Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 03-05-2002, 04:03 PM

DRFseven:

Quote:

It's different because the elements of bowling can be broken down into separate elements of which you were familiar.

Ah, but that is where I think it is the same. There do not appear to be any new emotions involved in parenting at all - simply the same emotions applied in different ways.

Quote:

But the feelings a parent develops for his/her child are unlike the feelings a person has for others, even though the interactions with the parent's own children and with others may be very similar. It is the emotions that make the difference; they are what determine the vested interest, just as the emotions of falling in love are very different from "falling into" a friendship.

It is not apparent that any uniquely different emotions are experienced by a parent - they appear to experience exactly the same emotions as I do, except directed in certain combinations and intensities towards their children. Of course, I don't think falling in love involves any uniquely different emotions either.

Quote:

It is asking someone who has only seen green to imagine seeing red. After all, red is only another color, right? They've seen green, so they should be able to imagine its opposite, right? They know that green is a "cool" color, shouldn't they be able to imagine red by being told that it is a "hot" color? By pointing out the difference in wave lengths? No amount of technical information will help generate that perception of red; to be imagined, the color red must be seen. Same with maternal and paternal feelings; the evolutionary forces that drive them forth are different from what drives friendship, tribal loyalty, sexual passion.

They may be driven by different instincts, but that doesn't mean any unique or unimaginable emotions are involved. You are simply asserting that there are, and I see no reason to believe you, especially since you assert the same thing about romantic love. I guess we'll have to wait until I'm a parent.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

DRFseven · 03-05-2002, 04:17 PM

Quote:

echidna: That I don�t know how it feels, begs the question, so what ?

Right; so what? You're the one who said you disagreed with this point that parents you've met have reiterated. All it means is that you don't know how it feels; not that you don't know this or that about children.

Quote:

Re-stating the exceedingly-obvious serves no purpose save to put down the other person. There is no information in the statement which objectively describes the validity of my viewpoint.

But there's no validity to either viewpoint; both are merely opinions. People, especially childless people, tend to think stories about other peoples' children are boring. People who have children tend to think stories about their children are very interesting. You can't be wrong; if you think the stories are boring, it's because they bore you. If little Tiffany's mother thinks the story of Tiffany's teething is breathtakingly interesting, it really is interesting to her. Very few people, besides some other parents with children that age, and those who are just very interested in children, will agree with her, but for those people, it is interesting. No one can legitimately argue with you that you should be interested, but they CAN legitimately argue that if you ever have children you probably will be because, statistically speaking, it's true. Why is that so infuriating? Is it because you don't WANT to ever be someone who thinks teething is interesting?

I remember once standing around at a party with a bunch of people, when we were all around the age of thirty. We were all slightly incredulous that we seemed to be developing a rather strong interest in lawns (in my case, in lawn reduction). None of us ex-hippies would have ever, in our wildest dreams, imagined that we would want to putter about our yards on weekends wearing gardening gloves, that we would know things about grass seed and rose varieties. Never say never!

Quote:

There is an implicit message in the statement that "the only reason you don�t agree with me, is that you don�t have children." I find this a quite irritating response, because it ignores that maybe we actually just think differently.

Well, it would depend upon what it was in response to. When a childless friend told me that there was absolutely no reason I couldn't teach my two-year-old to mop the floor, I answered, "If you had children, you would never say such a thing." Of course, most childless people wouldn't say such a ludicrous thing because most people have had enough experience with children to know better. I definitely agree with you, though, that being childless does not equate with being clueless about children and that your advice could turn out to be better than that of the parents.

Quote:

The parents I know have many different feelings for their children, which will vary further as their children grow older. "You don�t understand because you don�t have children" assumes that there is a universal feeling of parenthood to which I am automatically excluded. I don�t see evidence for this amongst the parents I know. Each set of feelings differs, as would my feelings differ if I were to be a parent.

But this is mixing up two diffent points. Childless people don't understand how it feels to have children, but they might understand very well how to take care of chldren, or what children need, etc. As far as parents' feelings being different, well, people who are in love have all different kinds of feelings, too, but no one who has never been in love knows what being in love feels like. Does this mean that there's not really something that it's like to be in love?

Quote:

I know there is a high chance that my opinions may change if I were to become a parent, but also they may not, I don�t think anyone knows for sure, but your statement is absolutist and assumes that they will, and also implies that they will follow yours.

It's just a fact, like the fact that most people will marry. Do you consider that statement "absolutist?" And what do you mean when you say that I assume your opinions will be the same as mine? Opinions about what? If you have children, and most people do, you will probably be very interested in them. I have no idea whether your specific childrearing practices will agree with mine or not.

cleftone · 03-05-2002, 04:45 PM

Some great comments from both sides here. As a parent, I can certainly speak more authoritatively than non-parents on the subjects of baby wars, baby boasting, the blood that tends to boil on BOTH sides of the spectrum, etc. Here are some thoughts that I think reflect at least a little bit of sympathy for both "parties" here:

1. While I am more sensitive to the genuine needs of parents (P) now than I was as a non-parent (NP), I, as a P, but like most NPs, still don't care all that much about other peoples' kids personally. I understand the indifference that characterizes the mind of the NP, because I still feel a lot of it as a P. Perhaps a balanced approach would be to step outside ourselves just a little bit and recognize the interests and needs of others like parents and their little ones. I think the same goes for the elderly and those who are disabled. Many people just think they're all disgruntled, needy, inconveniences. If they look outside the box though, so to speak, perhaps they can see them in a different light, with all their experiences and their pain and their fears. I don't know.

2. I absolutely hate baby wars ("My baby walks, does yours?") They are pathetic. I try to cut them off before they even develop. It can be done tactfully, but assertively. Similarly, if you are a NP, you can cut off the parent babbling and the probing questions by simply being assertive. How hard is that? Be honest. And parents need to be told to shut up once in a while too.

3. Children are our future (BARF). But it is true. Therefore, P and NP elements of society need to love them, rather than allowing them to be irritants. To be honest, NPs who could care less about Ps and their kids are just immature and selfish - character defects I'm sure they would want me to prevent from developing in my kids.

4. Just as I'm trying to respect those around me who disdain parenthood (the fact is, this is a very evident trend with a lot of younger people - disdain), I expect the same in return. Much of the indifference and frustration and irritation that plagues both Ps and NPs is rooted in pride - "My life is more valuable, I love myself, I have needs, I have goals, I want to strive, I want to win, I know what love is, blah blah blah. Few people will admit this is how they feel about each other and the very different paths we all choose in life. It's very similar to racism. And again, it goes both ways. Many parents are selfish, yes. And so are many non-parents.

5. Here's one that's bound to piss some of you off. At first glance, this will seem to contradict #4, but it doesn't as I will show. You can't really know what is possibly the highest expression of love unless you have kids. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is just ignorant as a NP, or a very stupid, blind P. I can state this because I have more experience than ANY NP, regardless of his/her age. It's really simple. It is a different love than you feel toward a spouse or a girlfriend, or toward a parent. So in a sense, I guess NPs are always going to be less mature overall, than Ps. Therefore, NPs are bound to be less happy with their lives than Ps. Of course, no NP can argue against this since he doesn't know what it's like to be a parent. If he says "How do you know what makes me happy? Every person defines his own happiness!" This is false. There are things that every human NEEDS in order to be the happiest she can be. True, she can be happy as a NP, but ultimately, her increase in happiness will depend on her existence as a parent. In the same way, people who have cut off or been cut from relations with their parents will not be as happy as they would or could have been if such relationships were intact. There are standards that we all should live by in order to acheive the highest degree of happiness. Yes, there are differences in the details, we all choose different hobbies and interests to pursue, etc. But we have many things in common as well. Growth in love and endurance and selflessness is something we all need, and a lot of that development is brought about through the parenting experience. I know, I know, I'm arrogant and stupid and everything else. But I'm not being a bigot against NPs. Unless of course you want to try and construe my words to mean that. In which case, you may as well say the Dalai Lama is a bigot for knowing he has acheived a different, higher level of consciousness than many (maybe most) other people in the world. Sure, he wouldn't say this. But he knows it.

6. It's funny how a lot of NPs do not want to become Ps because they feel they are 'not ready' or they're 'too selfish' or they are not 'mature enough' to have kids. I think this is an honest, humble place to be, and I think it is a responsible (albeit misguided) attitude that shows empathy toward parents.

7. I encourage NPs to NOT assume that all parents are the types that think their kids' shit doesn't stink. Rather, try to interpret every parent as he/she 'is'. Many Ps I know, for example, are actually more caring and attentive to others (even NPs) than they were as NPs.

8. I agree that parents should put a lid on it. I mean, who became a parent because of what he heard about parenthood from so and so across the street? I sure didn't. In fact, the more I took in from parents, the more I was actually dissuaded from parenthood.

Cleftone

echidna · 03-05-2002, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:
Well, it would depend upon what it was in response to. When a childless friend told me that there was absolutely no reason I couldn't teach my two-year-old to mop the floor, I answered, "If you had children, you would never say such a thing." Of course, most childless people wouldn't say such a ludicrous thing because most people have had enough experience with children to know better. I definitely agree with you, though, that being childless does not equate with being clueless about children and that your advice could turn out to be better than that of the parents.

Just a quickie, because this illustrates the subject quite well.

I disagree with your response here to your friend. Your statement is unfortunately false. There are many parents who do try & persist teaching strong discipline patterns to their children from a ridiculously early age, obviously with limited success, but they will try & on rare occasions their child may actually grow up quite obedient and servile (although maybe more often emotionally traumatised).

I grant that your friend may have every likelihood of changing their mind, but not definitely. The role of becoming a parent does not necessarily change their opinion, yes these approaches can be shown to be quite unconstructive and highly problematical, but there will always be parents who follow them regardless.

Personally I would prefer a painfully detailed explanation of the learning difficulties at such an early age, as well as emotional problems from the obvious lack of understanding. Although understandably tempting, the shortcut "you wouldn�t understand" is not necessarily true.

Politically Correct response for the deadlock : "Maybe, but I really don�t think so, so I choose not to."

For what it�s worth, parental advice to other parents, from either P�s or NP�s, is quite annoying to me. Everyone�s suddenly an expert. When I feel the need I prefer supportive suggestions myself, ever conscious that they are often perceived as harassment.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]

cleftone · 03-05-2002, 06:20 PM

Several things stick out to me on this thread after I reread some of the posts. It's amazing to me that someone actually believes their experience of a mountain hike is on par with the experiences of parenthood. Just another proof, from the horse's mouth no less, of the ignorance of some non-parents. Why is it so hard for a person to be humble enough to grant that they really cannot understand the depth of something unless they experience it. I'm reading this garbage from non-parents, and that thought keeps coming back - it's just a lack of humility. A very close friend of mine just lost both of his parents within a year's time. He took care of both of them daily, hourly till their deaths. I have not gone through that. He is a much stronger person than I am because of this experience. I accept that. I don't say trite, stupid things to him like "there's a reason for this, you know". That would be silly. I just shut up. I don't understand his pain. Likewise, I don't understand the joy of retirement - of pure freedom. But when it comes, I think I'll appreciate my life more. I don't understand what it feels like to come perilously close to death. I would probably be a better person if I did have such an experience. Similarly, why is it so hard for non-parents to accept their lack of understanding of parenthood? Why is it so hard for many of them to just accept that they will indeed miss out on a lot of what it means to 'love' if they neglect parenthood, or if they, to be more fashionably euphemistic, "choose not to have children."?

clef

echidna · 03-05-2002, 07:14 PM

Clef, the hiking reference was not a direct comparison to having children, obviously. It was in reference to discussing the nature of experience and understanding.

Pomp · 03-05-2002, 07:44 PM

All right, I haven't been following this thread very closely, even though it's got my name on it, but I have to ask about this statement:

cleftone said:

To be honest, NPs who could care less about Ps and their kids are just immature and selfish

Excuse me? I am immature and selfish because I am indifferent to parenthood and children? What exactly are you claiming? (Please note: I am immature and selfish for a wide variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with my attitude towards parents or children)

The context in which your statement appeared leads me to believe that you consider indifference toward children selfish because they are, in some sense, "our future." Fine. That's why I pay taxes that are used, in part, for schools. That's why I support socialized health care, including prenatal care and pediatrics. That's why I contribute to a society that tries to foster healthy child development. That's why I make monthly donations to a charity that, in part, works to feed hungry children. That's why I coached youth soccer for several years.

Taking into consideration the fact that I do, indeed, contribute to the "future" in these ways, I don't think it is necessarily "selfish" or "immature" of me to prefer to remain childless and to prefer that those people who choose otherwise not pretend that life as a non-parent is somehow unfilfilled.

Edited to add that, although I'm being a bit ranty here, I'm not trying to offend. I thought most of your post was very well said...I just take exception to that one sentence in particular.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

echidna · 03-05-2002, 08:16 PM

Folks, this thread was actually to complain about the animosity generated, although I accept that the title is too pointed.

It wasn�t meant to generate more hostility. If it does only become yet another gripe session, it hardly seems worth having the thread at all.

FWIW, I�m not offended by anyone here. I�m just describing how I hear things and trying to understand how they�re being said. I�d rather participants were here not just for explaining / telling, but also for polite understanding.

alek0 · 03-05-2002, 09:12 PM

"Why is it so hard for many of them to just accept that they will indeed miss out on a lot of what it means to 'love' if they neglect parenthood, or if they, to be more fashionably euphemistic, "choose not to have children."?"

Why is it so hard to accept that people can have fulfilling lives and be happy without having kids?

Why is it so hard to understand that we are all different and what makes you happy would not necessarily make me happy?

Finally, why is it so hard to understand that people may have different reasons not to have children?

Why is it so hard to understand that, if I choose not to go through several surgeries with no guarantee of success and certain loss of one ovary in order to solve my endometriosis problems, I get quite offended by someone telling me that I should not "neglect parenthood"? My choice to be childfree is actually quite a good thing for my emotional wellbeing, otherwise I would be in for plenty of unhappiness, distress, and heartbreak.

Bragging parents should be made to read messages on boards on dealing with infertility first before they go to tell someone "oh, you should really have children" without knowing reason why that person does not have/want kids. For those of us who choose not to, such comments are merely annoying. For those who can't, such comments are offensive and hurtful.

echidna · 03-05-2002, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cleftone:
5. Here's one that's bound to piss some of you off. At first glance, this will seem to contradict #4, but it doesn't as I will show. You can't really know what is possibly the highest expression of love unless you have kids. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is just ignorant as a NP, or a very stupid, blind P. I can state this because I have more experience than ANY NP, regardless of his/her age. It's really simple. It is a different love than you feel toward a spouse or a girlfriend, or toward a parent. So in a sense, I guess NPs are always going to be less mature overall, than Ps. Therefore, NPs are bound to be less happy with their lives than Ps. Of course, no NP can argue against this since he doesn't know what it's like to be a parent. If he says "How do you know what makes me happy? Every person defines his own happiness!" This is false. There are things that every human NEEDS in order to be the happiest she can be. True, she can be happy as a NP, but ultimately, her increase in happiness will depend on her existence as a parent. In the same way, people who have cut off or been cut from relations with their parents will not be as happy as they would or could have been if such relationships were intact. There are standards that we all should live by in order to acheive the highest degree of happiness. Yes, there are differences in the details, we all choose different hobbies and interests to pursue, etc. But we have many things in common as well. Growth in love and endurance and selflessness is something we all need, and a lot of that development is brought about through the parenting experience. I know, I know, I'm arrogant and stupid and everything else. But I'm not being a bigot against NPs. Unless of course you want to try and construe my words to mean that. In which case, you may as well say the Dalai Lama is a bigot for knowing he has acheived a different, higher level of consciousness than many (maybe most) other people in the world. Sure, he wouldn't say this. But he knows it.

Clef, I very much liked your first post better. I quite agree with all � but you�re right, number 5 will raise hackles.

Comparing happiness between people is an impossible and pointlessly aggravating topic. Our lives, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, old age, death and maybe parenthood are an impossible roller coaster, some happy, some not (in fact insert "maybe" in front of each stage).

Let me remind you that if suicide and mental health are objective indicators of happiness, there is no evidence that parenthood is a guarantee of happiness. If I were to say that you�re American therefore you�re not as happy as a Vietnamese person because America�s suicide rate is higher, it would be an obvious fallacy.

As for maturity, well there are just so many factors governing maturity, I really wouldn�t know where to begin. Again, to assign maturity to parenthood over non-parenthood, well now that is akin to racism and bigotry.

We all have very different life experiences, and for one person to place theirs over another is simply divisive.

In fact I think you're exhibiting a much much worse adult variant on paragraph 2. Is paragraph 8 at all relevant to paragraph 5 ?

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]

03-05-2002, 07:44 PM	#37
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	All right, I haven't been following this thread very closely, even though it's got my name on it, but I have to ask about this statement: cleftone said: To be honest, NPs who could care less about Ps and their kids are just immature and selfish Excuse me? I am immature and selfish because I am indifferent to parenthood and children? What exactly are you claiming? (Please note: I am immature and selfish for a wide variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with my attitude towards parents or children) The context in which your statement appeared leads me to believe that you consider indifference toward children selfish because they are, in some sense, "our future." Fine. That's why I pay taxes that are used, in part, for schools. That's why I support socialized health care, including prenatal care and pediatrics. That's why I contribute to a society that tries to foster healthy child development. That's why I make monthly donations to a charity that, in part, works to feed hungry children. That's why I coached youth soccer for several years. Taking into consideration the fact that I do, indeed, contribute to the "future" in these ways, I don't think it is necessarily "selfish" or "immature" of me to prefer to remain childless and to prefer that those people who choose otherwise not pretend that life as a non-parent is somehow unfilfilled. Edited to add that, although I'm being a bit ranty here, I'm not trying to offend. I thought most of your post was very well said...I just take exception to that one sentence in particular. [ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2002, 04:45 PM	#33
cleftone Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: #1 Intellectual Wasteland - California Posts: 58	Some great comments from both sides here. As a parent, I can certainly speak more authoritatively than non-parents on the subjects of baby wars, baby boasting, the blood that tends to boil on BOTH sides of the spectrum, etc. Here are some thoughts that I think reflect at least a little bit of sympathy for both "parties" here: 1. While I am more sensitive to the genuine needs of parents (P) now than I was as a non-parent (NP), I, as a P, but like most NPs, still don't care all that much about other peoples' kids personally. I understand the indifference that characterizes the mind of the NP, because I still feel a lot of it as a P. Perhaps a balanced approach would be to step outside ourselves just a little bit and recognize the interests and needs of others like parents and their little ones. I think the same goes for the elderly and those who are disabled. Many people just think they're all disgruntled, needy, inconveniences. If they look outside the box though, so to speak, perhaps they can see them in a different light, with all their experiences and their pain and their fears. I don't know. 2. I absolutely hate baby wars ("My baby walks, does yours?") They are pathetic. I try to cut them off before they even develop. It can be done tactfully, but assertively. Similarly, if you are a NP, you can cut off the parent babbling and the probing questions by simply being assertive. How hard is that? Be honest. And parents need to be told to shut up once in a while too. 3. Children are our future (BARF). But it is true. Therefore, P and NP elements of society need to love them, rather than allowing them to be irritants. To be honest, NPs who could care less about Ps and their kids are just immature and selfish - character defects I'm sure they would want me to prevent from developing in my kids. 4. Just as I'm trying to respect those around me who disdain parenthood (the fact is, this is a very evident trend with a lot of younger people - disdain), I expect the same in return. Much of the indifference and frustration and irritation that plagues both Ps and NPs is rooted in pride - "My life is more valuable, I love myself, I have needs, I have goals, I want to strive, I want to win, I know what love is, blah blah blah. Few people will admit this is how they feel about each other and the very different paths we all choose in life. It's very similar to racism. And again, it goes both ways. Many parents are selfish, yes. And so are many non-parents. 5. Here's one that's bound to piss some of you off. At first glance, this will seem to contradict #4, but it doesn't as I will show. You can't really know what is possibly the highest expression of love unless you have kids. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is just ignorant as a NP, or a very stupid, blind P. I can state this because I have more experience than ANY NP, regardless of his/her age. It's really simple. It is a different love than you feel toward a spouse or a girlfriend, or toward a parent. So in a sense, I guess NPs are always going to be less mature overall, than Ps. Therefore, NPs are bound to be less happy with their lives than Ps. Of course, no NP can argue against this since he doesn't know what it's like to be a parent. If he says "How do you know what makes me happy? Every person defines his own happiness!" This is false. There are things that every human NEEDS in order to be the happiest she can be. True, she can be happy as a NP, but ultimately, her increase in happiness will depend on her existence as a parent. In the same way, people who have cut off or been cut from relations with their parents will not be as happy as they would or could have been if such relationships were intact. There are standards that we all should live by in order to acheive the highest degree of happiness. Yes, there are differences in the details, we all choose different hobbies and interests to pursue, etc. But we have many things in common as well. Growth in love and endurance and selflessness is something we all need, and a lot of that development is brought about through the parenting experience. I know, I know, I'm arrogant and stupid and everything else. But I'm not being a bigot against NPs. Unless of course you want to try and construe my words to mean that. In which case, you may as well say the Dalai Lama is a bigot for knowing he has acheived a different, higher level of consciousness than many (maybe most) other people in the world. Sure, he wouldn't say this. But he knows it. 6. It's funny how a lot of NPs do not want to become Ps because they feel they are 'not ready' or they're 'too selfish' or they are not 'mature enough' to have kids. I think this is an honest, humble place to be, and I think it is a responsible (albeit misguided) attitude that shows empathy toward parents. 7. I encourage NPs to NOT assume that all parents are the types that think their kids' shit doesn't stink. Rather, try to interpret every parent as he/she 'is'. Many Ps I know, for example, are actually more caring and attentive to others (even NPs) than they were as NPs. 8. I agree that parents should put a lid on it. I mean, who became a parent because of what he heard about parenthood from so and so across the street? I sure didn't. In fact, the more I took in from parents, the more I was actually dissuaded from parenthood. Cleftone

03-05-2002, 06:20 PM	#35
cleftone Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: #1 Intellectual Wasteland - California Posts: 58	Several things stick out to me on this thread after I reread some of the posts. It's amazing to me that someone actually believes their experience of a mountain hike is on par with the experiences of parenthood. Just another proof, from the horse's mouth no less, of the ignorance of some non-parents. Why is it so hard for a person to be humble enough to grant that they really cannot understand the depth of something unless they experience it. I'm reading this garbage from non-parents, and that thought keeps coming back - it's just a lack of humility. A very close friend of mine just lost both of his parents within a year's time. He took care of both of them daily, hourly till their deaths. I have not gone through that. He is a much stronger person than I am because of this experience. I accept that. I don't say trite, stupid things to him like "there's a reason for this, you know". That would be silly. I just shut up. I don't understand his pain. Likewise, I don't understand the joy of retirement - of pure freedom. But when it comes, I think I'll appreciate my life more. I don't understand what it feels like to come perilously close to death. I would probably be a better person if I did have such an experience. Similarly, why is it so hard for non-parents to accept their lack of understanding of parenthood? Why is it so hard for many of them to just accept that they will indeed miss out on a lot of what it means to 'love' if they neglect parenthood, or if they, to be more fashionably euphemistic, "choose not to have children."? clef

03-05-2002, 07:14 PM	#36
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Clef, the hiking reference was not a direct comparison to having children, obviously. It was in reference to discussing the nature of experience and understanding.

03-05-2002, 08:16 PM	#38
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Folks, this thread was actually to complain about the animosity generated, although I accept that the title is too pointed. It wasn�t meant to generate more hostility. If it does only become yet another gripe session, it hardly seems worth having the thread at all. FWIW, I�m not offended by anyone here. I�m just describing how I hear things and trying to understand how they�re being said. I�d rather participants were here not just for explaining / telling, but also for polite understanding.

03-05-2002, 09:12 PM	#39
alek0 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 640	"Why is it so hard for many of them to just accept that they will indeed miss out on a lot of what it means to 'love' if they neglect parenthood, or if they, to be more fashionably euphemistic, "choose not to have children."?" Why is it so hard to accept that people can have fulfilling lives and be happy without having kids? Why is it so hard to understand that we are all different and what makes you happy would not necessarily make me happy? Finally, why is it so hard to understand that people may have different reasons not to have children? Why is it so hard to understand that, if I choose not to go through several surgeries with no guarantee of success and certain loss of one ovary in order to solve my endometriosis problems, I get quite offended by someone telling me that I should not "neglect parenthood"? My choice to be childfree is actually quite a good thing for my emotional wellbeing, otherwise I would be in for plenty of unhappiness, distress, and heartbreak. Bragging parents should be made to read messages on boards on dealing with infertility first before they go to tell someone "oh, you should really have children" without knowing reason why that person does not have/want kids. For those of us who choose not to, such comments are merely annoying. For those who can't, such comments are offensive and hurtful.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.