Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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...).

What do you mean by this? Obligations in regards to their own parents? Are you implying that since she has no kids and more freedom with her money she should take on the majority of care of their parents?

NP here. If I were childless and my sibling had children I would definitely spend more time caring for aging parents because I would have more time to give. Money is a different issue.

Anonymous wrote: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.

What a load of horse hockey.

Op is saying you have to procreate and those leavings - like trash - show you existed. Nope that is selfish. It's illogical to say that the only way to add value or to leave something of value is via children. That's just ridiculous.

Realistically it's much more selfish to have children. Whenever people talk about wanting kids, it's always "I want..." the epitome of selfish.

A mom friend told me once that anyone who calls you selfish for not wanting kids is probably going through a rough time with their kids and are a wee bit jealous. Maybe not of your entire life, but of that moment.

I've known since a kid that I didn't want kids. I think it's pretty selfless to realize you won't be a great parent and thus don't put an innocent child through it. More parents should not have children honestly, quite a few are not fit.

Anonymous wrote:Because they're mad at their own selfish choices.

Whether you have kids or not, both are equally selfish. Adopting and fostering are much less selfish though, because you're opting to take care of people who already exist in this world.

In no possible way is it ever selfish NOT to have children. Who the h3ll would think that? People are free to make their choices about this and there is no selfishness involved in not having children. That belief presumes we are all supposed to have children. It is a choice.

I don't really care if you have kids or not—to the extent I do, I think if you dont' want kids, you'd probably make a garbage parent anyway, so good for you—but it is, by the definition, selfish. You don't have to care for anyone else, just yourself.

Anonymous wrote:I look at this comment at a more macro level. Children grow up to support the economic system. Children are who eventually fund pensions and SS. By opting out of children (even if done for all the right reasons) you are in essence riding the coattails of others who went through the struggles of raising children. And if everyone opted out of having children humanity would end.

I disagree with this line of reasoning. Not everyone uses pensions/SS and childless people are more likely to be and to save to support themselves in retirement without government aid. I have two aunts who are childfree by choice and they’re both the best set up for retirement/elder care of their siblings and will probably end up leaving money to their nieces and nephews when they die. It’s the parents that will be relying on government benefits for their heath care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record I do not think it's selfish to not have kids.

But I think when people say this, they say it from the perspective of having kids and knowing that having kids means putting your kids well-being first. You have to because your kids rely on you for everything and they just need so much. So the experience of parenting is an experience of giving. Sometimes it's the first or most striking experience with having to care for another human being in this way.

So I think people look at their own experience and see the selflessness parenting has required and can include that someone choosing not to be a parent is doing so because they aren't ready to be selfless in that way. I don't think this because I think degree of selflessness good parenting requires comes as a surprise to most people, as does your own willingness to do it because the level of love you feel for your kids also comes as a surprise. You think you know but you don't. People who say childless people are selfish are reasoning backwards but forgetting what it was like to actually not have kids.

+100 well said

I agree. I think this is the motivation behind the comment and that the comment is inappropriate and untrue. People have lots of reasons why they don't have children. It is a valid decision regardless.

Didn’t read all the comments but,

It’s selfish to have kids you don’t really want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because they're mad at their own selfish choices.

Whether you have kids or not, both are equally selfish. Adopting and fostering are much less selfish though, because you're opting to take care of people who already exist in this world.

I disagree. I think having children is far more selfish. Ask why people have them, it’s usually self-serving (I wanted….)and not for their own good OR they just ended up with them (like the last gift at a white elephant). Far more people with kids that don’t take care of them than those without that do.

Kids are a big decision, and unless you’re completely sure you want them you shouldn’t have them. I’m a mom of 3 and I didn’t understand the importance of this until I met parents who…didn’t really care for their kids.

'Far' more selfish? I totally disagree. Having children is a selfless act if you willing sacriface without the martyr complex. And who realy knows what anything is like until you live it.

If anything I view parenthood neither selfish nor selfless because it all depends on the people involved.

You can be child free and selfless and you csn be a parent and be selfish

Anonymous wrote:I feel that realizing your limitations as a person and deciding not to have kids is one of the most selfless things you can do. IMHO it also requires some serious self-reflection that not many people have.

I feel that oftentimes ppl have kids bc thats what you are supposed to do, or what society tells you to do. Not bc they really desire being a parent and/or are truly capable of being a good parent.

I agree with you to a point, but I don’t like the focus on childlessness as always resulting from a person’s recognition of their limitations.

I am childless (despite having dreamed of motherhood and the joys of watching a human emerge into themselves since early childhood) because I was an abused child and I set a very high bar for the kind of man I would be willing to parent with and never found a man who met the mark and never became wealthy enough to do it on my own.

If I won the lottery tomorrow I would foster kids, as at this point I’m too old to responsibly become primary parent to an infant. But I carry grief and always will for missing out on motherhood.

I just wasn’t willing to risk bringing a child into this world who might be abused and I guess I wonder, how on earth is that a manifestation of selfishness?

I also spent the majority of my career in victim advocacy and much of it on behalf of children. Again, how is that selfish?

Please stop making assumptions about why some people don’t have children. For a great many of them it has nothing to do with being selfish.

Anonymous wrote:I look at this comment at a more macro level. Children grow up to support the economic system. Children are who eventually fund pensions and SS. By opting out of children (even if done for all the right reasons) you are in essence riding the coattails of others who went through the struggles of raising children. And if everyone opted out of having children humanity would end.

Yes, look at China and Japan.

Developed countries need 2.1 child per woman to sustain the population.

I look at this comment at a more macro level. Children grow up to support the economic system. Children are who eventually fund pensions and SS. By opting out of children (even if done for all the right reasons) you are in essence riding the coattails of others who went through the struggles of raising children. And if everyone opted out of having children humanity would end.

Anonymous wrote:I love kids, my nieces and nephews are some of my favorite humans. But I never got the ‘urge’ to be a parent and found a lot of fulfillment in other areas of my life outside of family.

I’m having a hard time putting into words why I don’t believe it’s selfish. All I can come up with is it isn’t because there’s nothing to be selfish towards? Like..how can I be selfish to something that doesn’t exist?

I agree with you and have never understood how someone can be selfish to a non-entity!

Anonymous wrote: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...).

What do you mean by this? Obligations in regards to their own parents? Are you implying that since she has no kids and more freedom with her money she should take on the majority of care of their parents?