries better.

Neuro wrote:

Yet 50% of all pregnancies are still unplanned despite the widespread availability of cheap and effective contraception.

Ironically the argument has been put forward that the introduction of contraception into a Society actually increases unwanted pregnancies.

The logic behind this is simple; introducing contraception engenders a more sexually permissive society, leading to an increase in sex. However, other than contraception failure rates, people being people either misuse or don’t even bother using contraception to such a degree that there is a net increase in unwanted pregnancies.

I don’t know if there’s any data supporting this theory, but it’s an interesting paradox nonetheless.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually the jury is out on that one. The nature versus nurture debate is probably the oldest one in psychology and as yet no definitive answer has been agreed, although there is a general consensus that it is a combination of both - in what ratio, we don’t know. One of the problems with measuring intellectual development with a view to the above debate is that often the offspring of stupid or intelligent individuals will be brought up in a similar environment as their parents.

I agree completely. I was just refuting macmorris offhand and in a rush

My "rough" figure of 50% just comes from statistical measures done with IQ levels.

Personally I don't think it's very quanitifiable. Sure IQ and the like plays some role but I'd put it far more down to a child's upbringing. For instance: My parents even when we were poor, always bought books for us. They always had money to spend on educating us. It was very important to them.

I'd put that ahead of any other contributing factor tbh.


The nature vs nurture debate though is more deserving of a seperate thread to be honest. It's one of those "important" questions in my eyes.

Macmorris

Neuro wrote:

Check out this site:

http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#reasons

That link to the website of Future Generations is worth following. I agree with most of what they say in that mission statement.

Macmorris

The Corinthian wrote:

Fewer "knackers" sure, but not too few "unintelligent" people. After all, someone’s got to dig ditches.

I agree. What we need are more intelligent people rather than fewer unintelligent people. If the intelligent segment of the population would at least reproduce itself it wouldn't be too bad.

I believe the aim should be to encourage the better quality people to have more children than they are having at present. At least if that happened we might be able to maintain our current standards of living into the future.

Macmorris

nesf wrote:

Sure IQ and the like plays some role but I'd put it far more down to a child's upbringing.

As I've written already:

Good environments usually comes along with high intelligence because intelligent people usually provide a better environment for their children. They are usually wealthier and take more of an interest in their children's education.

and as The Corinthian has written:

One of the problems with measuring intellectual development with a view to the above debate is that often the offspring of stupid or intelligent individuals will be brought up in a similar environment as their parents.

Nobody has said that the environment isn't important. The question is what determines the quality of the environment. On average, the wealthier and more intelligent the parents are, the more likely they are to take an interest in their children's education and development.

That's a generalisation I know, but we can only ever really talk in terms of probabilities. Good environments are more likely to be the creation of people with good genes. We could satisfy both sides of the nature-nurture debate (i.e. we can have better genes and better environments) if we took more of an interest in the quality of the gene-pool.

the_syco

An aunt and uncle(in law) are married, but have no kids. They've been together for a good while, and are in their 30's at this stage, I suppose. Had they had children, their life would have been different.

Uncle got a job over in London (at the time, the type of job didn't exist in Ireland), and after moving there, my Aunt got a job as a primary school teacher. This was a few years ago, and recently, they moved over to one of the Nordic countries (job related move).

So, with no kids, your options are more vast. You can move around, and go on holidays on a whim.

Some people want kids to "continue their legacy", "fit in with the locals", etc. Look at a long term plan. Really talk about kids. If you don't want them, good. If you do, still good, but be aware that your current lifestyle will change.

nesf

Macmorris wrote:

Good environments are more likely to be the creation of people with good genes.

I'm not convinced that genes play a significant role in this. For instance, look at a collection of siblings in their 40's. They all (for the sake of argument) have the same genetic background, and the same biological parents.

It's perfectly plausable that some have better qualities of life than others. But this would be more down to their personal choices, choice of living and environment than it would be down to their genes.

I do not think there is any justification in playing eugenics with social groups due to a person's genes. People don't work like that.

Plus, I'd be interested to know what makes up good genes and bad ones in your eyes.

The Corinthian

Macmorris wrote:

Nobody has said that the environment isn't important.

Why did you quote me in reference to that? What I said did not in any way say that the environment is not important or that anyone had said that it was not important.

Good environments are more likely to be the creation of people with good genes.

Sorry, that’s not how genes work. You inherit them, your genetic code does not mutate because you get a degree.

The Corinthian

Macmorris wrote:

I agree. What we need are more intelligent people rather than fewer unintelligent people. If the intelligent segment of the population would at least reproduce itself it wouldn't be too bad.

But think of the cues in Tescos...