Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do I have to have children? This is something that I think about very often. I just turned 40 years old this year, and needless to say I do not have any children. I thought I was very comfortable with that and felt that I really didn’t want to have children. But recently I have felt a little conflicted, almost like I should want to have children because I’m a woman, and it’s not “normal “ to not want children
So my question is is it truly OK if I don’t have a desire to have children ?
And another thought I have had is that if I was meant to be a mother, it would have happened by now and because it hasn’t it’s probably meant to be, thoughts?
Your WIFE birthed 5 kids. I will assume she was a willing participant.
Actually, she wanted more. She had two miscarriages. And has a model like figure, she must be a superwoman. We had three before age 25. One in her mid 30s and the last one when she was 41.
Last edited by Julian658; 10-02-2019 at 10:53 AM..
Actually, she wanted more. She had two miscarriages. And has a model like figure, she must be a superwoman.
I said I assumed she was a willing participant. But let's not forget your wife put HER body on the line. You advising other women to have babies...not really your call.
I said I assumed she was a willing participant. But let's not forget your wife put HER body on the line. You advising other women to have babies...not really your call.
Fair enough I guess. But keep in mind, you telling women what to do with their bodies, when you will never know what it's like to labor and birth children, it's very authoritarian sounding.
Keep in mind, I'm not advocating abortion. I will never do that. But women have choices in BC, and if they decide they don't want children, then it's their decision to make. And there is nothing wrong with that choice.
Fair enough I guess. But keep in mind, you telling women what to do with their bodies, when you will never know what it's like to labor and birth children, it's very authoritarian sounding.
Keep in mind, I'm not advocating abortion. I will never do that. But women have choices in BC, and if they decide they don't want children, then it's their decision to make. And there is nothing wrong with that choice.
Birth control pills were developed in the late 1950s. Basically that was yesterday. Up until the birth control the reproductive lives of women were often filled with one pregnancy after another. Huge families were quite common.
The effects of birth control has had a monumental effect on the entire planet. The fertility rates 1st plummeted in developed nations and now they are also coming down in most 3rd world countries with the exception of Sub Sahara Africa. Sooner or later this will cause the world human population to go down. The question is: Will it cause an unbalance between old and young. Old people are living longer and longer. Even the Chinese noted this and eliminated the one child per couple law. However, eventually al the old people have to die. Imagine a world where everybody is old.
What if the world fertility rate falls to less than 2.0. Then what?
Actually, you are wrong about this. There have been many, many stories and studies done over the last few years where marriage and children are now markers of high wealth. The more children you have, the better off you are. The book Primates of New York wrote about this phenomenon, husbands even gave bonus or push presents for each child their wife had. I could link 10 articles about this but I'm sure you know how to Google.
Marriage and children are increasingly becoming available only to the elite. Marriage and birth rates are declining among the lower and middle class. People finally heard what has been drummed into their heads for so long, if you can't feed em, don't have em.
The Kennedys and the Bushes had huge families, the women had lots of kids and they could afford them, you are correct.
However, 60-70 years ago most couples were married regardless of socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Most kids were born with a dad and a mom.
Todays many couples are not married, however the upper class maintains the high rate of marriage. Most kids from the upper class are born to a married couple. Most kids in poverty come from a one parent home.
I agree with you. What has changed is that the common average people have decided not to marry and not to parent the kids together. The upper classes have changed little in this regard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
