Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(August 5, 2015 at 12:28 pm)Aroura Wrote: I'm going to be the only person in catagory c...how embarassing, lol.
To be fair, I became disabled in my mid 20's with severe anxiety and panic disorder. I never wanted kids with my first husband, because he was a total loser (don't get married at 19 kids!), but after divorcing him and meeting me new husband, I didn't want kids because:
a) I did not feel I would be a good mother because of my illness.
b) I had very little money.
c) I do think the future is likely to be difficult with possible issues with things like food shortages, dwindling access to clean drinking water, etc.
b) The world is already overpopulated and I did not want to add to the population problem!
My hubby moved us to the coast for my health, and it seems to have worked because as I became less stressed out...and then I got pregnant. At 32 and using more than 1 kind of BC, it was really unexpected. But we both agreed that this was really our only shot to have a child, so we decided to keep her. I was getting better with my anxiety, hubby had an ok job, it was the right timing I guess.
However, I signed paperwork to have my tubes tied before I hit 3 months of pregnancy. I had the surgery done about 90 minutes after giving birth. One child is all we will ever have for all the same reasons still listed above.
I love my daughter (I feel like I would literally die without her, now), and I love kids in general (otherwise I could not be a Girl Scout leader!) but it does make me a little sick to see large families in this day and age. I don't think people should have more than 2 kids, for the sake of those very same kids. Honestly.
However, I do notice more and more families only have one or 2 kids. ALL of my kids friends are only children or only have one sibling. I still see families with 5 or 6 kids around, but it seems that trend is less common now. It's just time for humanity to suck it up and realize you can't just pop out a dozen kids anymore.
200 years ago, yes, because sadly a lot of your kids would die before age 5, plus people often used kids as labor devices in their shops or on their farms. And people did not have access to any family planning tools.
Nowadays, there is no excuse in developed countries to have more than 3 kids, except utter blind selfish stupidity. Just IMHO.
Feel free to ignore this question, as it is rather personal. Why didn't your husband get a vasectomy beforehand? It is cheap, effective, and safe.
It's ok, it's weirdly impersonal talking about it here. lol
Truth is, I don't really know, it just never was opportune or seemed necessary I guess.
When we met, we'd discussed it and both agreed no children. I only got sicker though, and I don't think I could have gotten pregnant and carried a baby to term for the next 3 or 4 years anyway. We were close to homeless, I had been unable to hold a job for ages, and (very long story short) ended up living in my moms backyard in a rusty old trailer. I didn't have money to get prescription BC so we just used OTC stuff. But we used it every time. Neither of us had any insurance. We lived on food stamps and money from him mowing lawns for a little while. A vasectomy at that time was out of the question. A few hundred bucks may as well have been a few million.
My hubby joined the military soon after just so I would get health insurance. I got a diagnosis, treatment, and started to get better. When he left the military (honorable medical discharge from a torn ACL tendon), he decided to move us to the coast to help my health keep getting better.
We lived at the coast like 2 months before I got pregnant. I blame the fresh, sea air. :/
At THAT point we discussed him getting a vasectomy (closing the barn door after the horse is out, I know), but we were still extremely poor. I had health insurance at that time, and he had none that would cover a vasectomy. So we decided to get me fixed instead of him, for financial reasons.
A: I don't have any children, but the wife and I have certainly discussed it, and we both want them. She's chronically sick, so the logistics of it all need to be pre-planned to a higher degree than for healthy people; we'll probably end up adopting or something, to be honest. I'd rather do that than have a dead wife in childbirth.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(August 5, 2015 at 2:18 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: I plan on having kids, ...eventually! I am no chicken
Hey, I guess I'm a chicken.
(August 5, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm sure there are people out there who wish they had gotten killed, but that's not the default type of thinking when referring to someone's existence.
Unless you're severely depressed I can't imagine that there are too many adopted people out there wishing their parents had aborted them.
As Pyrrho pointed out, there's a gigantic selection bias working in the statement that people who are adopted are glad their mother chose not to abort them because the aborted fetuses aren't around to chime in on the subject. That's like saying "that homeopathic cure for cancer works for everyone who tries it!" - sure, except for the people who died and are no longer around to report on the "cure's" efficacy...
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
Unless you're severely depressed I can't imagine that there are too many adopted people out there wishing their parents had aborted them.
That was my point.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
August 5, 2015 at 3:32 pm (This post was last modified: August 5, 2015 at 3:36 pm by Pyrrho.)
(August 5, 2015 at 3:15 pm)Aroura Wrote:
(August 5, 2015 at 2:05 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Feel free to ignore this question, as it is rather personal. Why didn't your husband get a vasectomy beforehand? It is cheap, effective, and safe.
It's ok, it's weirdly impersonal talking about it here. lol
Truth is, I don't really know, it just never was opportune or seemed necessary I guess.
When we met, we'd discussed it and both agreed no children. I only got sicker though, and I don't think I could have gotten pregnant and carried a baby to term for the next 3 or 4 years anyway. We were close to homeless, I had been unable to hold a job for ages, and (very long story short) ended up living in my moms backyard in a rusty old trailer. I didn't have money to get prescription BC so we just used OTC stuff. But we used it every time. Neither of us had any insurance.
We lived on food stamps and money from him mowing lawns for a little while. A vasectomy at that time was out of the question. A few hundred bucks may as well have been a few million.
My hubby joined the military soon after just so I would get health insurance. I got a diagnosis, treatment, and started to get better. When he left the military (honorable medical discharge from a torn ACL tendon), he decided to move us to the coast to help my health keep getting better.
We lived at the coast like 2 months before I got pregnant. I blame the fresh, sea air. :/
At THAT point we discussed him getting a vasectomy (closing the barn door after the horse is out, I know), but we were still extremely poor. I had health insurance at that time, and he had none that would cover a vasectomy. So we decided to get me fixed instead of him, for financial reasons.
This is too late to do you any good, but it may be useful for other people to know. Planned Parenthood does vasectomies, and they have a sliding scale based on income. That is, how much you pay is based on how much money you make. It is quite cheap, but, of course, not free. Anyone in the U.S., who wants a vasectomy, even if they are poor, should talk with their nearest Planned Parenthood to find out what current pricing is. It does not take long for a vasectomy to more than pay for itself, in savings in other birth control costs.
They might also allow one to make payments over time. One will need to check with them for details on this.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
(August 5, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: That is uncertain. Ask robvalue about that if needed. If they had chosen an abortion, the fetus would not now be regretting anything in the decision.
(That, by the way, is not a suggestion that they ought to have gotten one. It is just a matter of fact about the outcome.)
You are correct, it is uncertain. Everyone else I have met who has been adopted has been very grateful that their parents (or just mother) chose to let them live and a chance at a good life.
I'm sure there are people out there who wish they had gotten killed, but that's not the default type of thinking when referring to someone's existence.
My objection is to there being a "default type of thinking" on the question at all. The simple fact is, one cannot know in advance if a child's life will be more good than bad. What one is doing is taking a chance and, presumably, hoping for the best. The thing is, one is taking a chance on someone else's life, not one's own. And that is why it is morally problematic.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
August 5, 2015 at 3:37 pm (This post was last modified: August 5, 2015 at 3:40 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(August 5, 2015 at 3:35 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:
(August 5, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You are correct, it is uncertain. Everyone else I have met who has been adopted has been very grateful that their parents (or just mother) chose to let them live and a chance at a good life.
I'm sure there are people out there who wish they had gotten killed, but that's not the default type of thinking when referring to someone's existence.
My objection is to there being a "default type of thinking" on the question at all. The simple fact is, one cannot know in advance if a child's life will be more good than bad. What one is doing is taking a chance and, presumably, hoping for the best. The thing is, one is taking a chance on someone else's life, not one's own. And that is why it is morally problematic.
Wait, what is morally problematic? Having kids, or choosing not to abort them?
(sorry, just making sure I understand)
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
August 5, 2015 at 3:41 pm (This post was last modified: August 5, 2015 at 3:48 pm by Javaman.)
(August 5, 2015 at 11:17 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So after starting this thread yesterday, I've noticed that a lot of atheists neither like children nor want them. Some even went as far as to say it's immoral to have them.
I've never met a group of people so anti kids lol. Most people want children or at least like them. I thought that was interesting/different and was curious to know how prevalent this sentiment actually was amongst atheists.
Please, only vote if you're an atheist:
A. I have children OR am currently open to having children (through adoption or otherwise) at some point in the future if things line up right.
B. I neither have NOR, as it stands, want children at any point in the future.
C. I adamantly did NOT want a child, ever, but ended up having one anyway by accident.
Thanks!
My wife and I have two boys (5* and 7) and all the standard cliches about how kids are equally wonderful and exasperating apply.
Your comment about atheists being "anti-kids" is the sort of comment that cements my opinion that anecdotal evidence is not very useful most of the time.
On a side note, my wife and I are an infertile couple (well actually it's just me) and both of our children were conceived through IVF.
The teachings with regards to IVF of your beloved Church piss me off. If a Catholic ever suggests to me that my beautiful, amazing boys are the sinful byproduct of immoral and illicit acts, or that we are somehow a lesser family, I will punch them square in the nose.
This is just one of the many things about the Catholic Church that make me greatly appreciate Minimalist's sig.
*technically 4.92 yrs old, but we're already planning the birthday party, so I'm calling him 5.
(August 5, 2015 at 11:17 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So after starting this thread yesterday, I've noticed that a lot of atheists neither like children nor want them. Some even went as far as to say it's immoral to have them.
I've never met a group of people so anti kids lol. Most people want children or at least like them. I thought that was interesting/different and was curious to know how prevalent this sentiment actually was amongst atheists.
Please, only vote if you're an atheist:
A. I have children OR am currently open to having children (through adoption or otherwise) at some point in the future if things line up right.
B. I neither have NOR, as it stands, want children at any point in the future.
C. I adamantly did NOT want a child, ever, but ended up having one anyway by accident.
Thanks!
My wife and I have two boys (5* and 7) and all the standard cliches about how kids are equally wonderful and exasperating apply.
Your comment about atheists being "anti-kids" is the sort of comment that cements my opinion that anecdotal evidence is not very useful most of the time.
On a side note, my wife and I are an infertile couple (well actually it's just me) and both of our children were conceived through IVF.
The teachings with regards to IVF of your beloved Church piss me off. If a Catholic ever suggests to me that my beautiful, amazing boys are the sinful byproduct of immoral and illicit acts, or that we are somehow a lesser family, I will punch them square in the nose.
This is just one of the many things about the Catholic Church that make me greatly appreciate Minimalist's sig.
*technically 4.92 yrs old, but we're already planning the birthday part, so I'm calling him 5.
See, and that's the strange part to me. You get angry at people who think IVF is not moral, but Pyrrho (and others here) just straight up said they think having kids is immoral and that they look down on people who have kids. No outrage there?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
August 5, 2015 at 3:49 pm (This post was last modified: August 5, 2015 at 3:52 pm by robvalue.)
(August 5, 2015 at 3:35 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:
(August 5, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You are correct, it is uncertain. Everyone else I have met who has been adopted has been very grateful that their parents (or just mother) chose to let them live and a chance at a good life.
I'm sure there are people out there who wish they had gotten killed, but that's not the default type of thinking when referring to someone's existence.
My objection is to there being a "default type of thinking" on the question at all. The simple fact is, one cannot know in advance if a child's life will be more good than bad. What one is doing is taking a chance and, presumably, hoping for the best. The thing is, one is taking a chance on someone else's life, not one's own. And that is why it is morally problematic.
You're one of the few people who is on my wavelength with this! I am baffled by the fact that most people don't seem to consider it a moral issue at all. When I say most people, I'm not accusing anyone in particular on the forum.
To me it certainly is a moral issue, but of course not one I would ever meddle with regarding someone else's choice. I'd only ever voice my opinion and encourage thought and discussion.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
![[Image: chicken_costume_9987.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.onegiantchicken.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Fchicken_costume_9987.jpg)
