| People also say it's selfish to have one child. I am an only with an only. Are there pros and cons to any family structure? Absolutely. Is it selfish? I mean, why? I have a great kid who as a teen seems pretty positioned to be a solid contributor to society. Had we not had the bandwidth and resources to shape him in the ways we did, would this be the case? No idea. I also had the leftover bandwidth (because my family comes first) to have and continue a career where I am able to work with and shape disadvantaged college-aged students and gear them for success. Hundreds at this point, probably dozens significantly. I am not really concerned about my legacy or my child's well-being: so why were a bunch of boomers at Target and Great Aunt's at Thanksgiving concerned about it? |
| My SIL is in her late 40s and doesn't have kids. She is also pretty well-off financially and doesn't work much. I don't think she is selfish because of being childfree, as this seems to be the right choice for her and her spouse. I do think she is not very empathetic about the demands that parents have, financially and time-wise, especially in light of the expectations she's laid out for her brother over the years (we are less well-off than she is and we work more and obviously have parenting responsibilities). Maybe the lack of reference or out of touch-ness of being childfree sometimes comes off as selfishness? But that's not it. I liken it to having a SAHM friend who means well but maybe just doesn't understand sometimes that you can't meet for lunch from 12-1 on a Tuesday (because you have to take a call, or you have a meeting until 12:30, or a 12-1 lunch means you're actually OOO from 11:30-1:30, etc...). |
If you don't have kids, your daily life is centered around you. How you want to spend your time, on a mundane level and more holistically. That's not selfish but it's just where the focal point is and what makes the most sense. Apart from extenuating circumstances like being a FT caregiver for another family member. With kids, their needs are leading everything. From meeting infant needs to toddler demands to financial decisions, where you live, etc. Thats very different from being an aunt etc, even a very loving and helpful one. |
+1 I own that my choice to have kids was wholly selfish. I adore them and I wanted them; that’s why I had them. You’re not selfish, OP. |
|
Op, a more broader, philosophical objection is, you're not adding to the universe. You're taking. You're not giving. You're leaving nothing behind. In an environment of overpopulation that could be seen as a good thing by some. However, for those in a fortuitous position, financial able, able to provide, well, highly educated -- it's just a loss to society. A loss to the rest of us. Again, you leave nothing behind.
And on a personal level. More to love. Family lineage is a stronger bond. You aren't providing any value-added. |
|
Who told you it was selfish? Your parent, your family, your friends? They have a personal interest in you having children. That's why they say that.
The rest of us don't mind/care at all. I'm glad when people who don't want children don't have them. Better mental health all around. |
|
I agree that it's not selfish to not want/have kids. It's pretty self aware.
However, it's definitely true that having kids offers opportunities for personal growth that I just don't see happening if you don't have them. Generally, parenting forces people to become less selfish and self-focused. |
Ideally but definitely not necessarily true. |
| I adopted my one and only. Best situation! |
It’s pretty basic - you are focusing purely on your short term desires. |
Depends on what you do with your time, really. A nurse often goes 12 or more hours without urinating on shift, because the needs of patients come first. Sure, she made the choice to commit to them b taking the job, but that's not that dissimilar to committing to being a parent. Try telling a construction worker putting up drywall that how he spends his time is based on meeting his own needs. Or an Amazon warehouse worker who's being timed by the half minute. It really depends, you know? And I think a lot of people without children get challenged with "who's going to take care of you in your own age? You'll die alone." It's a selfish justification for having children that comes up **all the time** on this board. Parents can't walk away from their job as parents, and I think that's what is often overlooked. But that doesn't mean other people always have lives that revolve around meeting their own needs in the moment and holistically. It does mean, however, that if they are choosing to put other people's needs before their own, it is a choice they recommit to each and every day, not something they are committed to because of a decision made long ago, and that they cannot get out of. It's an ongoing choice, when instead they could leave. That seems to be worth a little something, too. |
Again, this depends on what you do. If you were involved in groundbreaking cancer research, or are a single person dedicating your life to Doctors Without Borders, or were the person who advocated long enough to get lead out of gasoline in the US (Caltech geochemist Clair Patterson, https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/getting-lead-out-47935 ), you've probably had a more far-reaching effect on the world than the average parent. You've probably added more to the world, in value. Of course, that depends on what you do, and it's always a matter of degree. But there are some world changers who had children as well, and there are some who likely credit their ability to focus and dedicate to what they did. It's hard to raise children when you are providing medical care to refugees in starving war-torn countries -- some do, some do not. But as for a matter of degree, you stated above, "you're not adding to the universe. You're taking. You're not giving. You're leaving nothing behind." That's pretty one note and dogmatic. Don't you think it should be given a little more nuance, or is the only thing that counts warm bodies? Because you can do those in test tubes, you know. Your claim has someone who gives birth and puts the baby in a dumpster as credited with doing more for the world than Leonardo da Vinci, who had no children. Is that really what you are claiming? |
But it can make people more "my immediate family" focused and less concerned about the needs of the larger community. Not that child-free people are all, or even mostly, concerned about the wider community. There are selfish and unselfish people in both groups. My DD is 19 and has said since she was little that she doesn't want kids. And that's fine. She wants to spend her life working on environmental restoration so I think she'll be giving more than she's taking in this world. Sure, I'd love it if she changed her mind someday but I think it's unlikely and I would never suggest to her that she should. My other kids want kids so I'll probably get to be a grandmother. But if they don't, that's ok too. |
| It's gaslighting! THE most selfish thing YOU can do is think the world needs more of YOU so YOU reproduce little YOU'S. |
+100. Who would want to bring anyone into this world too? You have to be very selfish to do that to a poor child. |