The "No Kids Club" (Page 9)

I'm in Andrew's camp on this one.  My wife and I do not have children by choice, and I would have to say that by not adding one or more new creatures to the already overpopulated earth we are contributing just as much to the world, if not more. 

Completely agree with you Andrew. I was trying to figure out the best way to phrase it. New life and new people are not always the best thing. What if a kid ends up a criminal/sociopath etc. Did that add value to the world? what about those welfare moms we all hear about popping out new kids with different dads because 1 - the do not know any better and 2 - it increases the size of their check from welfare. Is creating life in those situations better? So does that mean we should limit having kids only to those who can properly raise them...the arguements go on and continue in endless circles I know but having a kid or not having a kid is a selfish choice no matter how you look at it and either choice can contribute a lot to society or can take a lot away from society or both.

Of course there is. Lots of people (of all child-having statuses) undertake unselfish actions/make unselfish choices everyday. The decision to have or not have a child (in GENERAL) is not one of them.

??? I am not sure what you mean. It results in the creation of a person, true. But there are about 4 million of those created in the U.S. every year. So hardly a unique product. To say nothing of the fact that the original point was about the selfish or unselfish nature of the decision--not the uniqueness of the outcome.

Don't want to sound harsh, but there are a lot of lives created who go on to contribute nothing of value to this world, and in fact, take away from the world more than they give.

Mother Theresa created no life, but I'm pretty sure that the "value add" of her null-set of babies outstrips that of, say Daddy/Mommy Hitler; Daddy/Mommy Manson; Daddy/Mommy 9/11 terrorits; or Daddy/Mommy Dahmer.

It's not the creation of a life that makes you add value to the world. It's what you DO with that life (or what it does on its own, I suppose). Ditto for people who create no life. It's the result of their actions that add value.

Again, simply making a baby means nothing, in terms of contribution to the world as a whole. It's a mouth to feed and a consumer of resources. Now, he/she may be a contribution to YOUR world, and add value to your life by existing. But in terms of his/her value to THE WORLD...that remains to be seen. Just like it does for every one of us.

Your power to add value to this world has nothing to do with your simply producing another person.

By "contribute" in a mathematical term, I would say by only adding more humans onto the Earth.

By "contribute" in all the other ways we can think of, it's all debatable.

Remind me of this statement when my child is paying for your social security.

Ummmm, i do not understand your point.  People without kids pay for public education with their taxes and they don't use it.

Great point, which to me only highlights that the value of an individual's life is their own contributions, not whether they propogate. 

Really where did you get your education from then?

I did use public education, but i continue paying for it.  I simply don't understand what you meant by your child paying someone elses SS, he would be paying his own.

I'm an only child that went to private school and do not have kids.  I have also contributed to SS as long as I can remember and will most likely not get back what I have put into it according to all the naysayers of SS.  

But I also dont have a problem paying taxes for public education even though I never have or never will receive that benefit.  It's very 'socialist' of me to say, but IMO a better educated society is better for all of us in the long run.

Now getting back on topic - I am really glad to see the discussion move along and all of the opinions presented.

My former husband and I talked about how many kids we wanted, not if we wanted kids. I wanted 5; he thought this was too much. I said, okay, 3. We agreed to revisit that number after we had had 2.

We tried to have kids for 10 years. I am childless. It crushed me that I couldn't have kids; the pain was crippling. The frustration of my maternal and parental ambitions was enraging. It killed my marriage.

After 10 years of trying to become a mom, I had to come to terms with the fact that I couldn't have kids. I had to figure out who I was. I wasn't Mom and no longer Wife. Who was I? What would I do with all my free time? If I wasn't working my butt off for my kid's college tuition, why was I killing myself at work? Just to enjoy fine dining and lots of travel/vacation? It wasn't enough for me. Life seemed trivial and unfulfilling.

It took me another 10 years to come to terms with being childless and figure out who I was. My identity had been unquestioningly wrapped in Mom & Wife and Family. I have no family of my own and that has been difficult to accept. It's led to many lonely moments. There is a fullness of life that I will never know; I've come to accept that.

Thanks to what I've learned through Buddhism and learning to better understand and manage my emotions, I am to the point where I can be happy and at peace despite having a life far, far different than I had taken for granted would be mine.  From a family perspective, it's a meager life. But it's the hand I was dealt and I've learned to be at peace with it. That's all I can ask for.

Unlike some who have commented, I've never been on the receiving end of judgmental comments about not having kids (I don't share my story to most people, so it's not like they know better). I don't judge people who don't have kids; I think it's excellent that they know themselves well enough to know that parenting is not something they want to do. It is a formidable responsibility. 

Just like I am leery of people who don't like dogs, I am leery of people who don't like kids (which is a different matter than not wanting to be a parent). I think people who don't like kids just don't like people in general - that's my read. Misanthropes are not my people.

Some people are meant to parent, others are not. That's all there is to it. There's no need to judge parents and use derogatory terms like "breeders." There's no need to even question why some people don't want to have children. We seem to have this cultural habit of taking polar positions and casting aspersions on the opposite pole. It needn't be so.

In my opinion, children are much more interesting and enjoyable company than most adults I've encountered. They are clear-eyed and see everything. Though they lack much knowledge, they possess wisdom. They are honest and guileless. They are funny and kind. They are playful. Like adults, they appreciate when you talk TO them and not at them, and they are quick to discern which you are doing. I adore kids. Through their eyes, I see the world in new and different ways.  I wish I had 3 or 5 of my own.

I understand that how i described it wasn't exactly accurate.  In a very simplistic way you pay for someoen elses so someone el pays for yours, obviously is more complicated than that 

What i obviously failed to explain properly was that the point of "my child will pay for your social security" has no validity when it comes to this discussion.

I couldn't agree with you more....

*Golf clap*

My point being the next generations will be relied upon by this generation as it gets older just as the previous generation will rely on us.  So the the next generation are more than just another mouth to feed and a consumer of resources.  Like it or not as a society we rely on one another of all ages.  Imagine what would happen to our generation as we got older if the whole world just stopped having kids.

To be clear if you choose to have kids or not have kids that is your choice IMO.  But for either side of the debate to devalue the others contribution is a poor argument; there are entirely too many what ifs and what abouts.  Both sides have very valid good and bad points.

I don't mind the debate and people explaining their stance.  Open discourse is a great thing; assuming that minds are actually open.

No need to be sorry for that, you were actually correct in regards to my statement.

I actually read a paper published by Anthropology/sociology professor at F.I.U that touched that subject in regards to the slowdown of the grow of the population and how immigration was going to fulfill that role.

And you are absolutly correct, is not as big of a problem in the U.S due to a better acceptance of immigrants compared to other industrialized nations.

The point behind public education was that if your received a public education you are not paying for my kids education you are paying for your own education that you already received at societies expense.  Think about how much 4 years of college cost you and tell me do you really think you have paid for 12 years of "free" education.

As for SS if it operates the way it is going, which arguably it cannot, but if it does, you will get far more out that you put in + interest.