The legacy argument makes no sense. Virtually nobody leaves a legacy. The best an average person is getting is something like a park bench with their name on it. A poor return for decades of your life if you ask me.
Guys- please think before you post- and be considerate of other posters.
It only takes a moment to be civil.
We had decided to remain child free, but then an accident happened,
Once we had one we wanted more and that rest is history. Really enjoyed life being child free, and it was a shock when she got pregnant. But life has been amazing with the kids. Better than I ever thought it in a million years t would be.
But I digress. To get back on to the post title ...
What needs to happen in Ireland is that retirement vilagges need to start being built. Proper ones. I was visiting a realtive in the UK who lives in one and it was so nice. You have to be over 55 to live in it. It was its own little village, but on the outskirts of another village and had woods to walk in, a bowling green, cycle lanes, tennis courts, sports hall and a big hall where people could meet up for whatever they wanted to do, all sorts of nice things in and around it. It also had its own bus which did the rounds to all the local towns and villages. There were doctors who would call to the village twice a week and visit people who needed them. There were also nurse who lived there. There was also a service that went to the hospital and back as needed. We need that kind of place in Ireland. But in Ireland all you have for "retirement" villages is a little house in a bunch of little houses and nothing else with it. Its either a nursing home or just a normal house.
They say you die twice - firstly when you kick the bucket and lastly when you're no longer remembered by any living soul.
So forget about who's going to wipe your arse and think of your legacy, children and grandchildren etc. :)
Of course you can try to be famous by other means but that by definition is limited in itself.
What a strange bit of logic. What has us all being here got to do with people having negative experiences during parenthood?
Is it that because we are all here, parenthood can't be bad by virtue of it 'always being that way'?
I suppose what childless by choice people are doing is questioning a status quo. You don't have to have children, which is something society as a whole has somewhat brainwashed everyone into thinking is 'the correct way'.
Clearly none of these perceived negatives are really that much of an issue, based on the fact that all of us are here?
It's absolutely okay to analyse your choices before making them.
If I had the urge to make any big decision I'd first be asking myself 'why?' just to make sure it's the right decision and I'm not walking into a mistake.
Be that buying a house in a certain area, taking a job, having kids etc.
Deciding to have kids is just another big decision like any other one.
There is that word again. Repeating it wont make it true my'lord.
I wanted a family, as did my partner.
You don't need an Excel sheet for this type of question, most of the time. Often people will know one way or the other. Good luck to people either way.
In other words, you lied.
If you know the history of Eugnics you will know that there have historically been calls for the 'unwashed' and poor to be sterilised in order to prevent them from having kids.
As I mentioned already, most people would fail the 'are you rich enough' to have kids' criteria set out by that poster. Yes, it was hyperbolic, but it had a stench of eugenics of it.
What method are you/did you use if you don't mind me asking?
Nonsense. It's the childed who do all the punching, and manipulate government into supporting their optional lifestyle choices.
Tell us more about this 'manipulation' and support for optional 'lifestyle' choices, and try and say it without punching down.
True, but I'm not using it as a method to decide wether or not I should have kids.
"...punch down"
"...It's like saying marriage is a crapshoot, so whatever you do, don't get married... EVER!"
There are legal escapes from marriage, it's called divorce. You typically can't retract the choice to have children, beyond giving them up for adoption, but the child exists at that point. At best you can foist the burden off onto others.
I knew what your point was. I'm just interested in how you ended up at eugenics as a way to express that point? But I guess hyperbolic appeals to emotion are all the rage nowadays.
I was responding to someone posing 'how do you know?' type questions. The reality of the situation is 'I don't' - I just have to base my own personal decision on my experiences and observations of those around me who do have children.
Having kids takes a toll on you physically. From lack of sleep in the early years, worrying and anxiety about providing for them, the physical toll on the body during pregnancy/child bearing, not to mention things like postnatal depression and how it can result in partners growing distant from each other - it's all fairly factual and I don't think it's punching down that I happen to have noticed a lot of the above in my peer group who have had kids.
I am not saying that is every case, it would be ridiculous to say it is. There are plenty of people living healthy lives out there with kids. It's just another risk I'm not willing to take by having them.
I know many parents who are fit, happy, and healthy while people without kids spend a lot of their time in pubs drinking themselves away to oblivion.
That would be an anecdote also, no?
Piece of Knowledge 2 - all of my friends with children look almost a decade older than I do. They're mostly overweight, greying and look tired any time I see them.
That isn't knowledge, it's an anecdote.
Why do people who want to be childfree (and fair play on your decision) need to punch down and use people with children as some mirror to base their decision of?
Lies?
Ha, it wasn't I who stated that to 'handle' being a parent you must satisfy some arbitrary criteria.
Missed my point.
The poster alluded to the fact that people who don't have a steady job, home or income should not be having kids until all those boxes are ticked so to speak.
A serious question thus arises, How many young people in their 30's or younger own their own home, how many have a job for life, how many of them have substantial savings that can sort them out for 4-6 months?
I'd say if you looked at each criteria, the vast majority of people would fail that test.
Individually, of course, people can decide for themselves.
All you can really do in life when making a big decision is to base it on the knowledge you currently have to hand. Nobody can read the future. I have no way of knowing anything about children that do not exist.
Piece of knowledge 1 - In general, I find children incredibly annoying and don't want to be around them for extended periods of time.
Piece of knowledge 3 - my life is pretty darn great as is. I've my own property, a great partner, a great job, great friends, my health and loads of time and cash for my hobbies that I am very involved in.
Going on the above points, I can extrapolate to a degree as to how my life might change for the worse if I were to have children and have decided not to have any.
i know your post in months old but your attitude is great, your lifestyle and your friends sound spot on too!
That poster has form for getting triggered whenever anyone disagrees with them. They respond with lies and gaslighting as above.
So today I found out that asking yourself if you are emotionally and financially capable of having children is actually eugenics! I shall shun such thinking in the future lest I wish to be accused of wanting to sterilise the homeless!
I've no idea why people have to make up silly nonsense because some people choose not to have children. Plenty of people have made this choice and have gone on to lead rich and fulfilling lives.
I didn't say that I knew they wouldn't be, merely that you cant state that you would find your own children annoying, you don't have any.
I didnt know that my own wouldn't be annoying, but I took the big brave step of assuming that since the vast, vast majority of people have children and have done so literally since time began, it was probably going to work out ok for us.
Your "simples" explanation is too simplistic I'm afraid. Fewer people doesn't necessarily mean less climate change, unless you take the incredibly simplistic and naïve approach that everyone equally produces climate change?
You cant accurately analyze something that you have no experience of. If you are going to say that you have family members with kids or friends with kids then I'm going to inform you that someone else's kids are nothing like your own kids. The reasons you mention for potentially not having kids seem little to do with "handling" them and more to do with being able to afford them.
How do you know they wouldn't be annoying?
As regards climate change, this one is obvious. People cause climate change. Fewer people means less climate change. Simples.
Is this a serious question? Serious introspection and analysis. Do you have a steady job? Your own property? Savings in case things go south? That sort of thing.
How exactly do you figure out if you can handle it in advance?
If everyone avoided it until they were sure (and the only logical way to be sure is to actually have kids) then that will be more of an issue for humans than any climate change.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
