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

[emptinessdancing]

Haha! I actually LOVE this post. I offer a third point to ponder:
Not everyone who HAS kids, ever wanted them. Before you come at me, let me just say-- yes there are those that truly never wanted them, and it shows.

I have a daughter. I had her when I was 18 years old. Not my choice.

It WAS my choice, however. whether I wanted to "keep" her or not. and after much back and forth I could not go forward with the abortion. No shade for anyone that chose the opposite. Promise. I had the appointment. I cancelled it. But... again, I had the appointment. That already means I see you.

But from that point forward, I was Her Mother. It became my whole identity, and that served us both, until it didn't.

It wasn't until much later in her life that I realized ADOPTION was also an option. However, I was a baby having a baby and I did the best I could with the information I had at the time. I digress...

Now, we have both (my daughter and I) lived to tell about it. And I can say without question, she is the best thing that has ever happened to me. And I know she feels so incredibly loved and supported and empowered, which is all I have ever wanted and knew I could give her beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, I am here on SaSu like you, so that presents a whole other slew of layers and questions we aren't talking about right now, but I am guessing you can imagine... this isn't the time or place.

Anyway, I find your post thought provoking and almost envious. Should I have had the choice, I wonder which camp I would have been in almost 2 decades ago? I won't even pretend to know. I just wanted to weigh in for whatever its worth!

 

[Apathy79]

This one actually cost me a marriage and life together with someone I loved deeply so it's something I've thought a lot about.

It seems to me many fathers and almost all mothers agree that having a child was the best thing they ever did. And I suspect that has a lot to do with knowing their purpose in life, and putting someone else's life before their own. I agree with what you are saying that logically if it is the best thing, then the alternative can't be selfish, if anything it is selfless because it is depriving yourself of the best thing. Except that the person making that decision doesn't know it is the best thing, and can't know until it happens, so the motivation behind it is seen as looking after themselves rather than taking the responsibility for raising another at the expense of your own comfort and pursuits.

Logically incoherent on one level, but I get it.

Personally I couldn't do it. And the reasons for that were almost certainly selfish. I like my sleep. I like my free time. I don't like the sound of baby's crying. I don't want to spend my entire life between work and raising kids. Frankly I don't see the upside. I don't particularly enjoy being around my relative's kids, even for short periods, and definitely for long periods. I like the idea of the connection later in life, but it seems like a monstrous sacrifice for a small amount of time then. Yet my fiancé wanted kids deeply. She couldn't imagine her life any other way. And for that reason we ultimately had to go separate ways.

Now I don't know where that leaves you. I will say almost everyone I know has kids, and I've never heard a single one say they regretted it overall. So while the reasons may make sense before having one, they might not hold as much water after. Maybe there is something in that connection that dwarfs all the concerns and makes them insignificant by comparison. It hasn't swayed me personally, I even made a huge sacrifice to avoid it, but maybe I'm blocked by my own selfishness? Either way, it's probably the biggest decision you'll ever make, and both options are huge gambles.

 

[derpyderpins]

@emptinessdancing @Apathy79

I appreciate you both telling me about your personal experiences. It's really helpful.

 

[Aergia]

I wanted to mention this in my original response but forgot, but the later responses reminded me. Actually having and raising kids would trigger parental instincts, result in emotional investment, etc. and those things would make the experience a lot more pleasant than you might be able to anticipate now, and (crucially) make you a lot more willing/desirous of making the sacrifices you'll need to make. By which I mean, things that feel like drawbacks now will quite possibly feel (relatively) insignificant after you have kids. (I know I might sound clinical here but it is the best way I can think to put it.) Again, this is just going off the many testaments of parents/pronatalists.

 

[derpyderpins]

I wanted to mention this in my original response but forgot, but the later responses reminded me. Actually having and raising kids would trigger parental instincts, result in emotional investment, etc. and those things would make the experience a lot more pleasant than you might be able to anticipate now, and (crucially) make you a lot more willing/desirous of making the sacrifices you'll need to make. By which I mean, things that feel like drawbacks now will quite possibly feel (relatively) insignificant after you have kids. (I know I might sound clinical here but it is the best way I can think to put it.) Again, this is just going off the many testaments of parents/pronatalists.

That is definitely the pitch, and it does seem like anecdotes pretty heavily favor that eventually happening, where it clicks and something in you changes.

It's terrifying to me to rely on that. It seems like people who say that may also say "if I didn't have a job I'd go crazy from boredom!" I don't tend to have the usual human reaction in situations.

The sacrifices also aren't too much the issue so much as energy. I have no problem with the idea of changing a diaper and I can be very patient with crying (although I might need earplugs due to sound sensitivity, I feel like it's natural for babies to cry because life sucks lol so I don't get frustrated with them.) I'm generally really good with kids when I babysit, at all ages. Kids are innocent and untainted, it can be great to talk to them about life and hear their raw thoughts. To me it's the running out of fuel. I feel like I'm running on fumes living a normal life. I make it in to work, do a couple hours of actual work, and I'm otherwise exhausted. We've been having fun with friends the last few nights and when we were alone last night my mask fell because I was just completely drained even from doing things I really like. There just aren't enough hours.

You hear about mothers who do amazing things to protect their babies like fight off animals they normally shouldn't be able to, and I do think that bond with your child probably can give you some inexplicable spark, but I'm afraid to gamble on it being enough.

 

[Blue Dream]

No matter how polished your arguments are it won't change the fact it's a personal experience and the outcome depends on so many factors that trying to choose from what is basically a false binary is just too reductionist to be useful .

 

[Aergia]

It's terrifying to me to rely on that. It seems like people who say that may also say "if I didn't have a job I'd go crazy from boredom!"

I do agree here, though I might be biased.

I should've clarified I was referring largely to the energy and time when I said sacrifices. It does seem that having kids inspires new energy/life. But I agree that it's also worth considering whether you would react like others in such a situation, and whether that would be "enough" as you say.

 

[Hyslghrdffsr]

I see it as unethical. Firstly the inability to consent or refuse.of course it's impossible to get consent but that's the point. The child then is forced to follow laws ,codes, expectations the tribe demands. As most things like school, job will always be forced to be done on the back of struggle, stress, labor etc. even if u like ur job or school struggle is inevitable and imposed on the child who couldn't say yes or no.it is bringing a problem(needs and wants) to someone when there was non ,one that mandates stress, physical or mental labor to fix it.the fixing is for life too.
U mention someone saying it's selfish not to have kids is to me unbelievable. Selfishness at the expense of others is the problem. The parent want the kid.deriving pleasure( meaning, purpose, social image, joy) at the expense of the child. gambling with someone else's life while imposing the guaranteed suffering when consent was impossible. This is selfishlness at the expense of others.for people who don't want children there's no one they are deriving pleasure while harming.
It's like saying if I don't like basketball I'm selfish. A pressure that was applied to have kids that was not fulfilled is not selfish.
I cannot knowing that they will hate and suffer from old age(100% guarantee) impose a body that will force them to go through that.this is just among many. I'm not blaming parents , most were conditioned to not think about the ethics of procreation but parents should all be morally accountable and at least teach their children of ethics of procreation.

 

[particularrodent]

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...)

Children are not "versions of you." They are separate, unique individuals. I don't mean to insult you personally, but this small-brained propaganda is what leads to widespread objectification of children by their parents in the form of narcissistic abuse, projection, neglect and abandonment when they don't conform (especially if the child turns out to be queer or disabled instead of their perfect little straight A 1000 IQ doctor or lawyer, all that kind of stuff).

I will never be "a version" of my parents and even though I was lucky enough to not have had to experience the types of abuse many close friends in my life's history have, I don't want to be them. I'm me. Any other opinion is just, well, narcissism.

Edit: Don't get me started on the very, very large amount of parents who have children while actively hating each other more than two strangers ever could, lol

 

[derpyderpins]

Children are not "versions of you." They are separate, unique individuals. I don't mean to insult you personally, but this small-brained propaganda is what leads to widespread objectification of children by their parents in the form of narcissistic abuse, projection, neglect and abandonment when they don't conform (especially if the child turns out to be queer or disabled instead of their perfect little straight A 1000 IQ doctor or lawyer, all that kind of stuff).

I will never be "a version" of my parents and even though I was lucky enough to not have had to experience the types of abuse many close friends in my life's history have, I don't want to be them. I'm me. Any other opinion is just, well, narcissism.

Edit: Don't get me started on the very, very large amount of parents who have children while actively hating each other more than two strangers ever could, lol

Look, I get your frustration, but there's a nicer way to make the point.

I greatly agree that parents put too much emphasis on their kids being an extension of their life, like the kid has to do the things they failed to do. And of course kids can develop into very different people than their parents.

But there's a potential outcome where you see your child, and while they do different things in life and have their own interests and passions and dreams, maybe they smile like your spouse, or have a similar laugh, or you see them show patience with someone in a way you've never seen anyone be patient except your spouse. And if your relationship isn't broken and you aren't being awful to the kid that can be sweet.

 

[particularrodent]

But there's a potential outcome where you see your child, and while they do different things in life and have their own interests and passions and dreams, maybe they smile like your spouse, or have a similar laugh, or you see them show patience with someone in a way you've never seen anyone be patient except your spouse. And if your relationship isn't broken and you aren't being awful to the kid that can be sweet.

The word "potential" is doing too much of the work in this paragraph imo. It's not a guarantee, so no one should be gambling with it

Look, I get your frustration, but there's a nicer way to make the point.

No one is always able to be 100% gracious regarding topics as painful as this, especially with how ridiculously widespread ideas so easily picked apart like these are, and how deep the harm towards children ends up from people who believe them

 

[derpyderpins]

The word "potential" is doing too much of the work in this paragraph imo. It's not a guarantee, so no one should be gambling with it

I hear you, but this thread isn't really about the antinatalism argument. I did make that pretty clear near the top of my post.

If you'd like to discuss that, though, I'd be happy too. I don't consider myself anti natalist, but I do agree with some of the points and think people should be way more cautious than they are when considering having kids.

No one is always able to be 100% gracious regarding topics as painful as this, especially with how ridiculously widespread ideas so easily picked apart like these are, and how deep the harm towards children ends up from people who believe them

Sure, and by all means don't feel you need to hold back on venting. I would just keep the phrases "I don't mean to insult you personally" and "small brained propaganda" a good sentence or so apart from each other. Then go at it from there.

 

[particularrodent]

I hear you, but this thread isn't really about the antinatalism argument. I did make that pretty clear near the top of my post.

If you'd like to discuss that, though, I'd be happy too. I don't consider myself anti natalist, but I do agree with some of the points and think people should be way more cautious than they are when considering having kids.

tbh i didnt fully understand the point of the post. i was reading and i saw you say it isnt about antinatalism but then it... is? idk

Sure, and by all means don't feel you need to hold back on venting. I would just keep the phrases "I don't mean to insult you personally" and "small brained propaganda" a good sentence or so apart from each other. Then go at it from there.

i get what you mean. it's just that this belief is such a ridiculous thing that people so easily parrot over and over again i just can't believe it's real... i meant it more in the way of "the people who invented this belief are small brained"

 

[derpyderpins]

tbh i didnt fully understand the point of the post. i was reading and i saw you say it isnt about antinatalism but then it... is? idk

i get what you mean. it's just that this belief is such a ridiculous thing that people so easily parrot over and over again i just can't believe it's real... i meant it more in the way of "the people who invented this belief are small brained"

Well I may not have defined my terms well enough. I consider anti natalism to be about morality: having kids is bad for the world, for the kids themselves, etc.

I made this post to say "even putting morality aside and looking at the selfish interests of the parents, it doesn't seem like having kids is a good choice."

 

[Aergia]

Children are not "versions of you." They are separate, unique individuals. I don't mean to insult you personally, but this small-brained propaganda is what leads to widespread objectification of children by their parents in the form of narcissistic abuse, projection, neglect and abandonment when they don't conform (especially if the child turns out to be queer or disabled instead of their perfect little straight A 1000 IQ doctor or lawyer, all that kind of stuff).

I will never be "a version" of my parents and even though I was lucky enough to not have had to experience the types of abuse many close friends in my life's history have, I don't want to be them. I'm me. Any other opinion is just, well, narcissism.

Edit: Don't get me started on the very, very large amount of parents who have children while actively hating each other more than two strangers ever could, lol

FWIW I'm more inclined to anti-natalism than the alternative. But the OP was about whether having kids is directly beneficial for the parent, not the child or society, so I was just approaching it from that point of view. That phrasing was simplistic, I agree. I meant it in a genetic sense. I'm nothing like my parents either and very grateful for that lol.

 

[particularrodent]

FWIW I'm more inclined to anti-natalism than the alternative. But the OP was about whether having kids is directly beneficial for the parent, not the child or society, so I was just approaching it from that point of view. That phrasing was simplistic, I agree. I meant it in a genetic sense. I'm nothing like my parents either and very grateful for that lol.

even genetically this is not exactly true, because many genes not expressed in the parent can be passed down to children (say, a grandparent's nose, or another relative's affinity or natural attraction to a certain field of interest, or another relative's illness that the parent did not personally have but still "had") (fields of interest isn't clear cut a "genetic" thing but ive found anecdotally many fields of interest or abilities seem to "run" in families, even if the child is not exposed to the interest by their parents)

 

[Mukuro Ikusaba]

You're asking *that* HERE!? What are you stupid?! Having children is so stupid! Only an insect would think to have children, especially here of all places.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

You're asking *that* HERE!? What are you stupid?! Having children is so stupid! Only an insect would think to have children, especially here of all places.

Actually I think there are way more animals than just insects that actually have children but I'm not a biologist.

 

[Mukuro Ikusaba]

Actually I think there are way more animals than just insects that actually have children but I'm not a biologist.

Animals, insects, it's all the same. If you have children on a suicide forum, I have no respect for you.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

Animals, insects, it's all the same. If you have children on a suicide forum, I have no respect for you.

You don't think parents can be suicidal? Plenty of users here over the years who've suffered from postpartum depression or even grief from the untimely death of their own children.

 

[Mukuro Ikusaba]

I know...I more or less mean people who have children WHEN they're suicidal

 

[particularrodent]

Actually I think there are way more animals than just insects that actually have children but I'm not a biologist.

so that means you wouldnt be able to tell us what a woman is either...

joke ruiner:
this is a lighthearted joke based on the fact that you said the phrase "i'm not a biologist" which is reminiscent of something that happened during a US government hearing or something idk i forgot

 

[quietism]

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) [...] 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?"

I'll respond to just the first chart for now. Here are two sources reporting on childlessness in the US (after all, it's the most researched country in the English speaking world). First source is from 2017 [1], first chart here is from the US Census Bureau's Fertility Supplements of the Current Population Survey, with the paper reviewing and charting data going back to 1865 (!). Second chart is the The National Surveys of Family Growth. [2] also looks at the NSFG. Worth noting the difference between voluntary childlessness, involuntary childlessness caused by illness/surgery, temporary childlessness ("women are those who have not had any live births and expect a birth in the future") - the overall childlessness rate seems to split roughly around 1/3 to 1/2 voluntary childlessness.[2,3] Should be self evident the chatgpt diagrams don't line up at all.




[2] is published in 2021 and presents NSFG data in the 2015-2017 bracket. Note that half the values here don't even have statistically significant differences at a low p-value (i.e, even NSFG data is not fully reliable for this comparison).

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!

To the first part: yes, there's a lot of research. Second part: I don't think it's a 'must', but it's a good idea. I recall a Freakonomics podcast episode discussing this kind of 'scientific parenting', I don't remember which episode though. One highlight from a 2021 literature review (this one is a fun read) [4]:

A number of studies have shed light on aspects of the parent-child relationship that encourage adolescent socioemotional competence. Parenting practices such as providing warmth and praise, giving advice, and encouraging open communication are associated with many positive adolescent outcomes (e.g., improved emotion regulation and self-esteem) that facilitate autonomy and benefit social functioning. Indeed, adolescents whose mothers exhibit greater emotional responsiveness and empathy tend to have more positive peer relations and experience less loneliness.

What do I think personally about it? Well, going by both anecdote and research, there aren't many good parents. I don't even know mine. I honestly think the power kick over having someone to control - and the filial piety that plays into that - is really gross. That, plus the huge time commitment and lost opportunity cost is a big deterrent. I've met a few researchers that tried and it's like badly doing two things at once instead of doing one thing well. That being said I still wouldn't completely rule it out, cause I can't read the future of my life.

[1] Frejka, Tomas. "Childlessness in the United States. " (chapter 8) Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences, 2017, pp. 159-165
[2] Rybińska, Anna. "Trends in Intentions to Remain Childless in the United States." Population Research and Policy Review 40, no. 4 (August 1, 2021): 661–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-020-09604-9.
[3] Poston, Dudley L., and Cristina E. Cruz. "Voluntary, Involuntary and Temporary Childlessness in the United States." Quetelet Journal 4, no. 1 (April 1, 2016): 73–99. https://doi.org/10.14428/rqj2016.04.01.04.
[4] Morris, Amanda Sheffield, Erin L. Ratliff, Kelly T. Cosgrove, and Laurence Steinberg. "We Know Even More Things: A Decade Review of Parenting Research." Journal of Research on Adolescence : The Official Journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence 31, no. 4 (December 2021): 870–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12641.

 

[derpyderpins]

I'll respond to just the first chart for now. Here are two sources reporting on childlessness in the US (after all, it's the most researched country in the English speaking world). First source is from 2017 [1], first chart here is from the US Census Bureau's Fertility Supplements of the Current Population Survey, with the paper reviewing and charting data going back to 1865 (!). Second chart is the The National Surveys of Family Growth. [2] also looks at the NSFG. Worth noting the difference between voluntary childlessness, involuntary childlessness caused by illness/surgery, temporary childlessness ("women are those who have not had any live births and expect a birth in the future") - the overall childlessness rate seems to split roughly around 1/3 to 1/2 voluntary childlessness.[2,3] Should be self evident the chatgpt diagrams don't line up at all.

View attachment 159093
View attachment 159094

[2] is published in 2021 and presents NSFG data in the 2015-2017 bracket. Note that half the values here don't even have statistically significant differences at a low p-value (i.e, even NSFG data is not fully reliable for this comparison).

View attachment 159095

To the first part: yes, there's a lot of research. Second part: I don't think it's a 'must', but it's a good idea. I recall a Freakonomics podcast episode discussing this kind of 'scientific parenting', I don't remember which episode though. One highlight from a 2021 literature review (this one is a fun read) [4]:

What do I think personally about it? Well, going by both anecdote and research, there aren't many good parents. I don't even know mine. I honestly think the power kick over having someone to control - and the filial piety that plays into that - is really gross. That, plus the huge time commitment and lost opportunity cost is a big deterrent. I've met a few researchers that tried and it's like badly doing two things at once instead of doing one thing well. That being said I still wouldn't completely rule it out, cause I can't read the future of my life.

[1] Frejka, Tomas. "Childlessness in the United States. " (chapter 8) Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences, 2017, pp. 159-165
[2] Rybińska, Anna. "Trends in Intentions to Remain Childless in the United States." Population Research and Policy Review 40, no. 4 (August 1, 2021): 661–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-020-09604-9.
[3] Poston, Dudley L., and Cristina E. Cruz. "Voluntary, Involuntary and Temporary Childlessness in the United States." Quetelet Journal 4, no. 1 (April 1, 2016): 73–99. https://doi.org/10.14428/rqj2016.04.01.04.
[4] Morris, Amanda Sheffield, Erin L. Ratliff, Kelly T. Cosgrove, and Laurence Steinberg. "We Know Even More Things: A Decade Review of Parenting Research." Journal of Research on Adolescence : The Official Journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence 31, no. 4 (December 2021): 870–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12641.

First off, thank you for taking the time to add some real research. I have no problem believing chatgpt is not perfectly accurate. You prompted me to check the sources, and it says the numbers come from here, among other sources:

Fertility Historical Time Series Visualizations

www.census.gov

This chart you gave struck me as being wild for two reasons from a data analysis standpoint:



First, why on earth are these fit with parabolic lines rather than a linear trend? Second, if the years in the info go back to 1972, why does this only show 1990 onwards?

I did a crappy job in paint of taking out the trendlines and emphasizing the "white" data points as that is our largest demographic:



To me, that looks like a loosely fitting linear fit that is about flat for whites, increasing slightly for blacks, and increasing very slightly for Hispanics. If data from earlier than 1990 is generally lower, I'd say an upward linear trend is a decent fit.

That's just me musing. Obviously you didn't make the charts I'm just a nerd who misses doing STEM research.

The important thing for the point I was making wasn't the childlessness chart, as I think there are too many factors at play for that to have any correlation to whether having a child is a benefit to the parent. (Doesn't account for regret.) I thought the more important thing was whether people who had at least one kid were choosing to have more.

Although at this point I've pretty much admitted this post is a dud lol. I wouldn't take anything away from what I said.

 

[quietism]

First off, thank you for taking the time to add some real research.

and thank you for taking the time to engage with it too.

The figure H1 that chatgpt gave you has a little disclaimer in the bottom right to this document, explaining a slight change in measurement around the 2012-2014 period... which, reading it, seems pretty inconsequential, only really affecting the 2010 data point. I feel like viewing the US Census Bureau with both respect and.. disappointment? that they'd devote resources to something so small.

About the "best fit" parabola I completely agree with you. I mean, the author included this chart from the other data set, the Cohort Fertility Tables from the CDC, just one page earlier. The CDC website lists a technical appendix covering the 1960-2005 part of this dataset too. Why the authors didn't include all of this in one contiguous chart? No idea, but it would of been a lot of work to verify that the statistics are compatible across multiple different measurement methods and make necessary adjustments.


I thought to go back to the earliest report I could find, which was the vital and social statistics on the 11th census at 1890. Didn't learn anything but there sure are some pretty maps in there.

There's a more simple answer why the 1972-1990 data was excluded from the chart; it only provided the total rates and not divided by race. The US is like the only country in the world that divides statistics by race so much x-x

I'm just a nerd who misses doing STEM research.

Why miss it when you can do it! I mean, research is fun! Like most things, it's more fun when you do it with others. The questions you asked in this thread motivated me to read some pretty cool papers.


...Also, it's dawning on me, these voluntary childlessness numbers are all for women and still seem really small to me. Like, I don't plan on having children, that puts me in a pretty big minority no matter how you view these statistics. Aren't there any comparison statistics for men? There sure are, although not as many. I found this chart from a study deriving the statistics from 2015 DHS data (I think this is only for Columbia) [1]:


Wow, in the 25-29 bracket the difference is almost double, and 30-34 it's more than double! That's kind of terrifying! It's also terrifying just how few people seem to not have children in their lifetime! Looking at a 2014 study on the country where I actually live in Australia [2], unfortunately they don't give such a nice chart dividing by age, their claim is that that 12.8% of men aged 45–59 are childless compared to 9.5% of women in the same age group. Why even consider potential benefits of having children in the face of such a foreboding statistic...


[1] Pérez, Cristina M. "Male Childlessness across the Adult Life Course: A Case Study Addressing a Potentially 'Vulnerable' Population." Advances in Life Course Research 49 (September 1, 2021): 100414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2021.100414.
[2] Rijken, A. J., and E.-M. Merz. "Double Standards: Differences in Norms on Voluntary Childlessness for Men and Women." European Sociological Review 30, no. 4 (August 1, 2014): 470–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu051.

 

[Csmith8827]

No one has kids on this planet...