Childfree.

[Merope]

I grew up in rural Virginia, US, and as far as my experience, basically whatever you decide about a family is socially acceptable as long as you're over 18 and not out of wedlock. It's quite common for people from my home town to get married right out of high school and start a family.
More to the point: if you don't want kids, do not have them. In fact, I would say you should only have kids if you really want them. I knew from my mid-teens that I wanted kids and now I'm 27 with a beautiful 3-year-old daughter. But that is what fits my life and since you're 23 and do not want kids, don't have them! You'll have plenty of time to change your mind if you in fact change it.

[Stir]

He's saying that once you get past the age to be able to contribute and even take care of yourself that someone else will have to. And if you didn't create anyone (aka take the time energy and money to have and raise children) then you will be dependent on someone else who took the time, energy, and money to make and raise children to take care of you.

I understand that... But you see, it doesn't matter. And here's why:
Whether or not you are a parasite depends on whether or not you are beneficial to the species. If your existence is, or has at some point, benefited your species, then you are not a parasite to it when you require aid.

There's an instinct in social mammals that causes us to care for one another, without this granting immediate (material) reward. This instinct is the reason why we feel good about helping others. This is called 'altruism.'

In wolves, only the alpha couple mates. And yet, even an omega is cared for in the later stages of their life. They receive food, warmth and shelter, and they don't have to do anything in order to receive it. Altruism.

I understand that we're not wolves, but wolves are only one example in the mammalian world. The same goes for all social species of primate, from monkeys to apes.

Also understand that there is the possibility of a huge cultural gap between us. I am European. Dutch. This means that my life is a lot less individual than that of a US citizen. I take it as a given that the many pay up in order to support the few. I take it as a given that, if you spread effort over everyone, then everyone is less burdened, as an individual, when their personal life takes a down-turn. A social support system, I feel, is paramount to civilization. And it allows me, and others who share this culture with me, an enormous freedom of choice concerning what we want to do with our lives. Mistakes are allowed, choosing a new path is allowed.

I have come to understand that the US population would rather pay MORE for themselves if that would mean they would pay LESS for others... In short: The US has a much more individualist culture. There's much more 'me, me, me' going on. 'Why should I pay for someone else's accident,' is a recurring statement. They seem to act as if they are, personally, the only people who pay taxes, or that taxation is somehow a trade-contract. 'My tax-dollars,' is the thought, rather than 'the Government's (and therefore, collective society's) money.'

I can understand how, in such an individualist society, it is considered a sin to be a 'burden' to anyone else... But where I come from, everyone is considered a burden and a blessing at the same time. Everyone contributes in their own way, and everyone deserves to be taken care of because of that.

[Kerath]

Yeah, I get flak from people because I have more than two kids. I have four, and won't have any more. However, I don't push others to have kids they don't want. I'm very open-minded on it. My kids are taken care of, are not wards of the state, aren't criminal or a burden on anyone's system, etc, so I'm doing my part. But, people still give me flak because I had more than two. I figure my four will balance out with your zero if you end up having no kids. Enjoy your life with or without kids. Cheers.

Wow, seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't?! It's completely crazy.
Good for you and your four kids, I hope you're a very happy family and screw anyone that says otherwise. As you say, we'll balance each other out

And in my opinion people who consciously make that decision should be excluded from Medicare, and other (social) services paid for by younger generations. Don't want kids? Fine, don't demand other people's kids take care of you either.

What a ridiculous notion.
I've already paid 13 years of social security/national insurance and will likely pay for at least another 35 years before I retire (likely to be uninterrupted by maternity leave and maternity benefit, I might add ). I will have MORE than paid my dues by the time I reach an age where I might require looking after.

I could argue that my social security/national insurance should not pay for treating childhood diseases. After all, you wanted children, YOU pay for them if they get sick.
It's a completely stupid argument either way.

[Dukami]

I'm 31, married for almost 6 years, with the same woman since I was 17. We both didn't want kids, ever. In 2006, based on our discussions and feelings, I got a vasectomy. It was the best thing I ever did. It's a personal decision that everyone has to make. Unfortunately, I think many people that don't want or should not have children feel pressured by society to do so. I have a 15 month old niece who I love, but it in no way changes my decision. As an uncle, I get to visit and then return to my child-free life =)

You have to make your own decisions, and guilt about your feelings should not go in to it. You aren't selfish. Bringing a child in to the world in a situation where they may not be 100% wanted is selfish.

[Adam Jensen]

Man, there are some heartless a-holes in this thread.

"Don't have kids? No medicare for joo!" Yes, lets let our elderly starve and die because they chose to not have kids. That's inhumane. I'm rather disturbed how many people here seem to lack basic empathy or ethics.

The point of human life is not to just spit out babies. Give me a break. If someone doesn't want to have babies, that's their prerogative. They can contribute to society in many other ways. And given that our population keeps rising, I don't think we need to focus on reproduction right now.

[vetinari]

I understand that... But you see, it doesn't matter. And here's why:
Whether or not you are a parasite depends on whether or not you are beneficial to the species. If your existence is, or has at some point, benefited your species, then you are not a parasite to it when you require aid.

There's an instinct in social mammals that causes us to care for one another, without this granting immediate (material) reward. This instinct is the reason why we feel good about helping others. This is called 'altruism.'

In wolves, only the alpha couple mates. And yet, even an omega is cared for in the later stages of their life. They receive food, warmth and shelter, and they don't have to do anything in order to receive it. Altruism.

I understand that we're not wolves, but wolves are only one example in the mammalian world. The same goes for all social species of primate, from monkeys to apes.

Also understand that there is the possibility of a huge cultural gap between us. I am European. Dutch. This means that my life is a lot less individual than that of a US citizen. I take it as a given that the many pay up in order to support the few. I take it as a given that, if you spread effort over everyone, then everyone is less burdened, as an individual, when their personal life takes a down-turn. A social support system, I feel, is paramount to civilization. And it allows me, and others who share this culture with me, an enormous freedom of choice concerning what we want to do with our lives. Mistakes are allowed, choosing a new path is allowed.

I have come to understand that the US population would rather pay MORE for themselves if that would mean they would pay LESS for others... In short: The US has a much more individualist culture. There's much more 'me, me, me' going on. 'Why should I pay for someone else's accident,' is a recurring statement. They seem to act as if they are, personally, the only people who pay taxes, or that taxation is somehow a trade-contract. 'My tax-dollars,' is the thought, rather than 'the Government's (and therefore, collective society's) money.'

I can understand how, in such an individualist society, it is considered a sin to be a 'burden' to anyone else... But where I come from, everyone is considered a burden and a blessing at the same time. Everyone contributes in their own way, and everyone deserves to be taken care of because of that.

Its not a sin to be a burden.

It is a sin to choose to be a burden.

Those who choose to be child-free are choosing to be burdens upon the children of others. Similarly, a deadbeat father is one who chooses to make his children burdens upon other men. A single mother makes her children burdens upon married mothers. None should be encouraged. A society that encourages any of the above will fail in time, though the former take longer to cause trouble than the latter.

Wow, seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't?! It's completely crazy.
Good for you and your four kids, I hope you're a very happy family and screw anyone that says otherwise. As you say, we'll balance each other out


What a ridiculous notion.
I've already paid 13 years of social security/national insurance and will likely pay for at least another 35 years before I retire (likely to be uninterrupted by maternity leave and maternity benefit, I might add ). I will have MORE than paid my dues by the time I reach an age where I might require looking after.

I could argue that my social security/national insurance should not pay for treating childhood diseases. After all, you wanted children, YOU pay for them if they get sick.
It's a completely stupid argument either way.

Your social security taxes were never intended to pay for your future care. Rather, they were specifically designed to make you feel entitled to social security, and hence ensure that social security could never be repealed.

In truth, society owes you nothing for social security taxes you have paid, as you have already received the benefit: you no longer have to personally support your parents/grandparents.

Man, there are some heartless a-holes in this thread.

"Don't have kids? No medicare for joo!" Yes, lets let our elderly starve and die because they chose to not have kids. That's inhumane. I'm rather disturbed how many people here seem to lack basic empathy or ethics.

The point of human life is not to just spit out babies. Give me a break. If someone doesn't want to have babies, that's their prerogative. They can contribute to society in many other ways. And given that our population keeps rising, I don't think we need to focus on reproduction right now.

If too many choose to be childless, then the next generation will be worse off than the previous one, as a result of the selfishness of the previous one.

If you don't see a problem with this, then you are the one utterly lacking in human decency, not us "heartless assholes".

And don't give me that crap about overpopulation. If you consider it a problem, limit your fecundity to having two children.

[Deleted]

You are born to have kids and keeping humanity alive. Just like every other specie

edit: I can't wait to have kids, to see what my parents went trough, and to put something on this world that is more then just DNA.

[JohnBrown1917]

You are born to have kids and keeping humanity alive. Just like every other specie

edit: I can't wait to have kids, to see what my parents went trough, and to put something on this world that is more then just DNA.

That is incorrect, we don't have a purpose.

[Kerath]

Your social security taxes were never intended to pay for your future care. Rather, they were specifically designed to make you feel entitled to social security, and hence ensure that social security could never be repealed.

In truth, society owes you nothing for social security taxes you have paid, as you have already received the benefit: you no longer have to personally support your parents/grandparents.

My grandparents are dead, and never required the support of myself or my parents. They either died while they were still of working age, or died suddenly - and were in good health and required no further support than their own pension prior to that. I hardly imagine that I'm alone in that situation, so your broad assumption that everyone lives to such an age, or that their health deteriorates to such a point that they require extensive or prolonged care is a bit of a leap in itself.

I've no idea what it's like where you're from, but where I'm from my contributions fund my own state pension and general healthcare and social benefits (unemployment, incapacity, housing, so on and so forth). By the time I retire (if I'm a bit lucky), I will have taken very little from that - maybe some unemployment cover if I'm unfortunate and the occasional illness.
Someone who had children, on the other hand, takes from the social pot their maternity benefit, their child benefit, if only one of the parents is working they'll be getting housing benefit, possibly council tax benefit. They're not paying in any more than me individually, but getting a heck of a lot more out of it. They'll still be getting their state pension when they retire too.
Of course I don't begrudge them that, and yes, one day their children will be contributing. But when their kids have kids, the cycle begins anew.

Also, you'll find that anyone over the age of 25 with a lick of sense and a little bit of disposable income is already making sure that they're putting money aside for their retirement to ensure that they aren't a burden on anyone - the state OR their children.
So don't try and tell me that I'll be a burden on the state when I'm old if I choose to not have children, because it's nonsense.

[vetinari]

My grandparents are dead, and never required the support of myself or my parents. They either died while they were still of working age, or died suddenly - and were in good health and required no further support than their own pension prior to that. I hardly imagine that I'm alone in that situation, so your broad assumption that everyone lives to such an age, or that their health deteriorates to such a point that they require extensive or prolonged care is a bit of a leap in itself.

I've no idea what it's like where you're from, but where I'm from my contributions fund my own state pension and general healthcare and social benefits (unemployment, incapacity, housing, so on and so forth). By the time I retire (if I'm a bit lucky), I will have taken very little from that - maybe some unemployment cover if I'm unfortunate and the occasional illness.
Someone who had children, on the other hand, takes from the social pot their maternity benefit, their child benefit, if only one of the parents is working they'll be getting housing benefit, possibly council tax benefit. They're not paying in any more than me individually, but getting a heck of a lot more out of it. They'll still be getting their state pension when they retire too.
Of course I don't begrudge them that, and yes, one day their children will be contributing. But when their kids have kids, the cycle begins anew.

Also, you'll find that anyone over the age of 25 with a lick of sense and a little bit of disposable income is already making sure that they're putting money aside for their retirement to ensure that they aren't a burden on anyone - the state OR their children.
So don't try and tell me that I'll be a burden on the state when I'm old if I choose to not have children, because it's nonsense.

"and were in good health and required no further support than their own pension prior to that."

/sigh. So your grandparents did not require the support of the rest of society, because they received the support of the rest of society? What do you think pensions are?


As for the rest. I don't know how to put it best, but I will try.

You can't cook money, you can't build a house out of money, you can't run a car on money. You cook beef, use timber and run on petrol.

You aren't saving up electricity, you aren't saving up food, you aren't saving up labor and they are what you will need, not money. Money is a tool used to acquire resources, but if there aren't enough resources to go around, because there aren't enough workers. . .

So yes, you will be a burden on the state, no matter how much money you put aside, for money is a tool and if there are no nails, a hammer is useless.

[Tziva]

Since as a society, we have decided that old people will be taken care of, the intentionally child-free are parasites upon society.

I should know better then to participate in this discussion since people always turn vile, but whatever:

If you are a person who is old and incapable of caring for yourself, you have no choice but to be a burden on someone. You could easily flip this around and argue you're being parasitic to your children in the other scenario. It's an ambiguous judgment and can be applied too broadly to anyone who ever relies on the assistance of another in any context (which we ALL do), so let's just agree that it's inappropriate to call an person who needs assistance in their old age a "parasite." I would reserve such a term for someone who was being malicious or deliberately exploiting people.

Personally, I would not want to be a burden to my children anymore than I want to be a burden to society (maybe even less so). This is why I pay into social programs, and why I have retirement savings. This would be the same whether I had no children or ten children.

I am especially offended at the premise that one should have children so they can take care of them when they are older. Children are not supposed to be a retirement plan. You should have children because you love them and want to share the family experience with them, not because you want to create some free geriatric nurses.

Anyone who argues that that is a legitimate perspective is throwing stones in a glass house by calling someone who chooses not to have children selfish.

I don't understand why people have to turn these discussions into such mean, vindictive debates. It's a life decision that has immeasurable personal impact but very little impact on others, so there is no reason anyone should even care what other people chose in this scenario, much less feel the next to throw insults at them.

[Deleted]

I find it quite ironic how you mention that kids are selfish, but yet your post is all about Me Me Me Me Me Me. It seems like you care about no one but yourself. You sound like a disgusting selfish person and I agree with the other person saying you're a parasite to this society.


Infracted: Please, keep posts civil and refrain from making personal remarks.

[Stir]

"and were in good health and required no further support than their own pension prior to that."

/sigh. So your grandparents did not require the support of the rest of society, because they received the support of the rest of society? What do you think pensions are?

Little explanation:
Most countries in the EU have financial plans for those too old to work. A pension, however, is privately saved up money, which you save up by subtracting a percentage from your monthly income. It is not taxation, and it is not provided by the government in any way. If someone's pension is too high, they will receive less benefits from financial plans for the elderly.
Having a pension plan is required, by the way.

Vetinari: Even though your screen-name implies you know the Discworld series quite well, your grasp of cultural differences and, indeed, the inner workings of a political structure aren't showing.

[vetinari]

I should know better then to participate in this discussion since people always turn vile, but whatever:

If you are a person who is old and incapable of caring for yourself, you have no choice but to be a burden on someone. You could easily flip this around and argue you're being parasitic to your children in the other scenario. It's an ambiguous judgment and can be applied too broadly to anyone who ever relies on the assistance of another in any context (which we ALL do), so let's just agree that it's inappropriate to call an person who needs assistance in their old age a "parasite." I would reserve such a term for someone who was being malicious or deliberately exploiting people.

Personally, I would not want to be a burden to my children anymore than I want to be a burden to society (maybe even less so). This is why I pay into social programs, and why I have retirement savings. This would be the same whether I had no children or ten children.

I am especially offended at the premise that one should have children so they can take care of them when they are older. Children are not supposed to be a retirement plan. You should have children because you love them and want to share the family experience with them, not because you want to create some free geriatric nurses.

Anyone who argues that that is a legitimate perspective is throwing stones in a glass house by calling someone who chooses not to have children selfish.

I don't understand why people have to turn these discussions into such mean, vindictive debates. It's a life decision that has immeasurable personal impact but very little impact on others, so there is no reason anyone should even care what other people chose in this scenario, much less feel the next to throw insults at them.

The idea behind social security, state pensions, is this:

All of our children will pool their resources into looking after us, instead of our children taking care of us individually.

For the child-free:

All of your children will pool their resources into looking after us, instead of your children taking care of you.

How can you not see this?



And by the way, it is inappropriate to call those who require assistance, old age or not, to be parasites. On the other hand, if you choose to be a burden on society, which you will be, and choose not to take steps to ease that burden, then you are a parasite. If you don't want to be a parasite, have two children or invent humanoid robots.

Is there any reason why you have no objections to making the life of other people's children more difficult? Is it because conservative people have more children and you want to fuck them over?

Little explanation:
Most countries in the EU have financial plans for those too old to work. A pension, however, is privately saved up money, which you save up by subtracting a percentage from your monthly income. It is not taxation, and it is not provided by the government in any way. If someone's pension is too high, they will receive less benefits from financial plans for the elderly.
Having a pension plan is required, by the way.

Vetinari: Even though your screen-name implies you know the Discworld series quite well, your grasp of cultural differences and, indeed, the inner workings of a political structure aren't showing.

I don't actually care about the inner workings of the pension systems of European countries. Such systems are functionally identical to an income tax and a state pension indexed to prior income, however.

[Adam Jensen]

If too many choose to be childless, then the next generation will be worse off than the previous one, as a result of the selfishness of the previous one.

If you don't see a problem with this, then you are the one utterly lacking in human decency, not us "heartless assholes".

And don't give me that crap about overpopulation. If you consider it a problem, limit your fecundity to having two children.

Except that's not going to happen because the onus to create children is far more common than the desire to be childless. It's our nature to reproduce; it's the nature for all life to reproduce, making those few who decide not to, for whatever the reason, a minority. A minority, I might add, who needs not be punished because they don't desire to reproduce.

Its not a sin to be a burden.

It is a sin to choose to be a burden.

The elderly also don't chose to grow old and become dependent on others. It just happens. Are you so heartless to reject a frail 80 year old woman aid just because she never had children?

And you call *me* the one lacking in human decency?

[Ayarea]

18 years of childsupport from the state for your kid. As much as being a "parasite" to the state is it not?

[Deleted]

18 years of childsupport from the state for your kid. As much as being a "parasite" to the state is it not?

You forgot one important thing. When the child grow up and start working he'll bring home millions in taxes throughout his working career, the state will not lose money on him but earn tons..

[vetinari]

Except that's not going to happen because the onus to create children is far more common than the desire to be childless. It's our nature to reproduce; it's the nature for all life to reproduce, making those few who decide not to, for whatever the reason, a minority. A minority, I might add, who needs not be punished because they don't desire to reproduce.

Have you checked birth rates in Europe lately?

The elderly also don't chose to grow old and become dependent on others. It just happens. Are you so heartless to reject a frail 80 year old woman aid just because she never had children?

And you call *me* the one lacking in human decency?

No, I wouldn't reject the old woman's plea for aid.

Which is why I would ensure that the social structures are in place that every person is given the opportunity (and is strongly encouraged to take) to work, mate and have children, with social stigma (and sanctions if necessary) for those who choose to flout convention, and social sympathy for those who are childless due to bad luck.

Because I understand that if you want to give unconditional aid, you have to ensure with other methods that people don't abuse it.

[JohnBrown1917]

So, to be a decent human being, I will need to get kids? Even tho they probably will have horrible childhoods because I will not be-able to take care of them?
So it only matter that they survive? I mean, who cares about them having shitty lives right? aslong as that means they will contribute to society.


vetinari, I ask you this, are you serious?

[Deleted]

So, to be a decent human being, I will need to get kids? Even tho they probably will have horrible childhoods because I will not be-able to take care of them?
So it only matter that they survive? I mean, who cares about them having shitty lives right? aslong as that means they will contribute to society.


vetinari, I ask you this, are you serious?

He's on bath salts.