Discussion Is having kids the best thing ever or a selfless act of charity?

[derpyderpins]

Okay you can ignore the purposefully provocative title now that I got you to click. Along with being King Normie I am the Earl of Grey Shades: I don't think it's black and white.

Anywho. I am torn on whether or not I want kids someday. This is a separate discussion from whether or not having kids is good or if it's evil to have children because life is nothing but suffering yada yada. That discussion is all over this site. Even with this disclaimer, if this post gets any traction there will be a free-thinker who posts something along the lines of "having children is evil." Yeah, I get your point.

But, outside of our nice little slice of suicidal heaven, there is a back and forth on whether or not having kids is a good choice for the parent. That's what I'm thinking about. I generally see two sides:

1. Having children is basically the whole point of life. It is your biological imperative. Your genes and legacy will be passed on, which is what you want to do per evolution, so fulfilling that desire is good for you. It's also good for the species if there are more children. Raising children is fulfilling. As you get older you will want a younger generation that feels connected with you to help take care of you. Kids are cute and fun. "I had kids and it's the best thing that ever happened to me."
2. Having children costs about a half a lifetime of income for each one. Life is already very stressful with work and other household chores, but raising children is an even BIGGER time sink and responsibility you are adding on top of that, so it's not worth it. Without the expense of kids you can retire much younger and there will be less strain on you and/or your spouse. There is a lot of pressure on being a parent not to screw the kids up, and even if you're perfect they could be screwed up and suffer anyway. Kids are actually not cute, they're annoying little shits that make everything dirty and sticky and can't contribute at all.

Then, the counterarguments are something along the lines of:

1. I'm a human with higher conciousness, above the drive of my biological imperative. I don't care if my genes are passed on since I'll be dead anyway. I don't see any way that having kids actually improves my day-to-day life, so fulfilling my evolutionary goal seems like something that will feel good for a moment and then lead to years of misery. [Many different arguments about continuing the species I don't need to detail for this post.] Raising children does not seem fulfilling, it seems like a chore: my passions are fulfilling. If I don't have kids I'll have money for senior care so I don't need to birth my caregivers. Again, kids aren't cute and fun for more than 10 minutes before they get annoying. Your anecdotal experience means nothing, especially when you will have a natural bias to justify your choices.
2. Thinking so much about your personal finances is being selfish. Thinking about not wanting to take care of them is lazy and selfish. Stupid people raise kids that become good people so don't worry about screwing them up. You may say kids are annoying little sticky shitstains, but it's different when they're your kids, and you just have to trust me since there's no trial period.

I think my present bias is showing, but hopefully I wasn't too unfair.

I underlined what I want to talk about today: the two separate statements you will see repeatedly from those in favor of having kids. First, having kids is the best thing that can happen to you in life. It's fulfilling and fun and great and full of joy and happiness and sunshine. Item two is that if you don't want kids, you are being selfish.

In my head, those two things can't both be true. If having kids is actually an awesome great experience, then a selfish person would choose to have kids. Can't be both ways. Having kids is either good for the parent or an act of charity to mankind.

I'd love to stop the argument there, but there is a bit of nuance to it that I will give the pro-kids. Many of their arguments are about how you just can't know if it's good until you've experienced it. So, I will try to make their argument a little bit better for them: "having kids is amazing. Separately, you are being selfish by not having kids because you wrongly perceive that having kids isn't amazing." It's pretty condescending on the pro-kids side, but I can also understand the basic logic. It's similar to one I've made with people (think NEETs) who haven't tried the lifestyles they have decided are inferior to theirs. Of course, having your own kids can't come with a trial period, but that's a different discussion. The logic holds that you can't determine if it is in your best interest to have children - not conclusively - without living a full life where both options are explored, which is impossible.

But another thought occurs to me. If having a child is the best thing imaginable, then people who have one kid must want a second, and so on, correct?

Looking at birth rate in the US (these numbers are from chatgpt I'm too lazy to do proper research right now because it stands out to me as being indicative of the trend):



Fewer people are having kids. That could just be the result of this incorrect perception that having kids actually sucks.

What we really need to look at is whether or not people who have one kid are so very very happy with that choice that they pop out a second, third, fourth, etc. So, I threw together a graph showing "out of households that do have at least one kid, how many total kids are they having?"



Over time, it has become much more common to stop at one kid, with two being the most common total. To me, this almost completely kills the "having kids is the best thing ever" argument, meaning that similar statements are a way of lying to oneself to justify the life-altering decision and to avoid the guilt associated with not wanting to parent your child.

Now, I can see the argument arising that people may want more kids after their 1st/2nd, but economic situations hold them back. This does not persuade me. It relies on the idea that people will make a financially wise decision rather than picking the thing that makes them happier than anything else ever could. We're an addictive, pleasure seeking-species, trending even further in that direction. I don't believe money would hold us back.

That's about it for my thoughts. Not a definitive argument about having kids, but I do see this as showing that people who will in one breath say that having kids is always a great choice and in another breath that not having kids is selfish are full of it. I continue to believe having kids is a good choice for some people and not for others based on a variety of factors.

 

[Lady Laudanum]

r/dataisbeautiful

you nerd lol

 

[noname223]

I guess you are preaching to the wrong audience.

Okay it actually was not preaching. If my life wasn't that fucked up I might even considered it myself.

I am not a Fan of antinatalism anymore but also no enemy.

 

[derpyderpins]

I guess you are preaching to the wrong audience.

Okay it actually was not preaching. If my life wasn't that fucked up I might even considered it myself.

I am not a Fan of antinatalism anymore but also no enemy.

Well, my conclusion in this post ends up being against having kids, but you're right that a lot of people don't want to entertain the idea here. Eh. I mostly type up crap like this for myself . . . mostly.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

"The concern of bringing a child into a world in a less than perfect time causing the child to suffer is not a valid one for several reasons. First, the USA, under Trump or not, is better than many if not most places in the world. In addition, the world in 2024 is a better place than nearly all of human history. Less people suffer, and they suffer less than in the past. The human misery index is very low. Children are a joy to the human race, and the hope for the future. Man has always had children, even in tougher times than any we can illogically expect to come about today. The idea that the child MIGHT suffer in the perfect storm is still less likely than the child having a normal life and enjoying every moment his parents lovingly gifted him. Besides, in the best of times, a child will get illnesses and injuries. That is part of growing up. To quote Calvin, quoting his dad, "being miserable builds character." As some say, if it were not for the heat or the hammer, the steel could not be honed. Adversity is what helps us become the best version of ourselves.



The concern of a parent suffering because they brought a child into a troubled world is ridiculous, because parents will always suffer for their children. Labor is no picnic. Sleepless nights when breastfeeding are a form of suffering. Staying up with a sick kid, or sitting by a kid's bedside when they are in the hospital for a tonsillectomy, appendectomy, or croup is not exactly enjoyable. Holding them still so a doctor can give them stitches is incredibly painful, even before they kick you. I certainly feel greater pain than my children when they are sick and in misery and I wish I could take their suffering from them, even if it is a good suffering. Heck, it really does hurt me more than my child when I have to discipline them. And again, in the perfect utopia of a Democratic paradise, a child will still cause their parents suffering. Children will be born with special needs. Children will slip past an exhausted or distracted parent and fall into a pool or run into traffic. Accidents will happen, no matter what we do. Also, children will grow up and make poor decisions that cause parents all kinds of heartbreak. (I could mention that many democratic policies make some of those decisions more likely, but that would be of little use talking with this woman.) In short, being a parent is accepting suffering in the course of bring joy to ourselves and others."

Most common thinking. Though she is clearly colored by her experiences. As are those who think oppositely on here.

If having children is a positive thing I don't see how abstaining from having a gazillion of them negates that.

 

[derpyderpins]

"The concern of bringing a child into a world in a less than perfect time causing the child to suffer is not a valid one for several reasons. First, the USA, under Trump or not, is better than many if not most places in the world. In addition, the world in 2024 is a better place than nearly all of human history. Less people suffer, and they suffer less than in the past. The human misery index is very low. Children are a joy to the human race, and the hope for the future. Man has always had children, even in tougher times than any we can illogically expect to come about today. The idea that the child MIGHT suffer in the perfect storm is still less likely than the child having a normal life and enjoying every moment his parents lovingly gifted him. Besides, in the best of times, a child will get illnesses and injuries. That is part of growing up. To quote Calvin, quoting his dad, "being miserable builds character." As some say, if it were not for the heat or the hammer, the steel could not be honed. Adversity is what helps us become the best version of ourselves.



The concern of a parent suffering because they brought a child into a troubled world is ridiculous, because parents will always suffer for their children. Labor is no picnic. Sleepless nights when breastfeeding are a form of suffering. Staying up with a sick kid, or sitting by a kid's bedside when they are in the hospital for a tonsillectomy, appendectomy, or croup is not exactly enjoyable. Holding them still so a doctor can give them stitches is incredibly painful, even before they kick you. I certainly feel greater pain than my children when they are sick and in misery and I wish I could take their suffering from them, even if it is a good suffering. Heck, it really does hurt me more than my child when I have to discipline them. And again, in the perfect utopia of a Democratic paradise, a child will still cause their parents suffering. Children will be born with special needs. Children will slip past an exhausted or distracted parent and fall into a pool or run into traffic. Accidents will happen, no matter what we do. Also, children will grow up and make poor decisions that cause parents all kinds of heartbreak. (I could mention that many democratic policies make some of those decisions more likely, but that would be of little use talking with this woman.) In short, being a parent is accepting suffering in the course of bring joy to ourselves and others."

Most common thinking. Though she is clearly colored by her experiences. As are those who think oppositely on here.

Good counter to the "any suffering at all negates all good in life" crowd.

To me it seems obvious that life can be good and more often than not people are happy which means those of us who wind up here are the minority.

My question is whether right now, at this point in history - not considering who is president so much as what our daily lives look like in the internet age - will my wife and I be happier if we do or do not have kids. Whether the kid will be happy is a separate question. Personally, I can't imagine having so much more to do than I already have on my plate.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's a gamble ultimately. A lottery to some extent. The major problem though, is you're gambling with someone else's chances. Maybe they'll be grateful you did but, maybe they won't.

So- to use the lottery analogy. Your neighbour gains access to your life savings account and puts the whole lot on a lottery ticket. Do you thank them? You might win after all- wouldn't that be glorious? What if you don't though? They agree to support you financially for the next 18 years. Is that enough?

I suppose at least we might be able to judge probabilities better though than a complete lottery. So- the basics. How stable are the provisions for the child going to be? Are the parents healthy? Any heredity illnesses? Are they stable themselves? Are they mature enough themselves to parent their child or, will they need their child to parent them? Are they going to struggle financially? Do they live in a safe environment? Not gurantees that the child will be ok but, the odds are surely looking better if the child's environment is stable at least.

Are there even studies on which style of parenting produces the happiest children? Should parents have to study that? I've seen other members comment that it's strange that we require licenses for some pets but, not baby humans!

I just think it's like starting an experiment that could produce incredible results for everyone. Alternatively, it could cause mostly suffering. Seeing as there's no easy 'out' for people at the moment- who resent being brought into this, then it becomes: Who does it 'hurt' to not initiate the experiment to begin with?

I guess that depends on personal belief. I neither believe it can hurt a non living being to stay non living. Nor do I believe in destiny. That that unborn child should have been born because fate had wonderful things in store for them.

It can deeply hurt parents who desperately want children when they can't have them. There are alternatives, like adoption but, I know some people only want to love their own (genes.) I suppose that's natural but I do struggle with the idea of bringing them into a situation as risky as this.

I suppose the way I see it is- I doubt many people would risk a living loved one's participation in a game that involved the possibilty of very high reward but the guarantee of some (pretty severe) suffering. Not without their permission, anyway. If for some reason, they couldn't get their permission, I suspect most would er on the side of caution and, not enter them. They'd surely see it as an imposition to force them into something so risky. Even if it could produce terrific rewards. So, I suppose I find it weird people don't see birthing children like that. I just think they're blinded by wishful thinking and their instinctual drive to reproduce I suppose.

 

[Pluto]

 

[fkyou]

..

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Good counter to the "any suffering at all negates all good in life" crowd.

To me it seems obvious that life can be good and more often than not people are happy which means those of us who wind up here are the minority.

My question is whether right now, at this point in history - not considering who is president so much as what our daily lives look like in the internet age - will my wife and I be happier if we do or do not have kids. Whether the kid will be happy is a separate question. Personally, I can't imagine having so much more to do than I already have on my plate.

Those who are deeply entrenched on their sides have trouble seeing the obvious facts of the other side. I don't think the author of that comment could see what life is like for the minority. And it doesn't feel good to be expected to simply be collateral damage of sorts.

Trump came up because the original question was expressing trepidation that the world's future was too bleak for children and Trump's election was a sign of that. But that's not very relevant.

The global sum of human anecdote suggests that the odds are greater you'll find children a net positive. And given what your wife does I suspect she'll ultimately fall on the side of wanting children (the opposite is always possible of course but I sense the former).

 

[Shadows From Hell]

I have 2.. one 32 and the other 15. The older one came by surprise, but the second one was planned. I have no regrets about my daughters.

They brought me happiness of course when they were kids, but the depression still stuck with me.

If I knew how fucked up I would be in my later years, I would have probably not had any. My younger one has followed in my footsteps, and the older one is doing fairly well, but has her moments.

I guess all in all, it depends on how you feel about wanting kids. It's hard to tell how things will go for you once they are born. Will your life improve? Will you get worse? It's a 50/50 on any question asked.

 

[derpyderpins]

Those who are deeply entrenched on their sides have trouble seeing the obvious facts of the other side. I don't think the author of that comment could see what life is like for the minority. And it doesn't feel good to be expected to simply be collateral damage of sorts.

Trump came up because the original question was expressing trepidation that the world's future was too bleak for children and Trump's election was a sign of that. But that's not very relevant.

The global sum of human anecdote suggests that the odds are greater you'll find children a net positive. And given what your wife does I suspect she'll ultimately fall on the side of wanting children (the opposite is always possible of course but I sense the former).

I agree on the global sum of human anecdotes, generally, with these caveats: I think the net reported experience is trending down (my point in the thread), there is a potential bias - beyond our difficulty with evaluating our own situation - in that people who are naturally happy are more likely to have children in the first place, and I am somewhat of an outlier generally and thus hard to compare to the average experience.

As far as my wife, she goes back and forth, with I assume means eventually she will go "forth" enough to make it happen. We're both agreed on "no" for the next ~5 years, though.

I have 2.. one 32 and the other 15. The older one came by surprise, but the second one was planned. I have no regrets about my daughters.

They brought me happiness of course when they were kids, but the depression still stuck with me.

If I knew how fucked up I would be in my later years, I would have probably not had any. My younger one has followed in my footsteps, and the older one is doing fairly well, but has her moments.

I guess all in all, it depends on how you feel about wanting kids. It's hard to tell how things will go for you once they are born. Will your life improve? Will you get worse? It's a 50/50 on any question asked.

Thank you for sharing a personal anectode. I know a lot of people here are harsh towards parents but I'm happy to hear your experience seems mostly good.

So you had depression problems before the kids were born? That's a big hurdle for me. When I'm so depressed all I can do is barely make it into work and home and sleep . . . what happens to the kid? The last thing I want is to be neglectful, or even worse unfairly resentful to the child who didn't choose to be born.

50/50 sounds like terrible odds for committing basically the rest of my life full-time until my olden age...

 

[Johnzaga23]

Most people have kids just to check it on the list with the things you have to do to be considered "succesful" by society. So its a combination of instinctive herd mentality and pride/ego.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

I agree on the global sum of human anecdotes, generally, with these caveats: I think the net reported experience is trending down (my point in the thread), there is a potential bias - beyond our difficulty with evaluating our own situation - in that people who are naturally happy are more likely to have children in the first place, and I am somewhat of an outlier generally and thus hard to compare to the average experience.

How many good things remain so if experienced over and over again? Even water and oxygen, the fundamentals of life (well life we are familiar with) have thresholds past which they become harmful. Other mammals who share our attributes (complex cognition, slow development, comparatively long lifespan) don't tend to have tons of offspring. So perhaps these fertility shifts are just a reconforming with our true biology. Lowered birth rates is well known to be correlated with increased development anyways. Women's status as second-class citizens throughout history was in large part due to having to tend to a constant stream of children.

You might want to look into the experiences of people who explicitly express regret over having children. Though if you end up feeling some type of regret I feel certain your love will be permanently activated.

And by the time it is time to make a decision with how you have been trending maybe you will feel more inclined to devote yourself to parenthood. Assuming it continues which of course I hope it does.

 

[derpyderpins]

How many good things remain so if experienced over and over again? Even water and oxygen, the fundamentals of life (well life we are familiar with) have thresholds past which they become harmful. Other mammals who share our attributes (complex cognition, slow development, comparatively long lifespan) don't tend to have tons of offspring. So perhaps these fertility shifts are just a reconforming with our true biology. Lowered birth rates is well known to be correlated with increased development anyways. Women's status as second-class citizens throughout history was in large part due to having to tend to a constant stream of children.

!delta! Yeah that's fair.

You might want to look into the experiences of people who explicitly express regret over having children. Though if you end up feeling some type of regret I feel certain your love will be permanently activated.

And by the time it is time to make a decision with how you have been trending maybe you will feel more inclined to devote yourself to parenthood. Assuming it continues which of course I hope it does.

Oh man reading regret stories feels like confirmation of my nightmares. But it gives balance. I'll also have to look for experiences of people who were skeptical and then ended up being happy with the choice.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

!delta! Yeah that's fair.


Oh man reading regret stories feels like confirmation of my nightmares. But it gives balance. I'll also have to look for experiences of people who were skeptical and then ended up being happy with the choice.

Even if there is some regret it doesn't seem like there is an absence of love. So not devoid of positive feeling. Unless maybe the kids end up so bad they would freak Chucky out.

 

[HelloDarkness25]

If I knew how fucked up I would be in my later years, I would have probably not had any.

Same here. Fuck biological imperative. I feel guilty for bringing another being into this world.

 

[crocune]

The problem is that you are putting the two things into extreme absolute truths when in fact it is very subjective.

Having kids CAN be the best thing in your life, but everyone is different and treat it differently.

Saying not wanting kids is being selfish is also an absolute statement that isn't true all the time.

So of course you will find it conflicting. The two things you are comparing aren't absolute truths but you're treating them like they are.

Modify it to "in some cases, having kids is the best thing in the parents lives" and "in some cases, people are selfish for not wanting kids" and suddenly you realize there's no conflict between those 2 at all

 

[derpyderpins]

The problem is that you are putting the two things into extreme absolute truths when in fact it is very subjective.

Having kids CAN be the best thing in your life, but everyone is different and treat it differently.

Saying not wanting kids is being selfish is also an absolute statement that isn't true all the time.

So of course you will find it conflicting. The two things you are comparing aren't absolute truths but you're treating them like they are.

Modify it to "in some cases, having kids is the best thing in the parents lives" and "in some cases, people are selfish for not wanting kids" and suddenly you realize there's no conflict between those 2 at all

Well, I agree. I guess my thing is that I have observed people who will make both absolutist statements.

But I actually think you're making it too grey. I don't see how anyone can make a determination that someone else is selfish for not having kids ever if having kids can possibly be the best thing to happen to you.

I'm fine with "having kids is the best thing in some people's lives and terrible for others, and no one is selfish for making the choice best for them and their partner."

I mean I guess every time you make the choice that's best for you you are being selfish but we have a general understanding that when we say selfish there's a negative connotation

 

[untothedepths]

id rather people have kids if they want them, but to do so responsibly. be well off enough and be of a sound mind. they arent accessories nor should kids just be cogs in a society. you have a kid because you would love them, not some greater responsibility.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

This movie argues that there actually is a moral duty for some people to have kids even if they don't want to yet. There are always going to be people who have children but unfortunately everyone who's smart and capable enough to be fitting parents aren't having them while everyone who doesn't care and would be the worst parents are the only people left reproducing.

But okay I hear you say. Isn't that just eugenics without the outright racism? Yeah. Also who can actually make an accurate enough judgment on whether they're smart or fit enough to have children?

Or maybe you don't care about any of that. Maybe you just want to stop the suffering and you rather wish that suicide methods were available on every street corner for those who want them. Maybe some kind of……Futurama suicide booths should be invented and legalized and culturally acceptable. Well like I said in another thread, in the Futurama world, earth has a population of over 50 billion. We're currently only at around 8 billion. If suicide booths are the future you want to see, then it's still your moral duty to produce as many offspring as possible just to ensure the world is a horrible enough place for even the strictest prolifers to see how bleak everything is and allow for suicide booths to happen.

 

[Aergia]

Now, I can see the argument arising that people may want more kids after their 1st/2nd, but economic situations hold them back. This does not persuade me. It relies on the idea that people will make a financially wise decision rather than picking the thing that makes them happier than anything else ever could. We're an addictive, pleasure seeking-species, trending even further in that direction. I don't believe money would hold us back.

I think this could just be a case of diminishing returns. Maybe the financial sacrifice is worth it for the happiness having/raising a child brings, but having 2 kids, while being twice the (financial/temporal) cost, might not bring twice the happiness (eg. spending an afternoon with your one kid brings you joy, spending an afternoon with your two kids brings you the same amount of joy because there's probably an upper limit to the amount of joy you can feel during a single family afternoon, spending time with three kids might start to be taxing in addition to joyous if they're really young, and so on). That's a crude example but you get the point.

I think the best reason to have a child (that is, best for the parent, not the society or child itself) is just that it will quite likely instill a sense of purpose that one wouldn't be able to get anywhere else. I mean, you can find purpose in other pursuits, but I imagine the kind of purpose you're biologically hardwired to have, for an actual being you brought into the world, with the person you love (ideally) just feels more "real" than the kind of purpose you'd get from, say, a career or an artistic pursuit. That is certainly the stance of pronatalists and often people in general who've had children themselves. But to go back to the diminishing returns thing, if the sense of purpose comes from the child-rearing itself, having two kids wouldn't give you twice the "sense of purpose". It's the qualitative aspect that matters, not the quantitative one.

But okay I hear you say. Isn't that just eugenics without the outright racism?

This is unrelated to the OP but I don't even think calling something "eugenics" is an argument against it. It's kind of lazy. Just because a certain Nazi-adjacent movement of the last century controlled reproduction in a misguided unethical way that doesn't mean controlling reproduction is inherently unethical or misguided.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

@Aergia let's go, we're schooling the shit out of @derpyderpins

 

[derpyderpins]

I think this could just be a case of diminishing returns. Maybe the financial sacrifice is worth it for the happiness having/raising a child brings, but having 2 kids, while being twice the (financial/temporal) cost, might not bring twice the happiness (eg. spending an afternoon with your one kid brings you joy, spending an afternoon with your two kids brings you the same amount of joy because there's probably an upper limit to the amount of joy you can feel during a single family afternoon, spending time with three kids might start to be taxing in addition to joyous if they're really young, and so on). That's a crude example but you get the point.

Another fair point. One difference, not from 50 years ago, maybe, but 100 years ago, is that kids used to be helpful, lol, on the farm or whatever, once they were old enough. That practicality doesn't speak to joy.

I think the best reason to have a child (that is, best for the parent, not the society or child itself) is just that it will quite likely instill a sense of purpose that one wouldn't be able to get anywhere else. I mean, you can find purpose in other pursuits, but I imagine the kind of purpose you're biologically hardwired to have, for an actual being you brought into the world, with the person you love (ideally) just feels more "real" than the kind of purpose you'd get from, say, a career or an artistic pursuit. That is certainly the stance of pronatalists and often people in general who've had children themselves. But to go back to the diminishing returns thing, if the sense of purpose comes from the child-rearing itself, having two kids wouldn't give you twice the "sense of purpose". It's the qualitative aspect that matters, not the quantitative one.

That's the draw I have. I still, right now, am 95% "I don't want kids," but I do think I could be a good father in the right situation and do better than my parents did to raise someone who is mentally healthy and equipped to deal with life. Plus as my wife points out a little version of her would be impossible for me not to love.

If I had energy and/or time, I surely would be more interested.

@Aergia let's go, we're schooling the shit out of @derpyderpins

I appreciate the schooling. It's the only way I can be less dum dum in future. The best friends are willing to challenge you.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

That's the draw I have. I still, right now, am 95% "I don't want kids," but I do think I could be a good father in the right situation and do better than my parents did to raise someone who is mentally healthy and equipped to deal with life.

I think so too.

 

[Aergia]

Plus as my wife points out a little version of her would be impossible for me not to love.

A little version of the both of you, in one! That you get to raise and love together. That aspect emotionally spoke to me as well, at a point in the past. (I want to say something to the effect of a live embodiment of your love but way less saccharine than that...)

If I had energy and/or time, I surely would be more interested.

Yes—continuing to stick to the theme of the OP (i.e. what's best for the parent, not society/the kid), that's generally seemed like the biggest drawback for me—the weight of that responsibility. Bringing into existence life that otherwise would not have been there (maybe an oversimplification but again one understands) and the sacrifices that naturally entails.

 

[NonEssential]

Don't have kids if they're going to live in poverty. That's just my opinion.

 

[derpyderpins]

A little version of the both of you, in one! That you get to raise and love together. That aspect emotionally spoke to me as well, at a point in the past. (I want to say something to the effect of a live embodiment of your love but way less saccharine than that...)

A little version of me is terrifying to think about, tbh. Like a nightmare that he/she would go through all the sadness I have.

Yes—continuing to stick to the theme of the OP (i.e. what's best for the parent, not society/the kid), that's generally seemed like the biggest drawback for me—the weight of that responsibility. Bringing into existence life that otherwise would not have been there (maybe an oversimplification but again one understands) and the sacrifices that naturally entails.

Exactly

Don't have kids if they're going to live in poverty. That's just my opinion.

Uh in general I agree. If you're talking to me specifically we're doing well financially just not well enough to quit work.

 

[bleeding_heart_show]

Having a child is a self centered, nonobjective, and shortsighted decision.

Having another is pure insanity.

 

[ma0]

What, in this day and age? With more tension than ever, poverty being at an all time high, politics being so heated and uncertain, the earth heating to hopeless levels with some just denying it, fear and paranoia spreading like wildfire, not to mention the 2 literal wars the entire globe is slowly becoming invested in, society could crack under the pressure any moment. To have kids in this time of confusion and doubt? To create more victims to this mess of a civilization, forced to bear witness to the increasingly tense atmosphere of the modern world which has us all petrified?

Forget it.