Why do many parents try to guilt trip people into getting children?

[Fencers]

Why is it difficult for some parents to understand that some people simply don't want any children?

I spent many years not wanting children. I got asked why constantly- like literally from the time I could have children (in middle school) to like 6 years ago when I finally did have kids.

It is the natural drive of humans. Society, playing the violin, reading a book, drawing a picture- are all things we do in between the basic and primary functions of our biology. People are not wrong in saying we are just existing to make more of ourselves; not that life is that narrow, but it is that basic.

I had my kids pretty late in life. Turned out I really enjoy being a mother in ways people told me I would (so a lot of people were right actually!) and in ways I didn't expect. When the urge to pump out the babies came it overwhelmed me like a desire that I can not properly articulate- it was like severe depression and restlessness to get pregnant. I would see babies and get excited, wistful, depressed, happy, etc. Even cartoon babies triggered tons of emotions.

Perhaps that urge doesn't overtake one in their life. That is fine, valid and sensible to not force on yourself. However, having been on the other side of the 'no kid' fence then waking up one day and feeling like I wanted to have 8 children in a row (no joke)- it's a very, very strong desire that deepens over time and the length of a relationship.

[Spl4sh3r]

It's a choice, like any other, so it shouldn't be forced on anyone from the outside. I myself know I want children, but I don't know how that'll happen or how long before I have "time" to get one.

[Mistame]

So if your contention was never that the system that I suggested was not democracy, what's your point in all of this, I don't care if you think it's """undemocratic""", even if it's not, because it's not contrary to democracy, infact it is democracy. Regardless, your feelings on the topic has no bearing on the merits of the argument.

The point was that your suggestion was undemocratic (see aforementioned definition). That's all. You're the one that went on tangent about democracy. And I'm not sure to which argument you're referring. If it's your case for a "tiered" system, etc, it has none.

You say that, but given the context of what you earlier tried to explain you should by realize by now that equality is not a measurable metric upon which you base democracy on, I showed you how the system in some parts are unilaterally opposed to equality in how it considers non citizens as irrelevant, relegating them to "other" and disregarding their interests completely. Very """undemocratic""".

The entire point of the system is to allow those who'll benefit from it to take part in the process. Those who aren't citizens have no stake in it and thus, logically, have no right to participate. Do you ask your neighbors opinions on how you run your household? No, it's none of their business. The exception I would concede to would be those who live here and are in the process of becoming citizens. In that case, as long as the process of becoming a citizen is active, they should have a say, too.

At the end of the day you're never gonna convince me with namecalling

What name-calling? The "pretentious imbeciles" bit? That was a satirical counter demonstrating how irrelevant opinions are; yours and mine alike.

and you do yourself no favours in never explaining your position

I literally did, on multiple occasions. Hence the repeated references to the context of democratic I made.

no one likes a devil's advocate.

Absolutism has no place, well, anywhere and without devil's advocates, conversations are one-sided.

For what it's worth i've enjoyed this conversation and i've learnt a lot even if you've tried to insult me at every turn.

If you took offense at my calling your idea/opinion stupid, that's on you. I didn't insult you "at every turn". Try again.

[TwistedSkull]

You have hundreds if not thousands of generations of human ancestors who managed to reproduce and pass on their genes. To end that lineage is the most selfish thing you could ever do in this world.

With my lineage i can pass on alzheimers, arthritis and diabetes i think if i ever get children they will also have a hard time, i will feel real guilty when i get children and they end up with either of those.

OT: I can understand if some don't want kids.

- - - Updated - - -

Word. Don't want any kids either and my god so many people have their own kids so young! My folks had me when they ere ~35, I think that's a good age, if you want to do it. But so many folks have kids when they're 18-21. You're not even a fucking adult! Or at least you haven't really "lived" yet. Who are you? What do you want from life?

It's no wonder so many people have mid-life crises.

And frankly, I don't even think I'd be a great father. So why not just skip the whole "well you'll do great!" bullshit and not even bother?

Your fertility drops drasticly beyond 30 so the chances are when you feel ready to have kids you might not be able to.

[OriginalName]

I literally did, on multiple occasions. Hence the repeated references to the context of democratic I made.

And I have been trying to explain my thoughts as to why the notion of reducing franchise is not inherently """undemocratic""", because it's a core tenent of an active democracy to control the franchise and regulate it, give voting privilege to those that only society/state deem capable.

This is exactly how every democracy works, because no democracy is so open that it will permit literally anyone, anywhere to cast a vote, the system has clauses and adding further clauses to restrict franchise to uncapable people is not an alien concept, because we've already established several cases wherein people, citizens included have their voting privilege revoked or awarded to a guardian.

A lot of the contention in this discussion come from the two very different approaches we have to the term democratic/antidemocratic, a democratic policy is a policy aligned with democracy, it can exist in and outside of a democratic society; a monarchist state can have democratic processes without being a democracy and a democracy can have a monarch without being a monarchist state.

This is quite left field of the original topic though, in that people who willfully choose not to have children are unfit to vote, most in part due to their unwillingness to contribute to the social, cultural longevity of the society that they are a citizen of. There is a lot of motive to draw from the notion of sterilizing yourself in a cultural manner, for instance is the motive to not have children monetary? If so, then these people are acting solely in their best interests and I can not vouch for their honor or put trust in their ability to make judgements for everyone else in the society.

[God Save The King]

You have hundreds if not thousands of generations of human ancestors who managed to reproduce and pass on their genes. To end that lineage is the most selfish thing you could ever do in this world.

Having children for the notion of passing on your genes or continuing some meaningless legacy is incredibly selfish. That's another human being your creating for your own desires and ego. It's like people who have kids to try to fix a relationship. You don't want the kid, you want them to provide something for you.

[Halicia]

Having children for the notion of passing on your genes or continuing some meaningless legacy is incredibly selfish. That's another human being your creating for your own desires and ego. It's like people who have kids to try to fix a relationship. You don't want the kid, you want them to provide something for you.

Yeah, I don't like to generalize judgements about these sorts of things, but I've seen more than enough people I know, that have children from previous marriages/relationships, now that they're in a new relationship for 6-12 months, they start thinking they need to have children with this new partner to be a 'real' family.

And in the larger view of things, I wish more of humanity looked towards adoption as their first option, and not their final option. It would be great if more children were raised in households that could support them, instead of having to be subsidized by the state.

[icausewipes]

Why do many parents try to guilt trip people into getting children?

Misery loves company.

[Mistame]

And I have been trying to explain my thoughts as to why the notion of reducing franchise is not inherently """undemocratic""", because it's a core tenent of an active democracy to control the franchise and regulate it, give voting privilege to those that only society/state deem capable.

This is exactly how every democracy works, because no democracy is so open that it will permit literally anyone, anywhere to cast a vote, the system has clauses and adding further clauses to restrict franchise to uncapable people is not an alien concept, because we've already established several cases wherein people, citizens included have their voting privilege revoked or awarded to a guardian.

In the US, the only restrictions on voting are age, incarceration/probation, residency and citizenship. So if you're 18+, not incarcerated or on probation/parole for a felony, meet your state's residency requirements and are a US citizen, you have the right to vote. Any restrictions on voting based on protected classes, political ideology, etc, aren't just undemocratic they're illegal. What you're suggesting, at least in the US, would be a violation of the rights of those without children.

in that people who willfully choose not to have children are unfit to vote

This is your opinion and it doesn't actually mean anything. There's more intrinsic value in my stating that I like cheese.

most in part due to their unwillingness to contribute to the social, cultural longevity of the society that they are a citizen of.

Being an active part of a society is contributing. Throwing "longevity" in there doesn't change anything, as it's an irrelevant marker that has no tangible value in rational discourse. It's interesting, however, how easily your logic ignores the fact that those without children contribute just as much, if not more, in regards to finances and medical and technological advancement.

There is a lot of motive to draw from the notion of sterilizing yourself in a cultural manner, for instance is the motive to not have children monetary? If so, then these people are acting solely in their best interests and I can not vouch for their honor or put trust in their ability to make judgements for everyone else in the society.

I realize this may be a strange concept, but the point of life is to live it how you want, not how society or the "state" dictates you live it. You're effectively saying that people who choose to not have children [for monetary purposes] are being "selfish" while ignoring the fact that they're generally a net economic gain while their counterparts are, more often than not, a net loss.

Your entire premise is fallacious, as it discounts the myriad of ways that a person can contribute to society, in favor of a single, incidental factor: Children. By your logic, half-wit, low-income families whose entire lifestyle depends on the funds provided by the very people you're wanting to strip rights from, are somehow magically more qualified to vote because they don't understand how contraception works? Yeah, no. You don't have to like or agree with people that choose to not have children, but that choice is exactly as valid as the choice to have them. It's an individual, reproductive right, and one that trumps everything else.

[Sunseeker]

Your fertility drops drasticly beyond 30 so the chances are when you feel ready to have kids you might not be able to.

Oh yes, that's what 18-20 year olds are thinking about, their fertility levels!

/jesuschrist

[DevilTrigger1989]

I toally agree with you and understand your sufferings, and it seems that such phenomenon are serious in China. Young men are semi-forced by their relatives to marry, give birth to children. The usual shitty words they used to push you are the following:
1): You are xxyrs old now, you must find a relationship, holding up marriage, give birth to a baby, live like a normal man.(Fxxking asshole, why should I follow your words without any aid from your side?Why shouldn't I decide my life with my own?)
2): You should bring grandson/daughter to your parents, or you are not in accordance with filial （Why should my dxxk/puxxy for you to command? You are not the Queen of UK, not even the nobles or tycoons of any part of the world).
3): Get married and obtaining children is the best pleasure in the world, your life is incomplete without it. (Building up a family, bringing up a child perfectly will be very expensive (around 700 thousand dollars in big cities in China), what could made me happy with loans burdened?)

- - - Updated - - -

Because they made the god awful choice of having children and want you to suffer as they have suffered.

Absolutely right, some parents are really twisted in mind, and just do not want their child you go for its own life.

[Moe Szyslak]

Then they weren't genuine, more likely trying to get attention by "going against the stream" or expectations. Pretty common for teenagers to "hate children", in their own words, for example.

Sry, but this is just not true. I hate children. They are annoying, loud, dirty, exhausting and a lot of other things. I avoided them like the plague.

With my own it is totally different. U would never thought you could love something like this. It is the only decision in my life I would not even think about of repeating.

[Thage]

Someone says that he/she does not want any children, and immediately the parental defence brigade arrives. "You'll mature someday and know better!", "Children are the best thing the world has to offer!", "WHY DO YOU HATE CHILDREN?!?" and "I thought I used to be happpy, but when I got my child I realise I was a miserable mess!" are things I've heard.

Why is it difficult for some parents to understand that some people simply don't want any children?
I want a relationship, but no children, and I'm getting sick and tired on having to defend myself from angry parents who seem to have lost all ability to see things from other's point of view the moment their little poop monster popped out.

People go baby-crazy and years of centering your life around your child skews your perception of things, same as any other experience that takes center stage in your life. The best thing to do when people try 'mommyjacking' a conversation is to stare them dead in the eyes and continue the conversation as though they hadn't interjected; eventually they'll adapt to the idea that other people don't have to give a shit about their kids.

[Thage]

This is quite left field of the original topic though, in that people who willfully choose not to have children are unfit to vote, most in part due to their unwillingness to contribute to the social, cultural longevity of the society that they are a citizen of. There is a lot of motive to draw from the notion of sterilizing yourself in a cultural manner, for instance is the motive to not have children monetary? If so, then these people are acting solely in their best interests and I can not vouch for their honor or put trust in their ability to make judgements for everyone else in the society.

This is the single most fascist statement I have ever read on this forum. Bravo. That is an impressive bar to clear on a forum rife with people espousing supremacist ideology and extreme conservative jingoisms, but you just blew them all out of the water by suggesting people lose their say in governmental processes because they don't want, or can't afford children.

[Scathbais]

Cause they are either selfish or ignorant. They either want grandkids for themselves to play with, but have little to no responsibility for...

Or they think "Everyone should have kids, why not!" which is an absurd way of thinking, and thank GOD many of the younger generation are waking up from.

Young people may still be largely dumb, but they are getting politics and birth choices more right then previous generations.

Made me laugh. Narcissism is alive and well in this generation.

My opinion is you guys shouldn't have kids. If you are a young adult and still can't take care of yourselves, let alone a kid, then perhaps its bests if you don't pass on your genes nor your views on politics and birth choices.

[Revi]

All the responses here about how miserable parents must be/how they made the "mistake" of having kids, it just shows the edgy immaturity of a lot of people who don't like the idea of having children. Some people grow up and still don't want any, and are mature and happy about that choice, but a lot of people change their minds when they grow up.

It's why a lot of people can be a bit condescending towards those who don't want children, because it's often characteristic of immaturity.

There's nothing inherently wrong with not wanting kids, the idea just has an image problem because of teens jumping on it.

[slime]

Misery loves company?

Boy this feels dumb following the last post.

[OriginalName]

This is the single most fascist statement I have ever read on this forum. Bravo. That is an impressive bar to clear on a forum rife with people espousing supremacist ideology and extreme conservative jingoisms, but you just blew them all out of the water by suggesting people lose their say in governmental processes because they don't want, or can't afford children.

I'm absolutely not a fascist and what I said has exactly 0 to do with fascism, everything to do with democracy.

Also to the notion of not affording children, this is something that should never occur in society and is a plague that needs to eradicated through social programs to support every family to the fullest. A society that lets its children go hungry or live in poor means is a society that has failed on the most basic level.

In the US, the only restrictions on voting are age, incarceration/probation, residency and citizenship. So if you're 18+, not incarcerated or on probation/parole for a felony, meet your state's residency requirements and are a US citizen, you have the right to vote. Any restrictions on voting based on protected classes, political ideology, etc, aren't just undemocratic they're illegal. What you're suggesting, at least in the US, would be a violation of the rights of those without children.

Yes, currently it would be a violation of their voting rights, that's why you can change rights and expand on the privilege.

[Zephire]

They're defending their own choices, some people see others forging alternate paths and imagine it as an attack on their own path. You see it everywhere about everything, all it does it cause strife where rival ideas would otherwise coexist, I never understood it,

This is very true.

Kids gives you a purpouse. If you had none before, then making kids might give your life meaning. Doesn't mean everyone is like that. Do your thing and be happy someone else is happy with their kids. No rivaly here. Both ways can coexist.

[XangXu]

Humans have an irrational desire to breed even to the detriment of the species and the planet.

Some selfish desire to “have a legacy” or some shit.

Breeding needs regulation.