"Lifestyle" is not the reason I chose not to bring children into this
world. Republican "leadership" in a state that has the most toxic
pollution in the nation is one reason. Greed-driven leaders and people who have
failed to recognize climate change and the impact it will have on future
generations is another reason.Tell your children "this is the
world left to you by people who claim to cherish children" and you'll
I dont understand your concern Jessica. You write"The fertility
rate in order to replace the current population is 2.1. Today the replacement
rate globally is 2.33;"So, by your own admission, the population
is increasing. Had the replacement rate been significantly lower, you may
have had a point.I fail to see the need for exponentially increasing
1. A primary reason young couples are putting off parenthood right now is the
economy. That's wise; those who cannot afford to provide for children
shouldn't have them.2. We have over 300 million people in this
country, double the population of just ~40 years ago. We are in no danger of
becoming extinct from a fertility rate a few tenths of a percent below 2.1. 3. "Imagine if your parents had decided the cost of children was not
worth it. You would not exist" Logical fallacy. Parents who have 4,5,6
children should then feel guilty about the lives they robbed by not having the
5th,6th,7th child.4. You could have an interesting discussion about
why the "selfish" impulse to not have children is morally worse than the
selfish impulse that fuels a successful capitalist economy.5. Every
resource supply problem is made worse by increasing population. Jessica, tell me
how you plan on providing water to 6 million Utahns when last year's
drought threatened the supply for the current 3 million of us. 6.
Give up your per child tax break before dictating the social and economic
responsibility of parenthood to us.
It only takes having 1 kid to take your family from adult-centric to
kid-centric. Just saying.
I'm always a bit confused by people who claim we should live within our
means one moment and then try to guilt us into having large families the next.
I already have the greatest daughter a man could ask for and if I don't
have another, I'm more than happy. Parenthood isn't a contest.
"Parenthood isn't a contest."KJB1 - Maybe you have
never lived in Utah.The number of children and grandchildren one has
certainly can be a competition. I have seen it many times.
If I chose not to have children largely due to "Republican Leadership"
then I would be an embarrassed Utahn as well. I find it amazing how many
people's lives are centered on political ideology.Although the
population rate may be slowing, I am not concerned about us going extinct
anytime soon. I also try not to criticize people for their decision of whether
or not to have children or how many they choose to have. (For some people, they
don't have a choice.) Looking down at someone who doesn't have kids as
"selfish" or likewise looking down at a large family as "enemies of
the environment" is just foolish in my opinion.I think families
are great. Functional families are the best kind. I admire anyone who puts in
the time, effort, and love necessary to raise good kids even though the outcome
is never guaranteed.
We need to have as many kids as we have room on the rear window of our
SUV's to put family members stickers on.
Whether or not you marry and have a family is your own choice. But what you give
to your children you may have need in getting in return in your old age. This
includes monetary support (SS and more), help with meals, bathing, changing your
diapers, etc. I hope those who have not bothered investing in
children have other ways they have prepared for their future.
Honestly, I doubt many people make the deeply personal decision to have children
or not have children because of the impact it will have on public policy. How
about instead we don't judge the way other folks choose to live their
Christian 24-7 makes a good point. Have kids, lots of them, and at least one of
them should be nice enough to take care your old, worn out body :)
Christian 24-7Children as retirement plans and adult diaper-changers, huh?
"The fertility rate in order to replace the current population is 2.1. Today
the replacement rate globally is 2.33; conversely, we were at a 4.95 replacement
rate in the 1950s. Continuing this trend will eliminate our population."Uh... the replacement rate is how many kids you need to maintain the
population. Going from a replacement rate of 4.95 to 2.33 shows that we have
vastly improved in areas like preventing infant mortality. I think the argument
the letter writer wants is that the birth rate has declined.
Just saying people provide for their declining years in different ways. Those
who don't have children should have a lot of money they saved by not having
those kids so they should be prepared to pay someone for these services. That is
way okay with me.Please don't leave it to the government. They
will do a lousy job for you, and I would rather spend my hard earned resources
on raising my family than spend it on higher taxes.
My wife and I struggle for many years in our early marriage with infertility.I'll never for the ire we endured back then, the judgement by
others, the caustic attitude, - about our "selfishness"....like
somehow we had a choice in the matter.30 years and 4 children later,
we've been "blessed", but YES, I'm still bitter by how
were treated during that time.Judge not...
Why am I reminded of the movie Idiocracy?
The problem isn't having kids.The problem is that people like
Jessica refuse to shoulder the costs of motherhood and child upbringing.We're dead last in per-pupil funding per student. And yet, people
like Jessica want MORE kids into the system?How about we figure out
a way to pay for the kids we already have first.
It is funny to hear the liberals make all of their claims about having many
kids. They think that kids are not a retirement plan, yet that is precisely how
SS was set up. The liberals figured that people would have large families, so
that there would be many workers for each retired person.Also those
who say that they don't want many kids for economic reasons are typically
just big kids. The fact is you don't need a huge house to raise a lot of
kids. As long as you have money to feed, clothe, and house your kids that is
the primary responsibility. Kids don't need flashy gadgets and toys. 4
wheelers and campers are optional.
Redshirt,You are making a litany of bizarre accusations and assumptions
that have little to do with anything anyone has posted here today. Off in deep
space, I suppose.
Is this another High School assignment they don't really believe but have
to do?If you look into it more than the assumptions of the letter
the world's population will probably reach 10 billion and then level off.
Where in the world do you get the idea the population is going to decline any
time soon?Birthrate has a lot to do with progress. Look up a TED
talk or two and learn before burning the electrons. At least no trees were
harmed with such a pointless and erroneous assumption.
I will add that birthrates tend to decline as a society moves from basic
agrarian structure to a modern division of labor, lawfull structure. Read some
Steven Pinker.India has high birthrates because kids (sons) actually
are the retirement plan there. Isn't that the original retirement ponzi
scheme? Yes it is, dismissed. Infanticide and abortion of females is
very high in India. Social Security systems the world over actually reduce
female infanticide, abortion and overall birthrates. Children and better cared
for and more adored. Oh, the calamity of it all.
Please, let those who don't want kids abstain from having offspring. It
will be a service to mankind, social Darwinism at its finest. Perhaps LDS
Liberal has forgotten to principle of forgiveness, he still hasn't gotten
Taks a step back for a minute. Adults should be able to decide for themselves if
they want children or not, without the guilt trip.
Human beings seek economic security before bringing children into the world, if
there are means to manage the process, ie, birth control.Part of the
fallout from the Great Recession is a realization of just how tenuous individual
economic success is, and the recent political rancor about "givers and
takers" leaves many with the impression that standing on one's own two
feet is the only moral and safe way to participate in our economy, as taking
public assistance is not just immoral, but socially repugnant.This
means thoughtful, cautious young couples will put off having kids until
they've acquired enough of a nest egg to not have to rely on the kindness
of strangers, or worse, government, should they encounter economic hard times or
tragedy.They work, and wait, then work some more, and wait some
more, until they're at risk for birth defects, or just never feel quite
secure enough. Some will have kids in their thirties and forties, some
won't.Maximum liberty means max responsibility, which means
lowered birth rates. This really shouldn't surprise anyone.
Adult centered world? Has this person watched TV lately?
LDS Liberal - Thank you for giving me hope. Personally I don't
think our population is in any danger. There will always be those lower species
among us who have 10 kids, and a diffent daddy for each.