PDA

View Full Version : Childfree. Forever alone? New happy?



justbe
29-09-2011, 11:41
They are a group of adults who all share at least one common desire: they do not wish to have children of their own. They are teachers, doctors, business owners, authors, computer experts — whatever. They choose to call themselves «childfree» rather than «childless», because they feel the latter term implies that they're missing something they want — and they say thay are not being quite happy alone. They consider ourselves child FREE — free of the loss of personal freedom, money, time and energy that having children requires.

Honestly, i think it is ok to be childfree when you are 18–25 and concentrated on doing other things in life. But any alive creature tends to get kids and if a woman and a man later are still obsessed aggressively with childfree idea, come on, visit a doctor to know what is wrong with you.

mds45
29-09-2011, 11:43
Can't help but agree with all you said !!!!

SV1973a
29-09-2011, 11:55
FREE — free of the loss of personal freedom, money, time and energy that having children requires.

but DEPRIVED of the one thing that really matters for all living creatures - to reproduce and put a next generation on the planet.

justbe
29-09-2011, 12:00
but DEPRIVED of the one thing that really matters for all living creatures - to reproduce and put a next generation on the planet.

I wonder do they ever change their mind getting old and not able to give birth to a kid.

mds45
29-09-2011, 12:04
I wonder do they ever change their mind getting old and not able to give birth to a kid.

The denial of natural instincts can only last so long.

soprty
29-09-2011, 12:05
I respect them a lot more than people that have kids and don't take care of them like one should!

mds45
29-09-2011, 12:08
Can't help but agree with that also.

justbe
29-09-2011, 12:13
I respect them a lot more than people that have kids and don't take care of them like one should!

We don't have to choose btw bad parenting and being childfree.

soprty
29-09-2011, 12:25
We don't have to choose btw bad parenting and being childfree.

I agree but there are too many people that have kids just because "it's what is expected" and then they end up regreting it and it's always the kids that suffer the consequences! Childfree/Childless is just a label and although I don't agree, I respect that decision to not have a child.

soprty
29-09-2011, 12:25
We don't have to choose btw bad parenting and being childfree.

I agree but there are too many people that have kids just because "it's what is expected" and then they end up regretting it and it's always the kids that suffer the consequences! Childfree/Childless is just a label and although I don't agree, I respect that decision to not have a child.

justbe
29-09-2011, 12:43
I agree but there are too many people that have kids just because "it's what is expected" and then they end up regreting it and it's always the kids that suffer the consequences! Childfree/Childless is just a label and although I don't agree, I respect that decision to not have a child.

I am sure some people are initially happy, some look for reasons to be unhappy for thier whole lives. For a lot of them the «best» obstacle is another person near. But with every year there's less and less pressure on a person to get a kid «because it is time for it».

As for respect to childfree, if it is clearly motivated and mature decision, i accept it. I am not the best mother ever and get really bored and tired after 24/7 with my daughted, but i do love her and that is why i have a nanny to have enough time for my job, friends and whatever. Trying not to make a kid the reason of being unhappy, we'd better both be happy.

Krolick
29-09-2011, 12:55
Honestly, i think it is ok to be childfree when you are 18–25 and concentrated on doing other things in life. But any alive creature tends to get kids and if a woman and a man later are still obsessed aggressively with childfree idea, come on, visit a doctor to know what is wrong with you.

Ok. You may throw stones at me, but I can't agree that I should visit a doctor being childless (or childfree) at my 28 with no desire to have kids. I've been told my whole life - you are future mother, it is your major duty, purpose, destiny and it is normal to have kids and to want to have kids and it is not normal not to...

I can't say for my whole life... Maybe once I wake up with the burning desire to have a child and I will follow it for sure, but until that moment I am not going to give birth to a living creature just because I am supposed to, I am expected to, everybody does, or I am getting old.

I full realize the responsibility of being a parent and I respect parents but I also respect people who have their own view and follow their own opinion even if it does not coincide with what everybody else thinks.

justbe
29-09-2011, 13:05
Ok. You may throw stones at me

I will not for sure!



but I can't agree that I should visit a doctor being childless (or childfree) at my 28 with no desire to have kids

Believe me, you have PLENTY of time to change your mind. 28 is new 18.



it is your major duty, purpose, destinyhave kids

Society has rules to function, the members of society have roles and duties. You are welcome to break the rules and play other roles, but please pay taxes and don't turn on music too loud after 10 pm!



I am not going to give birth to a living creature just because I am supposed to, I am expected to, everybody does, or I am getting old.

Is there's anyone who makes a pressure upon you to get a kid?



I full realize the responsibility of being a parent and I respect parents but I also respect people who have their own view and follow their own opinion even if it does not coincide with what everybody else thinks.

I don't like this being trendy or in fashion, as any ideology, this one can ruin someone's lives.

AstarD
29-09-2011, 13:10
Honestly, i think it is ok to be childfree when you are 18–25 and concentrated on doing other things in life. But any alive creature tends to get kids and if a woman and a man later are still obsessed aggressively with childfree idea, come on, visit a doctor to know what is wrong with you.
:shhhhhh:

Look, any point of view is subjective. No one is right or everyone is right, so please don't try to prove that your oppinion is the only truth. Pros and cons are in any situation.

justbe
29-09-2011, 13:12
:shhhhhh:

Please pay attention on the shades [-]of blue[/-] of meaning. There's nothing wrong in ideas, but none should be obsessed aggressively!

Inola
29-09-2011, 13:14
I know several "childfree/less'' people and couples of different ages and in different countries.. They have chosen not to have kids for various reasons..

Most of them (women especially) say they simply don't feel the urge / the desire to procreate and invest themselves into development of a new human being. One of them - woman over 40, happily married, says she ended up telling people she can't have children for medical reasons (it's a lie) because she got tired of people asking questions RE their childlessness and tired of their reaction of not understanding to her truthful answer. The majority of people do not gett how someone (a woman especially) could NOT WANT a child.

It's their choice and their right to chose the life they want. They also have the right to change their mind one day, if they ever will. It's up to them.. And I respect this responsible attitude much more than people who make children just because it's "normal" pretty often not feeling like (and not being ready for!) raising kids.

Quite often young couples make children because it seems to be a logical step (sometimes even the reason of staying together!) and because they are almost forced into it by their families.

Maybe I am wrong, but I pretty often feel some people don't really know what they want to do with their lives, don't have a clear understanding of what their life is about, what's the purpose of it all... Having kids gives a sense to their lives as sets clear objectives (to raise, to feed, to give education etc)... Kid is an easy-to-get genuine reason to live and to feel comfortable about one's being worthy member of the society.

While Childless by choice people are perceived by the majority (having children or claiming they want them.. well, some day) as SELFISH (!), as they only get from the society (parents, teachers, etc) but don't want to participate in the relay and to give in their turn. So they have to explain themselves as if they owe (!) them excuses.

IMO, Having kids when it's just valuable excuse to live is more selfish than not having them by choice because one is honest with him/herself and knows for sure he/she is not ready for such a responsibility or simply doesn't want children now or ever in HIS/HER life.

Krolick
29-09-2011, 13:25
Is there's anyone who makes a pressure upon you to get a kid?



Oh, my whole family. My mom keeps on telling me she want to be a grandmother and sometimes she says she wants to feel what it is like to be a grandmother before she dies, etc
My grandmother says that it is not normal (не по-людски) to live with a man and not to have children from him.
All my aunts and cousins ask me "why not still" every time I come to my native town.
Even my dad once had "a serious conversation" with me saying "time is pressing, it is time to think".
Oh, and add some of my family friends and colleagues.

With me it works vice versa. The more I am pressed, the more I rebel. That's what I am.

justbe
29-09-2011, 13:27
Oh, my whole family.

Are you the only one kid, no brothers / sisters?

soprty
29-09-2011, 13:30
I totally respect you for your decision!



Oh, my whole family. My mom keeps on telling me she want to be a grandmother and sometimes she says she wants to feel what it is like to be a grandmother before she dies, etc
My grandmother says that it is not normal (не по-людски) to live with a man and not to have children from him.
All my aunts and cousins ask me "why not still" every time I come to my native town.
Even my dad once had "a serious conversation" with me saying "time is pressing, it is time to think".
Oh, and add some of my family friends and colleagues.

With me it works vice versa. The more I am pressed, the more I rebel. That's what I am.

justbe
29-09-2011, 13:32
I respect this responsible attitude

That's the idea!

justbe
29-09-2011, 13:41
Ok, i elaborate.

I respect being responsible.
I respect personal decisions.
I respect the desire to be happy.
I respect other person's life.

I don't like being extremely agressive.
I don't like being unattentive in shades and details.
I don't like the-only-one-opinion discussion.
[-]I don't like fresh cucumbers.[/-] Ok, it has nothing to do with being childfree.

mrzuzzo
29-09-2011, 13:42
I disagree. I strongly believe that every woman should have at least one child before reaching the age of 30... First of all, for medical reasons. Second of all, to give your parents/grandparents the happiness they've been waiting for all their lives - to have grandchildren. These people raised you for 20 years (approx) and not giving them the chance to have grandchildren is very selfish.

But the most important reason is, of course, for yourself. I think kids really do bring happiness to people, bond families, and give you something to live for when all else is utter sh*t. And don't forget, as you age, you will be glad you had this child, you'll have something to be proud of and something that can be deemed an actual achievement in your life.

Most people who deny these facts are either insecure about themselves, downright crazy, or are still too scared of making an important step in their lives.

Krolick
29-09-2011, 13:48
Are you the only one kid, no brothers / sisters?

No, I've got a brother, he is 22 now, and (what always amuses me!) is not urged by our parents. And the explanation always like this - well, he is a man, he had more time.

justbe
29-09-2011, 13:50
No, I've got a brother, he is 22 now, and (what always amuses me!) is not urged by our parents. And the explanation always like this - well, he is a man, he had more time.

Yep, a real trouble. My brother is older than me, and started with the family later, but he got 3 kids at one time — his own twin girls and a teenager from his GF's previous marriage.

justbe
29-09-2011, 13:59
I disagree. I strongly believe that every woman should have at least one child before reaching the age of 30...

...Then let's talk about the society and cultural instability. Ask any girl (who should have a child before 30), what she is afraid of. Being family-oriented is not supported by modern morality, having a lot of kids is extremely uncomfortable. Well, the money one earns can solve some problems, but let's be honest — no support from the government if something goes wrong (my example).

But i DO respect your opinion too.

Inola
29-09-2011, 14:08
Dear Mr Z,

I agree with you, but..

But being a woman:
(a) of almost 30,
(b) offspring of 2 really big families (I am the second of 10 grandchildren in my mom's family, and the 1st out of 16 in my dad's family!)
(c) loving children very much and enjoying their company (in my avatar you see the pic of my sister's baby girl that I adore)
(d) wanting to have children (not to give a reason to my existence, but because I know I'll be a great mom)
(e) determined to have at least two of them one day, provided all the necessary prerequisites are there
(f) determined to adopt at least 1 orphan (maybe more) regardless of the presence/absence of (e), especially if I am too old to give birth to healthy children of my own when the prerequisites I there :D -

... I can only tell you this: "fack you, Mz Zudge, and your opinion of whether I must have at least a child at my age or not", please.:bird:

I am not selfish, I am responsible. So as Krolick is - she is right to resist, if she feels she is not ready yet to go for it. It is Krolick who'll be the parent, not her parents, aunts, colleagues!

justbe
29-09-2011, 14:11
It is Krolick who'll be the parent, not her parents, aunts, colleagues!

YES!!!

mrzuzzo
29-09-2011, 14:13
Inola, but see, you generally agree with me so I think we're on the same page. Your situation does not allow it, you did not make a conscious choice to be "childfree" like described in this thread.

I strongly disapprove of those that do make this conscious decision, and have the opportunity to have children and start a family.

mrzuzzo
29-09-2011, 14:16
It is Krolick who'll be the parent, not her parents, aunts, colleagues!

Yeah I agree... but I still think it's wrong (especially for a young woman) to not want to have children when presented with the opportunity to raise a (I hope) happy and strong family..

Parco
29-09-2011, 14:27
:iagree:

Phew! Glad there is another person that thinks along the same lines as me. What I find most striking is the inability of individuals to recognise we are all unique and different. I'm not a great scientist but I know enough that our genetics make us unique. So thinking that people should seek advice if they are not considered 'normal' is absurd.

At least those who have an interest in 'alternative' lifestyles are expressing their life how they choose, hoping that those around them will not think less of them or refer them to a shrink.

Robert Bunsen (inventor of Bunsen burner) was 'childfree' - should he have seen a shrink?


Ok. You may throw stones at me, but I can't agree that I should visit a doctor being childless (or childfree) at my 28 with no desire to have kids. I've been told my whole life - you are future mother, it is your major duty, purpose, destiny and it is normal to have kids and to want to have kids and it is not normal not to...

I can't say for my whole life... Maybe once I wake up with the burning desire to have a child and I will follow it for sure, but until that moment I am not going to give birth to a living creature just because I am supposed to, I am expected to, everybody does, or I am getting old.

I full realize the responsibility of being a parent and I respect parents but I also respect people who have their own view and follow their own opinion even if it does not coincide with what everybody else thinks.

Inola
29-09-2011, 14:27
Inola, but see, you generally agree with me so I think we're on the same page.

Considering my age, I don't fall into the category of the "right kind of women" in your classification:D


Your situation does not allow it, you did not make a conscious choice to be "childfree" like described in this thread.

Well, you don't know me and what happened to me up to now to have an opinion on my situation and consciousness of my choice to be childfree in the past, now and for some time ahead (maybe forever - I don't know)..


I strongly disapprove of those that do make this conscious decision, and have the opportunity to have children and start a family.

Who you are to judge?!

Family and children is one of the top and important things in your and my system of life values, but it can not be the case for others!

So it's not you or me or anybody else who should decide for others IF they must or not procreate and certainly not you/me will decide WHEN others should have kids.

By the way, do you have any children? How old is your GF? :D

Krolick
29-09-2011, 14:31
...Then let's talk about the society and cultural instability. Ask any girl (who should have a child before 30), what she is afraid of. Being family-oriented is not supported by modern morality, having a lot of kids is extremely uncomfortable. Well, the money one earns can solve some problems, but let's be honest — no support from the government if something goes wrong (my example).

But i DO respect your opinion too.

And I can add that giving birth is, let's say, a process where 2 people are involved and they depend on each other in this question. And a woman depends more because it is she that will physically give birth and for some period won't have a chance to earn herself... I talked to many girls who said that before making decision to be a mom they asked themselves - do you trust him that much? (meaning their husbands or boyfriends or partners, whatever) It is important to have Yes as an answer.

mrzuzzo
29-09-2011, 14:37
At least those who have an interest in 'alternative' lifestyles are expressing their life how they choose, hoping that those around them will not think less of them or refer them to a shrink.

It has nothing to do with being "alternative" and "different"... It's not even a societal issue really... I think it's simply human to want to have children.

There is something wrong with you if you think it's ok to live your life without having achieved this miracle. It might be "fun" now, but later on I'm sure you'll enjoy your forever alone life.

I don't understand people that want to live on this earth, die, and not leave a single trace of their existence. What the hell are you going to remember when you're older? How you went out to bars? How you earned a million dollars because you had all this free time? How cool and hip you are because unlike everyone else you're going through a lonely life and death without anyone to even remember about you?



Robert Bunsen (inventor of Bunsen burner) was 'childfree' - should he have seen a shrink?

Yes.

aker
29-09-2011, 14:40
but DEPRIVED of the one thing that really matters for all living creatures - to reproduce and put a next generation on the planet.

If that's the one thing that we're here for, we're in big trouble...

For one, haven't you heard - the world is OVER POPULATED?

For the next, I sit and look at parents, exhausted, argumentative, working to put food on the table 3 times a day for multiple mouths, killing themselves working long hours to pay school fees, completely exasperated with the behaviour of their 1 to 21 year old (or older!), and I breathe a sigh of relief I don't have children!

It's fine to have children, obviously.

Sure, parents are biologically programmed to look at their 2 year old - who just threw themselves on the supermarket floor, spat the dummy, kicked you in the shins, stole a chocolate bar and ate it so you then had to pay for it, had a subsequent sugar high, then a sugar low, then started crying because he wanted to go home, then started bawling because he doesn't want to go to bed, then falls asleep on your arm, which is numb, but you're too terrified to wake him up in case he loses it again - and say 'oh, but he's just going through a stage - really he's USUALLY VERY good'...

and rightly so! Who else would look after children if we weren't biologically programmed to bias our feelings towards them?

Children CAN be good, and sweet, and they can teach us lots about life. But they don't have to be OUR children.

Don't think that not having children is DEPRIVATION. That, would be ridiculous.

Thank goodness for childfree people. We're the ones helping paying taxes to keep your children in school...

Inola
29-09-2011, 14:41
And I can add that giving birth is, let's say, a process where 2 people are involved and they depend on each other in this question. And a woman depends more because it is she that will physically give birth and for some period won't have a chance to earn herself... I talked to many girls who said that before making decision to be a mom they asked themselves - do you trust him that much? (meaning their husbands or boyfriends or partners, whatever) It is important to have Yes as an answer.

Agree! Just will add that it's not only about money, but more generally about reliability and mutual desire and readiness to start a family: is my partner ready for this? will he/she be a good mother/father? etc.

And I don't understand girls who impose their desire to have a family on their partners (let alone get pregnant despite the latter's objections)!!! How can a loving respecting woman impose such a responsibility on her man?! Talk about love and respect..

mds45
29-09-2011, 14:44
I know quite a few childless couples in their 40's, many have dogs and treat them as children, I find it quite strange but can see that they are filling a hole.

Inola
29-09-2011, 14:47
Hi Aker!

Thank you for your different opinion!:10220:

aker
29-09-2011, 14:52
MrZuzzo,


Who said we aren't leaving a single trace of our existence? How do you know that the Metro station you just went down too, the bridge you just walked across, the painting you just admired at the pushkin gallery - how do you know the creator of these things hasn't had children? Are they traceless? I think not. And the million dollars I earned that I didn't spend on school fees? Well, that's going to go to spending a lovely comfy retirement not being upset that my children don't come and see me because they are too busy. It's then going to lots of different charities that are going to help people who can't afford to feed the children that they have had, because they don't have access to or don't have the social ability to use contraception. It's not about being cool and hip. It's about having a wonderful life, full of opportunities, not being in a cell created by small people who need us all the time.

Yes, I am going to ENJOY my forever CHILDFREE life, because I have opportunities to create, to breathe, to fly, to give to whom I chose, not whom I am biologically programmed to give to. I am free of the need to self reproduce in order to satisfy my ego. And when it comes time to die, I will smile and say, I didn't burden the world with more children - I looked after the ones that were already there.

justbe
29-09-2011, 14:55
Yes, I am going to ENJOY my forever CHILDFREE life, because I have opportunities to create, to breathe, to fly, to give to whom I chose, not whom I am biologically programmed to give to. I am free of the need to self reproduce in order to satisfy my ego. And when it comes time to die, I will smile and say, I didn't burden the world with more children - I looked after the ones that were already there.

Would you please answer, how old are you now? At least 20-25 / 25-30 / 30-35? Thanks!

Krolick
29-09-2011, 14:55
There is something wrong with you if you think it's ok to live your life without having achieved this miracle. It might be "fun" now, but later on I'm sure you'll enjoy your forever alone life.

Yes.

mrzuzzo, we come into this world and go out of it alone. Always.

And many people who have children end up in geriatric homes. Alone.

But your opinion is your opinion, we all have a right to have ours.

aker
29-09-2011, 15:03
Way out of range. What presuppositions did you have when you asked that? I am 39, and loving life far more than any parent I know.

Everyone has the right to their opinion, but don't tell me that I will change my mind, because I'm at peace - and I will rise to defend any woman that says to me - I don't really want to have children - because they have the right to do so. And good on them when they do.

justbe
29-09-2011, 15:05
Way out of range. What presuppositions did you have when you asked that?

Thanks for the answer. I asked just for statistics.

mrzuzzo
29-09-2011, 15:21
Considering my age, I don't fall into the category of the "right kind of women" in your classification:D

Not really sure what you mean by that...



Who you are to judge?!

I am not judging anyone, I am judging this stupid childfree mentality.



By the way, do you have any children? How old is your GF? :D

No, but I want children.
My girlfriend is....... 22.. yup :shhhhhh:


reliability and mutual desire and readiness

And that really is something that should be at the foundation of a strong family.



Yes, I am going to ENJOY my forever CHILDFREE life, because I have opportunities to create, to breathe, to fly, to give to whom I chose, not whom I am biologically programmed to give to. I am free of the need to self reproduce in order to satisfy my ego. And when it comes time to die, I will smile and say, I didn't burden the world with more children - I looked after the ones that were already there.

Ok cool, so you fill that childless void in your life with "enjoyment" or the illusion of it.

Can I ask you a question? Do you have a partner? Is he ok with what you are saying? Or do you not want to fill your fragile happy life with love either and enjoy being "husbandfree"?


mrzuzzo, we come into this world and go out of it alone. Always.

And many people who have children end up in geriatric homes. Alone.

But your opinion is your opinion, we all have a right to have ours.

If you have a strong and loving family that should never happen. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course..

Parco
29-09-2011, 15:22
It has nothing to do with being "alternative" and "different"... It's not even a societal issue really... I think it's simply human to want to have children.

There is something wrong with you if you think it's ok to live your life without having achieved this miracle. It might be "fun" now, but later on I'm sure you'll enjoy your forever alone life.

If you understood a little bit more about genetics beyond the basic 'XX' and 'XY' and the variations of the human, you'd think differently. It can be equally human not to want to have children. If people recognised this, then I imagine there would be less abandoned children in the world rather than peer/social pressure making couples 'have' children.


I don't understand people that want to live on this earth, die, and not leave a single trace of their existence. What the hell are you going to remember when you're older? How you went out to bars? How you earned a million dollars because you had all this free time? How cool and hip you are because unlike everyone else you're going through a lonely life and death without anyone to even remember about you?

Other famous childfree individuals include Florence Nightingale, Quentin Tarantino, George Washington, Joan of Arc and Oprah Winfrey.

Parco
29-09-2011, 15:31
I am not judging anyone, I am judging this stupid childfree mentality.

Judging usually involves making a balanced decision. It appears from your posts your mind is already made up.

So you'd prefer those who'd like to be child-free, to have children because it's "normal" through social pressure and from a lack of understanding by people like you?


Ok cool, so you fill that childless void in your life with "enjoyment" or the illusion of it.

A void opens when you have lost something (or someone). Never having a child in the first place doesn't create a void or the need to fill it.

SV1973a
29-09-2011, 15:33
For one, haven't you heard - the world is OVER POPULATED?

Says who ? I would think that in Russia for instance there is enough space and resources for several more millions. Certainly, Western Europe and the USA are not overpopulated.


Sure, parents are biologically programmed to look at their 2 year old - who just threw themselves on the supermarket floor, spat the dummy, kicked you in the shins, stole a chocolate bar and ate it so you then had to pay for it, had a subsequent sugar high, then a sugar low, then started crying because he wanted to go home, then started bawling because he doesn't want to go to bed, then falls asleep on your arm, which is numb, but you're too terrified to wake him up in case he loses it again - and say 'oh, but he's just going through a stage - really he's USUALLY VERY good'...

Are you now describing the behaviour of `average` kids? I sure haven`t seen too many like these, and I know for sure that if my kids even tried to behave like this, I would immediately correct them.


Thank goodness for childfree people. We're the ones helping paying taxes to keep your children in school...

And parents aren`t paying taxes? Neither do the children when they grow up ?

AstarD
29-09-2011, 15:33
Are you suggesting that a woman should have a child even if she's not married?


Age also plays a role. The older a woman gets, the less likely she is to get pregnant. It's extremely rare for women over 40 to get pregnant with their own eggs.

And then there's the issue of Down syndrom, the likelihood of which increases greatly for pregnancies after the mother is 35.

SV1973a
29-09-2011, 15:39
Yes, I am going to ENJOY my forever CHILDFREE life, because I have opportunities to create, to breathe, to fly, to give to whom I chose, not whom I am biologically programmed to give to. I am free of the need to self reproduce in order to satisfy my ego. And when it comes time to die, I will smile and say, I didn't burden the world with more children - I looked after the ones that were already there.[/QUOTE]

AstarD
29-09-2011, 15:40
Yes, I am going to ENJOY my forever CHILDFREE life, because I have opportunities to create, to breathe, to fly, to give to whom I chose, not whom I am biologically programmed to give to. I am free of the need to self reproduce in order to satisfy my ego. And when it comes time to die, I will smile and say, I didn't burden the world with more children - I looked after the ones that were already there.
And isn't it great that such a self-centered person (as you seem to be implying by highlighting all the personal references) is not going to inflict that on a child?

mds45
29-09-2011, 15:43
What a great initial post JustBe, it would have been a much slower boring day without this one - a big thankyou from me !!!!

justbe
29-09-2011, 15:45
What a great initial post JustBe, it would have been a much slower boring day without this one - a big thankyou from me !!!!

Thanks! I always spam with pleasure!

justbe
29-09-2011, 15:49
And isn't it great that such a self-centered person (as you seem to be implying by highlighting all the personal references) is not going to inflict that on a child?

I would go back to social science please.

A woman's fertility status is still very much considered public property. There are still assumptions about women's role in society, about families and about family size. It's interesting that nobody's asking why motherhood seems so unattractive to certain women in this day and age. Perhaps it's the lack of status that comes with it and the lack of real choices — usually full-time work and exorbitant child care or stay at home dependency / poverty. Concerning career, most employers prefer to pay lip service to family friendly policies and flexible working hours. Perhaps it's the fact that that most women who choose to have children will see a sharp dip in their earnings from pregnancy onward. Women who've made the choice not to have children are choosing not to become the second class citizens society usually deems them once they procreate. The choice is a social rather than a biological one.

And oh, i know that some women and men get sterilized as they think they will never want children. It is another side of the coin as one can change his / her mind, but there's no way back if you get sterile.

mrzuzzo
29-09-2011, 15:50
Judging usually involves making a balanced decision. It appears from your posts your mind is already made up.

I didn't like children at all before. As I grew and matured, I made the balanced decision that I want to have children.



A void opens when you have lost something (or someone). Never having a child in the first place doesn't create a void or the need to fill it.

Really? You actually think so?

This void opens as you mature.. You grow up, fill a void by getting a stable career, girlfriend, wife, etc... eventually a void opens up for a child as well! It's only normal.

Sounds to me like you're just bitter at women and haven't had a relationship in a long time, nor are you too optimistic about having one in the near future. I am very sorry if that is so. But don't use it to justify "childfree" abnormal behavior please.

aker
29-09-2011, 15:58
Not really sure what you mean by that...



I am not judging anyone, I am judging this stupid childfree mentality.



No, but I want children.
My girlfriend is....... 22.. yup :shhhhhh:



And that really is something that should be at the foundation of a strong family.



Ok cool, so you fill that childless void in your life with "enjoyment" or the illusion of it.

Can I ask you a question? Do you have a partner? Is he ok with what you are saying? Or do you not want to fill your fragile happy life with love either and enjoy being "husbandfree"?



If you have a strong and loving family that should never happen. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course..

Oh MrZuzzo - you seem so very, very young....

Yes, I am in love. Deeply in love. And it's not a void I am filling. I am in love with a wonderful man, who is happy and content and satisfied, and so very in love with me. Today, I woke up, I spoke to an autistic child who responds to my voice alone on the telephone and helped to calm her down for her mother. I did some work, and ate a delicious lunch with slow cooked, organic food.

Now as I type I look at one of my favourite books on the bookshelf "Little Women", by Louisa May Alcott, and "Sense and Sensibility" by Jane Austen, and I just started playing "What a Wonderful World", by Louis Armstrong.

After this, I may play the 9th Symphony - Ode To Joy, by Ludwig Van Beethoven.

And then I may play Traviata, sung by Maria Callas. Or perhaps I shall play my "best of" recordings of Jessye Norman, or Lou Reed, Dolly Parton, Christoph Gluck, George Michael or Christie McVie from Fleetwood Mac.

As I put on my suit, a vintage design by Coco Chanel and similar to a film costume design I remember was worn by Claudette Colbert, I consider going back to my Italian Villa, for the winter, just outside Collodi, where "Pinocchio" was written - by Carlo Collodi. The nearest airport is the Amerigo Vespucci airport - named after the famous explorer.

From there, I shall visit the nearby city of Florence, to see the "Gloria", written by G.F. Handel - and sit in the Boboli Gardens in the sunshine and consider the words of Samuel L Jackson, Copernicus, Iris Murdoch, Linus Pauling (the Nobel Prize winner), John Ruskin, Gertrude Stein, Mae West, Ann Widdecombe, Philip Larkin, Virginia Wolf, Emily Dickinson, Helen Keller, or maybe even Queen Elizabeth the First...

Or should I just stay in my peaceful, sunfilled vineyard garden or watch a movie or two with some friends and delicious meal and a glass of wine. The movie could have perhaps George Clooney, or Kim Cattral, Mike Myers, Miriam Margoyles, or one of my favourites, Helen Mirren.

From my villa, as I drive into gather my shopping, I pass a military hospital - the idea of which, of course, started with Florence Nightingale.

Shall I tell you, my dear MrZuzzo, what ALL these people, and more, many, many more have in common with me?

What secret we own? What wonderful lives we lead or have led because we had the time and freedom to follow our dreams?

None of us have children. We are all childfree.:doh:

:-):piano:

aker
29-09-2011, 16:07
Dear Astard

When you have stood in the middle of a Red Cross Camp, filled with tens of thousands of starving, silent, crying children, and witness their mothers, unable to feed them, unable to provide them with solace, or protect them from invisible disease that will as likely kill them as make them weaker - many whom were born from violence and rape, then you can tell me if I am selfish by not procreating.

I stand by my words - for as much as my life is filled with joy, I have also learned that the "I" in my words is more about "them" and the greater good of the world than me.

Have a wonderful day. Give your children, if you have them, an extra special hug, because they are lucky they have you.

SV1973a
29-09-2011, 16:07
Shall I tell you, my dear MrZuzzo, what ALL these people, and more, many, many more have in common with me?

You know what all people (these and all others) have in common with me ?
They had parents that DID have children.

aker
29-09-2011, 16:09
Touche'!

:-)

justbe
29-09-2011, 16:09
What ALL these people, and more, many, many more have in common with me?

What secret we own? What wonderful lives we lead or have led because we had the time and freedom to follow our dreams?

EEK! Sounds very eery! Very Stepford Wives alike! Sorry, couldn't keep myself from saying this. :piano: :piano: :piano: :piano:

mrzuzzo
29-09-2011, 16:10
Oh MrZuzzo - you seem so very, very young....

Why? Because I have a girlfriend who is 22? Because I made a conscious decision to want to raise children and a happy family?



Yes, I am in love. Deeply in love. And it's not a void I am filling. I am in love with a wonderful man, who is happy and content and satisfied, and so very in love with me. Today, I woke up, I spoke to an autistic child who responds to my voice alone on the telephone and helped to calm her down for her mother. I did some work, and ate a delicious lunch with slow cooked, organic food.

That's great! Are you also a vegetarian as well? Any other hip "alternative" lifestyle choices that you've made which you want to tell us about?



Now as I type I look at one of my favourite books on the bookshelf "Little Women", by Louisa May Alcott,

...blah blah blah...

None of us have children. We are all childfree.:doh:


So what? You named 30 famous people who have not had children, I can name a million who have. And what does being famous/successful/celebrity have to with being truly happy anyways? You sound so full of yourself...

Parco
29-09-2011, 16:11
I didn't like children at all before. As I grew and matured, I made the balanced decision that I want to have children.

Great! Good for you! I'm happy with my life choices and don't feel pressured to conform to 'normality' whatever that may be.


Really? You actually think so?
Yes, I do. :mml:


This void opens as you mature.. You grow up, fill a void by getting a stable career, girlfriend, wife, etc... eventually a void opens up for a child as well! It's only normal.

Please define 'normal' in relation to the human being? Hint: Scientists with PhD's in genetics can't define it.


Sounds to me like you're just bitter at women and haven't had a relationship in a long time, nor are you too optimistic about having one in the near future. I am very sorry if that is so. But don't use it to justify "childfree" abnormal behavior please.

You could not be further from the truth. I am...

not bitter at women at all (never have been and never will be for reasons I don't wish to publish here).
in a long and perfect relationship (childfree) which has survived long-distance.


Yes, childfree may be considered abnormal by many but there is nothing wrong with it and certainly doesn't require the services of a shrink (as written in the OP). To have found someone with mutual feelings and thoughts, especially childfree is a breath of fresh air. As it has been to read posts of others with similar lifestyle choices.

SV1973a
29-09-2011, 16:21
Touche'!

:-)

Aker (and all other persons that make the conscious choice of spending a meaningless life without the joy of having children and grandchildren ;-) ), please don`t get me wrong.
You are free to live your life as you see fit, and I am not judging you on that.
But still... it is the prime goal of all living things to put offspring on this planet. This is so important to most living things, that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives, to protect their offspring.
Humans are no different.

AstarD
29-09-2011, 16:27
Dear Astard

When you have stood in the middle of a Red Cross Camp, filled with tens of thousands of starving, silent, crying children, and witness their mothers, unable to feed them, unable to provide them with solace, or protect them from invisible disease that will as likely kill them as make them weaker - many whom were born from violence and rape, then you can tell me if I am selfish by not procreating.

I stand by my words - for as much as my life is filled with joy, I have also learned that the "I" in my words is more about "them" and the greater good of the world than me.

Have a wonderful day. Give your children, if you have them, an extra special hug, because they are lucky they have you.
I was actually trying to support you. But whatever.

My not having children doesn't benefit those poor children in the Red Cross Camp in any way.

justbe
29-09-2011, 16:36
This is so important to most living things, that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives, to protect their offspring.
Humans are no different.

A kid or children is a life-time project (my own point of view, i tend to make things easier not going deep into reflections). One plans, realizes, shares his / her skills, experience, time, emotions and watches a baby turning into a person. Ok, sometimes i do get pissed off and fight against buying some more candies or having not enough sleep, but come on! Have anyone ever met any adult who is perfect? Me not.

justbe
29-09-2011, 16:51
Will there be any single comment about the men who choose not to be fathers? Women aren't the only people who can choose not to have children. Don't want to have old fashioned, sexist manner discussion.

Parco
29-09-2011, 16:52
Will there be any single comment about the men who choose not to be fathers? Women aren't the only people who can choose not to have children. Don't want to have old fashioned, sexist manner discussion.

Are you ignoring my comments then?

:ignore:

SV1973a
29-09-2011, 16:52
A kid or children is a life-time project (my own point of view, i tend to make things easier not going deep into reflections). One plans, realizes, shares his / her skills, experience, time, emotions and watches a baby turning into a person. Ok, sometimes i do get pissed off and fight against buying some more candies or having not enough sleep, but come on! Have anyone ever met any adult who is perfect? Me not.

Having children and watch them grow up, certainly is the best that happened in my life. It beats all things such as travels, more money,...
My father says that becoming grandparents is even better...

justbe
29-09-2011, 16:52
Are you ignoring my comments then?

:ignore:

Oh! Sorry sorry sorry! :10641:

SV1973a
29-09-2011, 16:57
Will there be any single comment about the men who choose not to be fathers? Women aren't the only people who can choose not to have children. Don't want to have old fashioned, sexist manner discussion.

A man can want children however strong he wants. He is not going to get them without the help of a woman.

Inola
29-09-2011, 22:49
I am...


in a long and perfect relationship (childfree) which has survived long-distance.



And yet you were asking forum members for advice on how to attend speed-dating events and expressed the wish to meet a Russian girl who'll want you for what you are and not because of your foreign passport... to found a family and to be the pater (and grand pater) of the big Russian family? :question:

Since your present relationship HAS survived long-distance, should we conclude that your fair lady has come to Moscow to live a happy and perfect childfree life together with you? Congrats if so!:)

Inola
29-09-2011, 23:14
Not really sure what you mean by that...

It's the reference to your first post where you wrote something like every woman should give birth to the first child before she is 30...


I am not judging anyone, I am judging this stupid childfree mentality.

Sorry, but this is complete BS... as if "stupid mentalities" existed independently in the air with no connection whatsoever to people who generated the idea (chose not to have children)... You are not only judging childless people for their life choices but also call them stupid just because you don't share (=understand) their view/choices...

So, who is stupid here? OK, not stupid, but not tolerant towards those thinking differently, being different?

I would rather describe racism, homophoebia etc as "stupid mentality"...It's about intolerance too...

xSnoofovich
29-09-2011, 23:50
That's great! Are you also a vegetarian as well? Any other hip "alternative" lifestyle choices that you've made which you want to tell us about?



yea, i read that post and thought - buzzword, cliche, buzzword, buzzword, cliche cliche cliche, buzzword.

xSnoofovich
29-09-2011, 23:52
Will there be any single comment about the men who choose not to be fathers?

I know lots of guys in their 30-40s that don't have kids and don't want to be married. They won't post cuz they are out getting some loving from the new girl of the night, or drinking.

The rest are gay.

justbe
29-09-2011, 23:54
I know lots of guys in their 30-40s that don't have kids and don't want to be married.

:545:

xSnoofovich
29-09-2011, 23:59
:545:

I would respond, but I don't even know what .gif means.

justbe
30-09-2011, 00:20
I would respond, but I don't even know what .gif means.

That means i am extremely worried.

andymackem
30-09-2011, 10:58
You are free to live your life as you see fit, and I am not judging you on that.

No, you're not. And words like 'meaningless' don't imply any kind of value judgement whatsoever. Just as words like 'drudgery' in respect of raising children imply no kind of value judgement, nor expressions like 'mindless drone' in terms of choosing to start a family because everyone seems to do it.


But still... it is the prime goal of all living things to put offspring on this planet. This is so important to most living things, that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives, to protect their offspring.
Humans are no different.

Err, that's not actually true though, is it?


In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of its own species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. Although human infanticide has been widely studied, the practice has been observed in many other species throughout the animal kingdom. These include microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals.[1] Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology))

So it would appear that many living things are perfectly willing to eliminate their own offspring to preserve their own position (known as filial infanticide). If animals are willing to kill their own young, it seems logical to conclude that it is not their 'prime goal' to put offspring on the planet. But that's the trouble with 'it's just natural' - turns out that nature isn't as much fun as we'd like it to be.

rusmeister
30-09-2011, 11:27
Amazing! Mr Zuzzon and I actually agree on something! It's a historical event - somebody write it down!! :P

Seriously, the thing that childless, er "childfree" people (who are also therefore love-free, company-free, maturity-free and free of many other good things that children bring) seem to miss above all is that if their parents had made the same "brave", "bold" decision, we would be free of their comments right now.

Or as SV said, ME ME ME I I I SELF SELF SELF - in the name of selflessness, yet.

martpark
30-09-2011, 11:31
Amazing! Mr Zuzzon and I actually agree on something! It's a historical event - somebody write it down!! :P

Seriously, the thing that childless, er "childfree" people (who are also therefore love-free, company-free, maturity-free and free of many other good things that children bring) seem to miss above all is that if their parents had made the same "brave", "bold" decision, we would be free of their comments right now.

Or as SV said, ME ME ME I I I SELF SELF SELF - in the name of selflessness, yet.

And how many children did Chesterton have exactly?

AstarD
30-09-2011, 11:42
Seriously, the thing that childless, er "childfree" people (who are also therefore love-free, company-free, maturity-free and free of many other good things that children bring) seem to miss above all is that if their parents had made the same "brave", "bold" decision, we would be free of their comments right now.Seems to me you're saying that childless people--whether they've made the choice or not to be childless are also therefore love-less, company-less, maturity-less and missing many other good things that children bring.

SV1973a
30-09-2011, 12:31
So it would appear that many living things are perfectly willing to eliminate their own offspring to preserve their own position (known as filial infanticide). If animals are willing to kill their own young, it seems logical to conclude that it is not their 'prime goal' to put offspring on the planet. But that's the trouble with 'it's just natural' - turns out that nature isn't as much fun as we'd like it to be.

Animals do not kill their OWN offspring. They kill the offspring from others, not their own.
When a lion takes command of a group of lionesses, he kills all the young lions (genes of his competitor), because otherwise the lionesses can not get pregnant again and carry `his` offspring.

mrzuzzo
30-09-2011, 12:42
I know lots of guys in their 30-40s that don't have kids and don't want to be married. They won't post cuz they are out getting some loving from the new girl of the night, or drinking.

I've known some guys like that... most are insecure about themselves and quite selfish.

I don't understand people that don't want to be married, or at least be in a monogamous long term relationship. There are feelings and emotions that only a true monogamous relationship can provide.

justbe
30-09-2011, 12:45
I don't understand people that don't want to be married, or at least be in a monogamous long term relationship. There are feelings and emotions that only a true monogamous relationship can provide.

Getting more respect from me, mr. Zuzzo!

Parco
30-09-2011, 12:54
And yet you were asking forum members for advice on how to attend speed-dating events and expressed the wish to meet a Russian girl who'll want you for what you are and not because of your foreign passport... to found a family and to be the pater (and grand pater) of the big Russian family? :question:

Since your present relationship HAS survived long-distance, should we conclude that your fair lady has come to Moscow to live a happy and perfect childfree life together with you? Congrats if so!:)

Without going into extremely personal details, there was a misunderstanding on my part :shame: (nobody is perfect), we fell out :(, we got back together and now both happy after sorting things out. :mml:

So to conclude:

I will not be requiring the services of any speed-dating company. :inlove:
'Childfree' is something I understand and support :agree: but as the saying goes "Never say never..."
I'm extremely lucky and happy to be back with my girlfriend :mml:

Krolick
30-09-2011, 13:22
I've known some guys like that... most are insecure about themselves and quite selfish.

I don't understand people that don't want to be married, or at least be in a monogamous long term relationship. There are feelings and emotions that only a true monogamous relationship can provide.

Won't agree and won't argue. Just remind me to ask you again after 7-10 years of a true monogamous relationship you'll have.

Nothing personal. I respect you, mrzuzzo, and your opinion. Seriously.

rusmeister
30-09-2011, 13:29
And how many children did Chesterton have exactly?
The question would be rather why they could't have children and what they tried to do to correct the situation. It was one of the tragedies of their life, so as a question, yours is not really on the mark.

rusmeister
30-09-2011, 13:38
Seems to me you're saying that childless people--whether they've made the choice or not to be childless are also therefore love-less, company-less, maturity-less and missing many other good things that children bring.

Seeming is not being.
I would say that to make such a choice, if you're not going into monastics, certainly does tend to lead to those things. People may not be able to, and for them it is generally a great source of sadness. But the choice not to is most often made out of selfish considerations, not because of inability or extraordinary life circumstances, and the general claim is that "I am not ready". The thing is, being "ready" is both undefinable (therefore I don't know what that means) and it is not a requirement for parenthood.

30 years from now, most here will no longer be able to choose - and I think they will discover that there is such a thing as "too late". And when friends have died or fallen away, and loneliness begins to creep in, the people who partied, clubbed and gamed away their lives will suddenly discover that they will, for he greater part, wish they had chosen differently.

mrzuzzo
30-09-2011, 14:56
Won't agree and won't argue. Just remind me to ask you again after 7-10 years of a true monogamous relationship you'll have.

Got out of a 6 years monogamous relationship earlier this year.. My opinion is still the same. What's your point?

If you seriously think that people can't be happy together past a fling or something short-term, then I pity you.

xSnoofovich
30-09-2011, 15:28
And when friends have died or fallen away, and loneliness begins to creep in, will suddenly discover that they will, for he greater part, wish they had chosen differently.

Brother, in 30 years, we will all live in a virtual or semi-virtual world. So this "loneliness" that you describe will be a well-defined business niche, and there is sure to be several companies that will help fill this "void".

I just yesterday read that-

Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, have reconstructed the internal “movie” that plays in a person’s head. To re-create dynamic visual experiences, they used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure the brain activity of volunteers (the other members of the research team) as they watched short movie clips (left panel in the video below). A computational model crunched the fMRI data to reproduce the images, as shown in the right panel.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/22/breakthrough-could-enable-others-to-watch-your-dreams-and-memories-video/

So, we will be able to resurrect our "long-lost" friends, and "live" new or "re-live" old adventures with them.

All virtually, of course, but, by that time, the lines will have been blurred enough so that no one will care.

AstarD
30-09-2011, 15:37
Seeming is not being.
I would say that to make such a choice, if you're not going into monastics, certainly does tend to lead to those things. People may not be able to, and for them it is generally a great source of sadness. But the choice not to is most often made out of selfish considerations, not because of inability or extraordinary life circumstances, and the general claim is that "I am not ready". The thing is, being "ready" is both undefinable (therefore I don't know what that means) and it is not a requirement for parenthood.

30 years from now, most here will no longer be able to choose - and I think they will discover that there is such a thing as "too late". And when friends have died or fallen away, and loneliness begins to creep in, the people who partied, clubbed and gamed away their lives will suddenly discover that they will, for he greater part, wish they had chosen differently.
How does becoming a religious not result in becoming a lonely old person?

Krolick
30-09-2011, 15:54
Got out of a 6 years monogamous relationship earlier this year.. My opinion is still the same. What's your point?

If you seriously think that people can't be happy together past a fling or something short-term, then I pity you.

Ok. just forget it. I already regret I made this post.
I put all my points before.
I'll have my happiness, you'll have yours. Deal?
(But I don't need anyone's pity...)

rusmeister
30-09-2011, 16:13
How does becoming a religious not result in becoming a lonely old person?
???
Who said anything about religion? (ie, what are you talking about?)

AstarD
30-09-2011, 16:14
Becoming a religious is entering the monastic life. Nuns and Monks are called "religious" as a noun.

re·li·gious (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religious)   /rɪˈlɪdʒəs/ Show Spelled [ri-lij-uhs] adjective, noun, plural -gious.
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
2. imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man.
3. scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care.
4. pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.
5. appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances.
noun
6. a member of a religious order, congregation, etc.; a monk, friar, or nun.
7. the religious, devout or religious persons: Each year, thousands of the religious make pilgrimages to the shrine.

mrzuzzo
30-09-2011, 16:37
Ok. just forget it. I already regret I made this post.
I put all my points before.
I'll have my happiness, you'll have yours. Deal?
(But I don't need anyone's pity...)

Deal. Let's agree to disagree. I'll have my happiness-filled life with children and a beautiful wife while you enjoy your forever alone lifestyle. :verycool:

xSnoofovich
30-09-2011, 16:43
I'll have my happiness-filled life with children and a beautiful wife

First, you have to get a wifey, bro ;b

mrzuzzo
30-09-2011, 16:52
First, you have to get a wifey, bro ;b

+1 bro. Working on that. Easy to find a girl, lots of candidates, but really hard to find someone who is wife material in this city. I'm getting there bro.

rusmeister
30-09-2011, 17:57
Brother, in 30 years, we will all live in a virtual or semi-virtual world. So this "loneliness" that you describe will be a well-defined business niche, and there is sure to be several companies that will help fill this "void".

I just yesterday read that-

Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, have reconstructed the internal “movie” that plays in a person’s head. To re-create dynamic visual experiences, they used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure the brain activity of volunteers (the other members of the research team) as they watched short movie clips (left panel in the video below). A computational model crunched the fMRI data to reproduce the images, as shown in the right panel.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/22/breakthrough-could-enable-others-to-watch-your-dreams-and-memories-video/

So, we will be able to resurrect our "long-lost" friends, and "live" new or "re-live" old adventures with them.

All virtually, of course, but, by that time, the lines will have been blurred enough so that no one will care.

That science will enable people to do foolish things does not make it desirable to do them.

We have learned to do a great many clever things. The next great task is to learn not to do them. G.K. Chesterton

Inola
30-09-2011, 18:48
Guys and girls,

While reading the last posts here, I noticed I bizarre assumption made by pro-children camp members:

- childfree people are immature clubbers or something of the kind who only care for themselves.. (Though I myself know several very respectable intelligent people who preferred to dedicate their lives to the things that they consider to be their dream/duty etc: science, music, travel...)

- childfree people are (or will end up) single/alone/miserable etc... (Same comment - married couples with no children, very happy together and not having dogs to compensate...)

And Mr Z,
Krolick wrote in the earlier posts, she is in a steady relationship with her man and they are living together.. What's so pitiful about that?

I understand that it's difficult to understand someone with desires/lifestyles/opinions which are opposite to your own... But why the hell trying to impose your views/lifestyles/opinions on them, let alone judging them and calling them immature, committent-phoebic, selfish, or simply stupid etc..?

They surely understand the risks (as you identify as such) to end up alone, regretting the childless and meaningless life...

So are you, people who decided to have children, should understand that you run the risk to:

- end up alone if your child passes away before you
- end up alone because your child decided to live abroad
- end up alone in a hospice or in the street (because you child decided to get rid of the old fart)
- raise a maniac or simply a not very nice person of whom you won't be very proud of
etc, etc

You may not understand, but you should at least try to tolerate and accept the idea of the other being different from you and having the right to be so!

Our society counts on you to teach your children to be respectful and tolerant members of the democratic society! To achieve that you should start from yourselves :)

mrzuzzo
30-09-2011, 18:56
blah blah blah

I don't think I said anything offensive... If I offended Krolick, I'm very sorry. Everyone has the right to their own opinion of course, but I strongly believe in what I have said here.

Besides, this country needs all the children it can get, the population is rapidly decreasing.

soprty
30-09-2011, 19:03
Besides, this country needs all the children it can get, the population is rapidly decreasing.

I agree with you Mr.Z as long as we don’t see an increase in kids in orphanages.

Inola
30-09-2011, 19:08
I don't think I said anything offensive...

Sounds to me as you did. And my blah-blah-blah as you call it is not resume of your posts only...


Everyone has the right to their own opinion of course, but I strongly believe in what I have said here.


Good for you! It's great that you really want to have children, care for them, teach them and enjoy yourself while doing all that.

Just try to show more respect to people who know for sure they don't want the same and that they wouldn't enjoy that kind of life, and knowing that make a mature responsible decision not to give birth.


Besides, this country needs all the children it can get, the population is rapidly decreasing.

Hope you'll find the love of your life and make your valuable contribution:)

mrzuzzo
30-09-2011, 19:10
All my words come off as offensive because I am blunt and straight to the f*ucking point. I didn't mean or want to offend anyone. I respect other people's opinions (most of the time).

rusmeister
30-09-2011, 19:35
Becoming a religious is entering the monastic life. Nuns and Monks are called "religious" as a noun.
I see what you are referring to. Sorry.

A monastic may be lonely. But in general, excluding hermits, who choose to be completely alone, monks and nuns generally live in a definite community, and spend their entire lives in communal living with similarly dedicated people, and part of their mission in life is ministry - to the elderly, widows, orphans and so on. But it is a special and rare calling, that most people are not cut out for.

Could they ever feel lonely? Certainly - if they cut themselves off, just as a married couple can close off to each other. But at least they have the opportunity to reach out to someone who is in some way bound to them. The people who have chosen to be free of ties all their lives cannot suddenly create them late in life. The older you get, the more difficult it becomes to establish such ties.

AstarD
30-09-2011, 19:44
You seem to be suggesting that having children is the only way for people to have ties with people. What about friends? What about church? What about clubs? What about the rest of your family? No man is an island.

Religious are not the only ones who choose to minister to the poor or old or lonely.

If I choose to make ties, it does not necessarily have to be by making children. Thank the Lord for that in my own case anyway, because I'd be very sad if that was the only way my life could have meaning.

rusmeister
30-09-2011, 19:45
Guys and girls,

While reading the last posts here, I noticed I bizarre assumption made by pro-children camp members:

- childfree people are immature clubbers or something of the kind who only care for themselves.. (Though I myself know several very respectable intelligent people who preferred to dedicate their lives to the things that they consider to be their dream/duty etc: science, music, travel...)

- childfree people are (or will end up) single/alone/miserable etc... (Same comment - married couples with no children, very happy together and not having dogs to compensate...)

And Mr Z,
Krolick wrote in the earlier posts, she is in a steady relationship with her man and they are living together.. What's so pitiful about that?

I understand that it's difficult to understand someone with desires/lifestyles/opinions which are opposite to your own... But why the hell trying to impose your views/lifestyles/opinions on them, let alone judging them and calling them immature, committent-phoebic, selfish, or simply stupid etc..?

They surely understand the risks (as you identify as such) to end up alone, regretting the childless and meaningless life...

So are you, people who decided to have children, should understand that you run the risk to:

- end up alone if your child passes away before you
- end up alone because your child decided to live abroad
- end up alone in a hospice or in the street (because you child decided to get rid of the old fart)
- raise a maniac or simply a not very nice person of whom you won't be very proud of
etc, etc

You may not understand, but you should at least try to tolerate and accept the idea of the other being different from you and having the right to be so!

Our society counts on you to teach your children to be respectful and tolerant members of the democratic society! To achieve that you should start from yourselves :)
inola, I'd ask you what the motivation is of a genuinely mature adult couple that refuses to have children when it is e most natural thing in the world. It is something they must make special effort to avoid, presumably for their whole lives, as a deliberate choice. What are the real reasons for wanting to be childless when you don't have to be? I can't think of many good one's that aren't specially selfish. Most motivations today come down to that. (I'll grant possible exceptions and then insist that they are exceptional; that most people do not fit such bills.)

I don't want to be "tolerated". I want to be loved. Toleration is, at best indifference, when it is not masked hostility. And indifference is the true opposite to love.

In short, most cases where people deliberately avoid birth are neither mature nor responsible. (Note I do say "most")

Those of us with children are the one's forced to become responsible and mature, because we have to put ourselves second, and that is the entire issue for nearly all cases of child avoidance. The people who want to be childless are generally the people who do not want to take responsibility or maturity.

It is true that children may become lost or estranged. But the main point at you seem to miss is that the possibility exists that they will not, especially if you love them and do not estrange yourself from them. The possibility does not exist for the couple that refused children in the first place.

rusmeister
30-09-2011, 19:48
You seem to be suggesting that having children is the only way for people to have ties with people. What about friends? What about church? What about clubs? What about the rest of your family? No man is an island.

Religious are not the only ones who choose to minister to the poor or old or lonely.

If I choose to make ties, it does not necessarily have to be by making children. Thank the Lord for that in my own case anyway, because I'd be very sad if that was the only way my life could have meaning.

The truth is that over time, 30, 40 pr 50 years, friends generally fall away, churches and clubs- ditto. It is blood ties that are the most secure, the most difficult to shake or deny, and that command the greatest loyalty. And friends go home. You are still left alone at the end of the day, and thirty years later, you're grateful if you can see your old friends x number of times a year - at best.

Krolick
30-09-2011, 19:50
I don't think I said anything offensive... If I offended Krolick, I'm very sorry. Everyone has the right to their own opinion of course, but I strongly believe in what I have said here.


Peace.
I rely on my intuition that tells me in the very core you are a good man and don't mean to offend.
I hope you'll be a happy father as soon as possible!

BabyFirefly
30-09-2011, 19:52
I used to want to be childfree, then I found out I have a condition that will make it next to impossible for me to have kids... and of course now I want children so badly I get teary over it.

That being said, I think many people have kids they shouldn't have, because they are terrible parents, and they had kids because it would "fix" their marriage/pressure/etc. I wish those people would've chosen to be childfree instead of giving a terrible life to people who didn't chose to be born.

rusmeister
30-09-2011, 20:08
I used to want to be childfree, then I found out I have a condition that will make it next to impossible for me to have kids... and of course now I want children so badly I get teary over it.

That being said, I think many people have kids they shouldn't have, because they are terrible parents, and they had kids because it would "fix" their marriage/pressure/etc. I wish those people would've chosen to be childfree instead of giving a terrible life to people who didn't chose to be born.

I think that when you put the question to people who grew up in dysfunctional families, they pretty much always express a preference for life over death/non-existence. This whole idea that such children would be better off having never been born springs from a pity for unhappy circumstances, but completely over blows those circumstances against life itself, something most people are willing to put up with fairly awful circumstances in order to maintain. Iow, life, even in unhappy families, is preferable to no life.

Inola
30-09-2011, 20:52
inola, I'd ask you what the motivation is of a genuinely mature adult couple that refuses to have children when it is e most natural thing in the world. It is something they must make special effort to avoid, presumably for their whole lives, as a deliberate choice. What are the real reasons for wanting to be childless when you don't have to be? I can't think of many good one's that aren't specially selfish. Most motivations today come down to that. (I'll grant possible exceptions and then insist that they are exceptional; that most people do not fit such bills.)


I can't speak for all childless couples as wouldn't question them on such private subjects as "special effort to avoid" and wouldn't make them explain/justify to me their life choices.. Whenever I meet childless people (both single or in couples) and the subject is brought, I hear them say different things (depending on people and situation), but a simple "because I simply don't want to have children" is OK for me.

I am really glad when I see an expecting couple, happy and looking forward to meeting their baby.. But sadly, there are lots of people around that are far from what I would call a good parent.

And I can only respect people who are conscious about their inability/lack of any desire/maturity (for young people) to have and raise children. It's better this way than seeing dysfunctional families with neurotic or indifferent parents and abandoned/left to themselves children.

That's why I call the Childfree people mature and responsible, because they are. If you don't want to have children - don't!

And don't get me wrong, I don't imply that any childfree person would make a bad parent, I just think that every child should be wanted and have the chance to be born and raised in a family with a pair of 2 loving parents (and possibly 2 sets of grandparents, aunts, etc) for whom this child will be the center of the universe and the essence of their living.

So, how can one blame for not wanting to have children those who don't want at all/are not ready yet to be the right kind of parent(s)?

Inola
30-09-2011, 21:08
I don't want to be "tolerated". I want to be loved. Toleration is, at best indifference, when it is not masked hostility. And indifference is the true opposite to love.


I'm talking about different kind of tolerance here, and you know that..

There are things and attitudes that I can't tolerate: things like racism.. Tolerating this type of behavior is BAD.

When it comes to different of mine opinions/personal life choice when this opinion does not deprive me or others, what's bad about that? This type of tolerance is RESPECT, neither indifference, nor hostility. Not respecting people for their personal life choices is same kind of BAD intolerance as any type of discrimination to me..

Carl
30-09-2011, 21:58
The Idea of having children for the sake of having children is ludicrous. Just because you CAN have children, by no means means you should!

..wanna do something really selfless?? Adopt a child!!
There are hundreds of thousands of childern in need of a loving home.

rusmeister
30-09-2011, 23:54
I can't speak for all childless couples as wouldn't question them on such private subjects as "special effort to avoid" and wouldn't make them explain/justify to me their life choices.. Whenever I meet childless people (both single or in couples) and the subject is brought, I hear them say different things (depending on people and situation), but a simple "because I simply don't want to have children" is OK for me.

I am really glad when I see an expecting couple, happy and looking forward to meeting their baby.. But sadly, there are lots of people around that are far from what I would call a good parent.

And I can only respect people who are conscious about their inability/lack of any desire/maturity (for young people) to have and raise children. It's better this way than seeing dysfunctional families with neurotic or indifferent parents and abandoned/left to themselves children.:lowdown

That's why I call the Childfree people mature and responsible, because they are. If you don't want to have children - don't!

And don't get me wrong, I don't imply that any childfree person would make a bad parent, I just think that every child should be wanted and have the chance to be born and raised in a family with a pair of 2 loving parents (and possibly 2 sets of grandparents, aunts, etc) for whom this child will be the center of the universe and the essence of their living.

So, how can one blame for not wanting to have children those who don't want at all/are not ready yet to be the right kind of parent(s)?

I don't think you've really grasped what I've already said. I would just have to repeat myself. On the first point, you essentially say " I don't want to know their reasons." I say " I KNOW their reasons (generally speaking) and they are by and large selfish as I described, and therefore the very opposite of mature and responsible.

And when you say "someone is "not ready", what in the heck does that mean? Do we need a war and imminent threat to the entire population for people to simply step up to the plate and get ready? There's little you can do to " get ready" and I say this having had four children of my own. The expression means nothing; it is completely undefined. Pioneers had babies at 15. It was merely a matter of social necessity. The baby is coming and there is no alternative but to get ready. It may be less than 100% jolliness, it means sleepless nights and self- sacrifice, but a 15- yr old can do it in wartime conditions, so a 25-yr old has no excuse at all. Or rather the excuses are just that - and rather flimsy one's at that. The idea that you need to have perfect conditions to have a child is sheer nonsense. You will never have perfect conditions, and when you have conditions that you once set, you will find other excuses, until it is too late and you do have a regret that is worse than having and raising a child.

I would suggest that your parents retroactively take your advice and refuse to have you. Then there would be no argument from your side because there would be no you. But I'm not sure you will understand my point if you haven't already. Nevertheless, that is what this idea of childlessness is. It is about preserving life to ME alone; to apply a rule to others that I decidedly do not want applied to my own case.

Oh, and Carl, we are not suggesting what you claim; that's a straw man. We are talking about REFUSING to have children PERIOD even though you can.

Parco
01-10-2011, 01:46
Perhaps I should introduce a new word to peoples' vocabulary here... Asexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :ok:

:mml:

Perhaps one of the many reasons why grown-ups decide to be childfree.

rusmeister
01-10-2011, 05:40
..wanna do something really selfless?? Adopt a child!!
There are hundreds of thousands of childern in need of a loving home.
That proves my point. The selfless, mature and responsible thing will be done precisely by people who have not proudly declared their intent to be "child-free".

Inola
01-10-2011, 10:36
I don't think you've really grasped what I've already said. I would just have to repeat myself. On the first point, you essentially say " I don't want to know their reasons." I say " I KNOW their reasons (generally speaking) and they are by and large selfish as I described, and therefore the very opposite of mature and responsible.

I have 2 close friends (girls of my age) who claim they don't want children as they don't feel any inclination, any calling, any feeling of tenderness when they see babies.. I can't relate (because it's vice-a-versa with me) but neither can I imagine them to be mothers.. They are neither immature, nor selfish.


And when you say "someone is "not ready", what in the heck does that mean? ... You will never have perfect conditions, and when you have conditions that you once set, you will find other excuses, until it is too late and you do have a regret that is worse than having and raising a child.

Bringing a child into this world is a serious and long engagement.. There are certain conditions that are to be there before you even think of having children, like a reliable partner that will make a good and supportive parent.


I would suggest that your parents retroactively take your advice and refuse to have you. Then there would be no argument from your side because there would be no you.

What advice? What are you talking about? I am not advising anybody not to have children.. I was wanted, so as my younger sister, and we have always felt and known that! And I wish it be the case for all children in this world.


But I'm not sure you will understand my point if you haven't already. Nevertheless, that is what this idea of childlessness is. It is about preserving life to ME alone; to apply a rule to others that I decidedly do not want applied to my own case.

Exactly my point! You wanted to have children and you have them.. This is great! You live the life you want to have and seem to be happy about that!
So, why do you refuse to other people the life they want? Moreover, why do you think they should explain/excuse themselves and give reasons for not wanting same thing as you? Why are you "applying your rule to their cases"?

I understand you perfectly well.. Still, I think everybody has the right to live the life he/she wants to live, with or without children. Telling them they are wrong is disrespectful and pointless.

Carl
01-10-2011, 19:22
Oh, and Carl, we are not suggesting what you claim; that's a straw man. We are talking about REFUSING to have children PERIOD even though you can.

No staws here my man....


I strongly believe that every woman should have at least one child before reaching the age of 30...

..And as you say you're talking about refusing to have childern PERIOD even though you can,...you're really saying every woman capable of having a child should..no? Or I'm I missing something??

rusmeister
01-10-2011, 23:20
No staws here my man....



..And as you say you're talking about refusing to have childern PERIOD even though you can,...you're really saying every woman capable of having a child should..no? Or I'm I missing something??

Every COUPLE. Presupposing the existence of family here.

I can envision exceptions. The trouble with allowing for exceptions (in human affairs in general) is that so many people rush to get themselves declared as such who really don't qualify. People generally tend to see their own case as exceptional when most in fact are not. In short, exceptions will be few and far between.

rusmeister
02-10-2011, 11:00
I have 2 close friends (girls of my age) who claim they don't want children as they don't feel any inclination, any calling, any feeling of tenderness when they see babies.. I can't relate (because it's vice-a-versa with me) but neither can I imagine them to be mothers.. They are neither immature, nor selfish.

When I speak of immaturity and selfishness, I am speaking of it in this particular regard. There may be other ways in which such people are quite mature and selfless; to those ways I do not speak. It is very easy to imagine any normal healthy adult woman becoming a mother - if they become pregnant, then the process has been launched. As to tenderness, my general experience is that women find it with their own first child, even if they did not feel it beforehand. Again, I'd ask the reasons for avoiding childbirth if they are married to a normal, decent man who has made a lifetime commitment to them - being uninterested in those reasons is merely avoiding the whole issue; certainly it is a refusal to examine the very thing that I claim.


Bringing a child into this world is a serious and long engagement.. There are certain conditions that are to be there before you even think of having children, like a reliable partner that will make a good and supportive parent.

Of course, and I take that as a given. I am certainly not saying that all adult woman everywhere should give birth; only that a married couple that does have that commitment should not refuse the most important purpose of marriage - that of establishing a family.


What advice? What are you talking about? I am not advising anybody not to have children.. I was wanted, so as my younger sister, and we have always felt and known that! And I wish it be the case for all children in this world.

What I meant was that if your parents had made such a decision, you would not be here to express your respect for people who make such decisions. You would be unable to express support for not having children - something that we ourselves were, though we tend to forget and to speak of them as little aliens unrelated to us.


Exactly my point! You wanted to have children and you have them.. This is great! You live the life you want to have and seem to be happy about that!
So, why do you refuse to other people the life they want? Moreover, why do you think they should explain/excuse themselves and give reasons for not wanting same thing as you? Why are you "applying your rule to their cases"?


One of the things people who are capable of having children, in the normal arrangement of marriage - and choose not to - are doing is to refuse to those little people (that the couple COULD have) the life those people would certainly want if they had it.

The answer to your last question is that there is the normal experience of humanity throughout history. People, in general, have never refused to have children. It is a sign of decadence when they do, and a society where it becomes fashionable is a society that is doomed, and the society that discourages it that is the one that is likely to thrive. The flip side is revealed in the shrinking demographics, well-known in Russia as the demographic crisis, but visible everywhere and encouraged by our capitalist plutocracies, whether it is encroachment of Mexicans into the US or Asians and people of the Caucuses into Russia or Muslims into Europe, and the people whose ancestors built the civilizations (Christian ones, by the way) that everyone seeks to immigrate to and take part in become minorities in the country of their ancestors, and a primary factor is in their not having children, in the race for a better material life and pleasure, because they have forgotten/abandoned the philosophy of their ancestors and embraced simple materialism - seeking the pleasures of this life.

Why do I ask their reasons? Because they do not tell, and I think that 95 out of a hundred couples have the reason of shame for not saying - or even thinking out for themselves - the purpose of their decision. I do not think most to be deliberately and consciously choosing evil or even selfishness (which are mostly the same thing). It is, for the most part, a simplistic formula: I want a better life for myself, I want to have fun, I don't want burdens or responsibilities in my life, I want to have a good time, I, I, I, I...

And so we allow foreigners with foreign philosophies and worldviews to come in and dominate our countries as we become less and less able to dominate them ourselves. And children are key to such future passing on of all that is good in our traditions and maintaining what our ancestors earned for us through the shouldering of responsibility rather than its evasion.


I understand you perfectly well.. Still, I think everybody has the right to live the life he/she wants to live, with or without children.


And that is the essence of selfishness, what Christians describe as the Fall of man, the turning inward toward the self and away from God (and by extension, others)
I do agree with the sentiment that people should be free to make choices. We do agree on free will. But is the choice a person makes good or bad? Is it harmful to himself (herself) or others? Can there be harm that one might not be able to perceive? Can a person be wrong in making a choice? (if you answer other than 'yes' to that last question, I don't think we can talk at all)


Telling them they are wrong is disrespectful and pointless.
If I pretend to care about people, should I ever tell them that a choice, at least in the abstract, is or can be wrong? Is it disrespectful, for example, to tell a smoker that smoking cigarettes might be dangerous for their health? Is it pointless to tell someone that they are wrong? If we love someone, we will not be indifferent to their choices. Love desires the improvement of the beloved, and so it cannot mean always vapidly approving of whatever the person we love might choose. True respect sometimes means TELLING them, because respect means regard, and both 'spect' and 'gard' mean to LOOK at the person, to consider and therefore care about them.

Inola
02-10-2011, 11:58
Maybe I am too much of a individual human rights' advocate.. I still think that childfree people are not to give us any excuses, nor to give their reasons for not having children. It's their personal business.

Free will - yes, not everybody is the same. Having children for you means happiness, for them is sacrifice.

My attitude is respect, not indifference. My smoking friends know it all and are not stupid.. I don't lecture them out of respect, not indifference.

Comparing voluntary childlessness to smoking though is too much... Smoking is unhealthy at any rate, but having children is not an absolute good (lots of examples sited in this thread - bad parents, little Africans dying of hunger..)

I see your point, but still can't agree with all you say...Thank you for the effort, rusmeister. Reading your posts is enjoyable, no matter what you write in there:)

sashadidi
02-10-2011, 12:29
Oh, my whole family. My mom keeps on telling me she want to be a grandmother and sometimes she says she wants to feel what it is like to be a grandmother before she dies, etc
My grandmother says that it is not normal (не по-людски) to live with a man and not to have children from him.
All my aunts and cousins ask me "why not still" every time I come to my native town.
Even my dad once had "a serious conversation" with me saying "time is pressing, it is time to think".
Oh, and add some of my family friends and colleagues.

With me it works vice versa. The more I am pressed, the more I rebel. That's what I am.
I suggest put them off by saying something like I had tests etc and "Sadly I am barren" then you get the opposite effect lots of sympathy!! worked for my cousin!!!!

sashadidi
02-10-2011, 12:43
Way out of range. What presuppositions did you have when you asked that? I am 39, and loving life far more than any parent I know.

I am the parent of a Autistic 10 year old boy and I get 4 hours sleep a night but I can tell you every single day of my life is filled with wonder at new things and unconditional love from my child and my lovely wife, sad you say being a parent means you cannot love life (if I understand you correctly within the limits of a forum message) and I give time to help other children as well the same as my son so its possible to be a parent and help others besides your own child.

Carl
02-10-2011, 13:58
Every COUPLE. Presupposing the existence of family here.

I can envision exceptions. The trouble with allowing for exceptions (in human affairs in general) is that so many people rush to get themselves declared as such who really don't qualify. People generally tend to see their own case as exceptional when most in fact are not. In short, exceptions will be few and far between.

Sorry Dude... Saying every couple (regardless of the existence of 'family' as you say) should have children, is well, borderline lunacy. Some people are just not cut-out for parenthood.. but under your guise, they should have children. That really is just plan crazy talk. As one poster here already mentioned, the world is over populated as it is. To add to our numbers on earth, just because one is physically able, is wildly irresponsible. I mean no disrespect here...but are you part of some fringe religious group or something? I'm just interested in the basis for your believes.

rusmeister
02-10-2011, 17:26
Maybe I am too much of a individual human rights' advocate.. I still think that childfree people are not to give us any excuses, nor to give their reasons for not having children. It's their personal business.

Free will - yes, not everybody is the same. Having children for you means happiness, for them is sacrifice.

My attitude is respect, not indifference. My smoking friends know it all and are not stupid.. I don't lecture them out of respect, not indifference.

Comparing voluntary childlessness to smoking though is too much... Smoking is unhealthy at any rate, but having children is not an absolute good (lots of examples sited in this thread - bad parents, little Africans dying of hunger..)

I see your point, but still can't agree with all you say...Thank you for the
effort, rusmeister. Reading your posts is enjoyable, no matter what you write in there:)
Thanks much, Inola!

I agree with you on lecturing - of course, we happen to be discussing this where the question has been raised and some of us, at any rate, are interested in the truth, whatever it might be, and whether it will please us or not, so this, at any rate, doesn't fall in the category of undesired lectures. (Funny how the very word is mostly used negatively, when traditionally they were serious things given by people of genuine knowledge whichdrew people to lecture halls...)

I think the most important problem of modern times is confusing general rules and exceptions- we tend to take exceptions for alternative rules; I do not think we are alone in this; it seems to be a universal trait in our time. The media do much to magnify this by reporting news, showing films, etc, which essentially by definition are about the sensational and exceptional, not the mundane. So sad stories about children in Africa are exceptional, as are stories of deeply unhappy children in deeply unhappy families. The rule is that children ARE a blessing and a positive thing, and the people who talk most about choosing not to have them are the people most capable of providing a decent life in material terms, a decent education and so on. (Although education is no predicate of happiness either, and the impoverished guttersnipe has just as strong a preference for life over non-existence as the child of the upper-middle class soccer mom.)

If you enjoy reading me (although I find myself a bit boring; it is the topics that are fascinating), you would LOVE GK Chesterton. He's someone that needs to be discovered, because it's a sure bet you were not introduced to him in your lit classes. The problem I have in introducing him is analogous to the problem you would have in trying to tell people about Shakespeare in a world that had never heard of him. Chesterton.org is the best place to go, or get a varied sample of his quotations for a first taste. The man who said things like, "We have learned to do a great many clever things. The next great task is to learn not to do them." is worth a first, and second, and third look. (I should say that I encountered CS Lewis first, which made it easier for me to grasp Chesterton, a 300-lb man who smoked cigars, laughed through his moustache and played with children every chance he got, even though his wife proved unable to bear children.) that's who you see in my avatar, by the way.

rusmeister
02-10-2011, 23:33
Sorry Dude... Saying every couple (regardless of the existence of 'family' as you say) should have children, is well, borderline lunacy. Some people are just not cut-out for parenthood.. but under your guise, they should have children. That really is just plan crazy talk. As one poster here already mentioned, the world is over populated as it is. To add to our numbers on earth, just because one is physically able, is wildly irresponsible. I mean no disrespect here...but are you part of some fringe religious group or something? I'm just interested in the basis for your believes.

Hi Carl,
I had typed out a response, only to have my Safari on my iPad crash and lose everything... (I wish I had a browser that didn't reload the darn page unless I wanted it to)
I also find typos when the spellchecker automatically changes what I wrote into something stupid or ungrammatical. OK, enough kicking my (1st gen) iPad...

Last question first - I'm an Orthodox Christian, and an American living here permanently. Not fringe, certainly not here for sure... So you can check what the Church teaches and I'll say "Yep..." when you want to know where I'm coming from (and it's not blind, but a heavily thought-out faith).

As to whether my position is lunacy or not, if you don't know the basis on which I hold it you might have some difficulty proving it. You might be forced to revise your opinion, at least a little. I, on the other hand, am quite familiar with the ideas you express, for they are expressed on every street corner and pass for conventional wisdom - although I question the validity of the last word regarding that view. The ideas you hold originate, in English culture anyway, with a man named Malthus (which might have some running to Wikipedia for fast knowledge - rather like the relationship between fast-food and food prepared properly at home).

Only Malthus was wrong, and it is amazingly easy to prove. He was wrong, both in his moral position/philosophy and in his predictions. One need only point out that he had predicted that the world would not be able to support its population by the end of the 19th century - something that we can see from our perspective as patently false to show that he was not exactly a master of prediction.
On his moral philosophy, I need only point to Charles Dickens and "A Christmas Carol". We ALL agree that Scrooge was wicked and selfish in his indifference to the plight of the poor in the workhouses, and his "If they are going to die, they had better do it and reduce the surplus population" has us all condemning him. But Scrooge was only speaking the words of Malthus. That IS what Malthus said, and that IS the logic of the idea that a decidedly concrete we mustn't have children because a rather abstract population will overcrowd the world. You see, the moral failure comes in at the point where we exclude OURSELVES from the population to be reduced. We imagine ourselves (or fail to see that that is what we are doing when we talk like that) as part of an exclusive elite, rather like the elite in the film 2012, deciding who would live or die, rather than as part of the unlucky buggers who went down with Los Angeles (or whatever). We do not question whether we should exclude ourselves in order to reduce the surplus population, and until we put our names first on the list to be reduced, we had better keep silence on that point if we want to pretend to be moral.

There are natural factors that ensure that we won't overpopulate the earth anyway. Besides the obvious inconvenience of death - which science is NOT going to "fix" anytime soon - or ever, in my firm opinion - there is the inconvenient fact of human nature; we would say "Fallen nature" that works to screw ourselves over without the need to try to "control populations" (which always means ME as separate from the population). "Population control" is just an evil euphemism for an elite deciding the question of who will live and who will die - and who will be born, of course. It is an attack both on democracy and on human freedom. It denies, as China does, the freedom to a couple to decide to give birth (whereas I do NOT propose forcing couples to have children), to bring life into the world, because some elite considers it a threat to them. And it probably is - to said elite. A population that is not controlled tends to resist tyranny.

Also, I would ask for a clear definition on what "being cut out for parenthood" means. I find it difficult to see how it can mean other than, in 99% of all imaginable cases, selfishness and irresponsibility; a desire to shirk responsibility and not pass on the favor that your own parents passed on to you. And as I said to Inola, I am sure all of us think, in our sober and sane moments, that we are certainly better off alive than dead or non-existent.

That may be 'borderline lunacy', but if it is, I would tremble to think what sanity must then be.

When I was in my late thirties, some ten years ago, I had an experience a bit like Neo in "The Matrix". It was Lewis that, like Morpheus, freed my mind. I now see that we have all been deprived of our common sense, have lost touch with understanding what our ancestors believe and now hold the insane idea, the wet dream of every teenager, that we know better than they did (I speak in terms of morality and philosophy rather than technology), and we have, via our mass schooling and the media, been fed a lot of uncommon nonsense. I don't think realizing that makes me better than others. Just luckier, maybe. Except that I no longer believe in luck, and have returned to the far more rational idea of providence.

rusmeister
02-10-2011, 23:37
I am the parent of a Autistic 10 year old boy and I get 4 hours sleep a night but I can tell you every single day of my life is filled with wonder at new things and unconditional love from my child and my lovely wife, sad you say being a parent means you cannot love life (if I understand you correctly within the limits of a forum message) and I give time to help other children as well the same as my son so its possible to be a parent and help others besides your own child.
Hi Sasha!

Бог в помощь Вам!

My mom (after raising 5 kids of her own) adopted a boy with spina bifida from Mexico, reversing some of the ills inflicted on the baby by his alcoholic drug-addicted mother (who also had ills inflicted on her, to be sure) who had abandoned him at a Catholic orphanage. (Funny how those Christian organizations tend to do the most in terms of aiding others; the old idea of charity, with hospitals and orphanages resulting.)

Anyway, I have some conception of the difficulties you face.

yakspeare
03-10-2011, 07:24
Now I don't especially understand people who have a long term desire to be childfree, but I do respect their choice. Perhaps some are being utterly selfish, but yet others could very well be totally selfless in this act:knowing they would not be especially good parents, knowing the financial cost would mean the child would suffer etc. Generally though the poor seem to have little trouble having children and still surviving.

As for me, well I have two children of my own who I don't see. It is not my decision and breaks my heart each day. it is one of the reasons I left Australia, the pain was and is too much. I got married at 20 and had 2 kids by my divorce at 25. In australia the children lived , bascially, as far away from me as possible, taking days of driving and a lot of money just to see them for 15 minutes at a time at mcdonalds.

I feel robbed of seeing my children grow up, but they have also been robbed of a father. When I was divorced the rules were very different-with custody going to one parent. I was still in the Navy, with a year before I could leave. Now, under the new rules, I get 50% contact and the children can't move away without my permission. I probably would of been content in life to be a part time Dad I guess....but a non dad-who sees the children once a year like santa claus-is not for me.

I then was in a relationship with a wonderful girl for 4 years. She had a few issues, but overal it was great. but she didn't want marriage and she didn't want kids. Despite this she got pregnant twice and we lost both of them. She smoked and drank all through both pregnancies. But it wasn't an inability to have kids-I would have adopted-but her lack of genuine desire to want them. She liked dogs and sure enough she is with a childless man and have a big labrador and living the life she wants.

I had to break up with her , which was very difficult and cost me everything, simply because I wanted to have kids. Many say but you have kids already? I say....yes tht is true, and I hope as adults I can have some sort of relationship with them but for now I can't and it isn't my choice at all....and I want the joy of watching children grow, helping with homework, watch them do sports or play an instrument. For me, and this is just my opinion, there is little life without children. Again this about myself, but I am sure many echo these thoughts. but still i respect that others think differently.

I think the real tragedy for many in Russia(and perhaps in the west too) is that there are not enough marriage minded AND good trustworthy, honest men for a woman to say ok and let's have children. For the most part I do not blame a woman in being childfree, I think it mostly falls on either the man-or how men have treated the woman in the past.

As for the comments about seeing children in refugee camps, and saying the world is overpopulated(and therefore you won't have children)-I say this: who will help in those refugee camps when you are gone? who will carry the torch for the next generation? If you had a child you could install your compassion and love within him/her and being in the more affluent west-provide this child with the education and chances so they would not be like a starving refugee, but indeed the doctor/social worker etc who helps those in suffering. From your example I think you have a greater need for children than even the rest of us.

and yes consider the orphans here too, guys....something very close to my heart. and indeed most aren't orphans at all-some 80% If i recall correctly are abandoned with living parents. One of my Aunts and two of my closest cousins were adopted. I would love to adopt a child here myself at some point. But it is a sad legacy of Russia to have so many Orphans and such a low birthrate in general. There has to be a lot more down for families here.

Krolick
03-10-2011, 10:48
I suggest put them off by saying something like I had tests etc and "Sadly I am barren" then you get the opposite effect lots of sympathy!! worked for my cousin!!!!

Oh, you just don't know my mom! If I say I am barren, then I'll have as much attention as no-one in this world can tolerate with)) Constant talks like "Oh, you know I read an article and..." or "I know the clinic and..." or "And a friend of a friend of a friend visited that doctor and..." etc.

We live in different cities and that's quite enough))
And to all my friends, cousins, aunts, co-workers I reply (to the question "When at last?") - when it naturally happens)) Usually it works.

justbe
03-10-2011, 11:12
Oh, you just don't know my mom! If I say I am barren, then I'll have as much attention as no-one in this world can tolerate with)) Constant talks like "Oh, you know I read an article and..." or "I know the clinic and..." or "And a friend of a friend of a friend visited that doctor and..." etc.

We live in different cities and that's quite enough))
And to all my friends, cousins, aunts, co-workers I reply (to the question "When at last?") - when it naturally happens)) Usually it works.

Can an ordinary answer «It's not your business, honey!» work?

Krolick
03-10-2011, 12:29
Can an ordinary answer «It's not your business, honey!» work?

With my mom - no. She will be offended. As well as other family members.
Poking noses in my private life is considered as concern and care. I just accepted it, cos I can't change my mom. No-one can.

justbe
03-10-2011, 18:53
With my mom - no. She will be offended. As well as other family members.
Poking noses in my private life is considered as concern and care. I just accepted it, cos I can't change my mom. No-one can.

Mothers oh mothers! Mine got so the-same-question curious, that my older bro stopped introducing new GFs to her and for 3 or 4 years «stayed single».

natlee
03-10-2011, 22:06
Yak - wow... but I'm confused. Would you mind a couple questions on the matter? PM/FB if you prefer.. only if that's ok!

As for the rest of the thread... I read a good book once on this, have a feeling I might not have it back still after 'lending' it to a friend! (5-6 yrs ago ;) ) Point is, I'm a bit more understanding of childFREE since.. not FULLY understanding though... :) Some want fame, some want fun... me, I never wanted anything but a loving husband and a couple of kids.. now, I'd like nothing more than to give my daughter a brother or a sister, and I'm hopeful.. ))

TolkoRaz
03-10-2011, 22:20
Oh, you just don't know my mom! If I say I am barren, then I'll have as much attention as no-one in this world can tolerate with)) Constant talks like "Oh, you know I read an article and..." or "I know the clinic and..." or "And a friend of a friend of a friend visited that doctor and..." etc.

We live in different cities and that's quite enough))
And to all my friends, cousins, aunts, co-workers I reply (to the question "When at last?") - when it naturally happens)) Usually it works.

When asked, just tell them that you don't want to loose your gorgeous figure! ;)

:queen:

Krolick
03-10-2011, 23:02
When asked, just tell them that you don't want to loose your gorgeous figure! ;)

:queen:

Well, first, thank you for the compliment (have we met?;) and second - not an option because my mom in her 50s look perfect (honestly). That's genes. So, the answer will be - You won't loose it, honey, look at me))

natlee - If you have questions, I don't mind. PM.

rusmeister
04-10-2011, 06:35
Now I don't especially understand people who have a long term desire to be childfree, but I do respect their choice. Perhaps some are being utterly selfish, but yet others could very well be totally selfless in this act:knowing they would not be especially good parents, knowing the financial cost would mean the child would suffer etc. Generally though the poor seem to have little trouble having children and still surviving.

As for me, well I have two children of my own who I don't see. It is not my decision and breaks my heart each day. it is one of the reasons I left Australia, the pain was and is too much. I got married at 20 and had 2 kids by my divorce at 25. In australia the children lived , bascially, as far away from me as possible, taking days of driving and a lot of money just to see them for 15 minutes at a time at mcdonalds.

I feel robbed of seeing my children grow up, but they have also been robbed of a father. When I was divorced the rules were very different-with custody going to one parent. I was still in the Navy, with a year before I could leave. Now, under the new rules, I get 50% contact and the children can't move away without my permission. I probably would of been content in life to be a part time Dad I guess....but a non dad-who sees the children once a year like santa claus-is not for me.

I then was in a relationship with a wonderful girl for 4 years. She had a few issues, but overal it was great. but she didn't want marriage and she didn't want kids. Despite this she got pregnant twice and we lost both of them. She smoked and drank all through both pregnancies. But it wasn't an inability to have kids-I would have adopted-but her lack of genuine desire to want them. She liked dogs and sure enough she is with a childless man and have a big labrador and living the life she wants.

I had to break up with her , which was very difficult and cost me everything, simply because I wanted to have kids. Many say but you have kids already? I say....yes tht is true, and I hope as adults I can have some sort of relationship with them but for now I can't and it isn't my choice at all....and I want the joy of watching children grow, helping with homework, watch them do sports or play an instrument. For me, and this is just my opinion, there is little life without children. Again this about myself, but I am sure many echo these thoughts. but still i respect that others think differently.

I think the real tragedy for many in Russia(and perhaps in the west too) is that there are not enough marriage minded AND good trustworthy, honest men for a woman to say ok and let's have children. For the most part I do not blame a woman in being childfree, I think it mostly falls on either the man-or how men have treated the woman in the past.

As for the comments about seeing children in refugee camps, and saying the world is overpopulated(and therefore you won't have children)-I say this: who will help in those refugee camps when you are gone? who will carry the torch for the next generation? If you had a child you could install your compassion and love within him/her and being in the more affluent west-provide this child with the education and chances so they would not be like a starving refugee, but indeed the doctor/social worker etc who helps those in suffering. From your example I think you have a greater need for children than even the rest of us.

and yes consider the orphans here too, guys....something very close to my heart. and indeed most aren't orphans at all-some 80% If i recall correctly are abandoned with living parents. One of my Aunts and two of my closest cousins were adopted. I would love to adopt a child here myself at some point. But it is a sad legacy of Russia to have so many Orphans and such a low birthrate in general. There has to be a lot more down for families here.
Hey, Yak,

Given that I do find a good deal of common ground with you, parts of this post took me just a little by surprise.

Begging your pardon, but being "childfree" is a load of hooey. It is a euphemism intended to prettify what is generally a thoroughly selfish choice which is really choosing to be childless. (As always, I am speaking about a man and a woman in marriage, and am NOT suggesting that all woman ought to have lots of babies.)

Yak, there are historical reasons that the family is what it is, and I would expect you to have a better grasp on what it is than most here, and that it is something ordained by God.

You say "perhaps some are being selfish", I say that nearly ALL are being selfish. How many people do you personally know who have refused to have children for noble reasons? And what ARE those reasons? (I believe they can exist, but I am quite sure that you will hardly find one in a hundred such couples who have them. You can only respect a choice if it really IS honorable. We can't be expected to respect every choice that everyone makes. There is an incredible number of stupid and wrong choices out there. Which ones am I supposed to respect? It's as if you're saying to respect them just because people made them.

Your personal situation is something I am unwilling to address, mainly because I do not wish to offend you and I don't feel I know enough about it, and this IS a public forum. But I DO think there are alternatives, and that you might make, or have made different choices, more painful for you, but of greater benefit for your fatherless children. Even 15 minutes in McDonald's once a month is much better for such children than nothing at all, although it might require a good deal of sacrifice. But that's all I'll say on that. Circumstances can vary greatly, and I would steer someone to a priest and/or Christian psychologist.

I do agree that there is a dearth of modern people who hold marriage in a high and holy place. But we have been taught by the attacks on marriage over the last century, to disrespect marriage, starting with social approval of easy divorce, and proceeding to approval of adultery, fornication, and now sodomy (I see polygamy and worse down the line in a mere decade or so).

And what about orphans? If there is a choice to respect, surely it is that of a couple (that IS married) setting aside their dubious choice to be childless and adopting some of those orphans, if they do not wish to bear children themselves.

Carl
04-10-2011, 09:20
and now sodomy

Yeah..now don't go knocking sodomy!! What sodomy ever do to you?!?
(Seriously though...what two consenting adults agree to behind closed doors is entirely up to them)



And what about orphans? If there is a choice to respect, surely it is that of a couple (that IS married) setting aside their dubious choice to be childless and adopting some of those orphans, if they do not wish to bear children themselves.

So....UNmarried people should not be allowed to adopt as well?? Again one of your righteous propagations?

justbe
04-10-2011, 09:57
Why would someone worry about having more children when their parents pay for everything anyway?

1. Are you telling this to everyone or to someone?
2. A kinda not your business till it is not you who pays?

yakspeare
04-10-2011, 09:58
15 minutes once a month might be something-but 15 minutes a year is not.

I tried to build a house for my ex, would have cost me $350000, just so you could live in a good neighbourhood, because I didn't like where she was living.....it was actually a joint decision of my then girlfriend and I....but my ex was unpleasant about that the whole thing and made my life hell, that my girlfriend refused to have us indebted to someone so ungrateful.

A few months ago I offered to buy my ex a computer so I can skype the kids once a week. she refused. I said I would buy the computer, pay for the internet access and everything-even put her through a computer course. Still no.

When I was a realtor she was making $80000 a year in child support from me-but the children's position didn't change and I couldn't see them any more than now.

In February I went back to Australia and she was "too busy" and the children were going camping-for them to see me.

Only messy court procedures can change any of that. And I look at the fact she is, actually, a fairly good mother. lives her life through the children. Does not work and hasn't for 15 years now. She simply hates the "daddy, daddy" and running into my arms. I am sorry but to go back to Australia and wrestle with her-when most of those planned trips to see the kids has her suddenly change her plans and be busy etc-ain't good for my own mental health. It destroyed me each and every day.

And I think you are being too judgemental on people without kids, Rus. As I said, it is really up to the men to make the woman fell secure enough to even think about it....and it is men who are lacking mostly. Sometimes people may put on "false bravado" and claim they don't want kids but deep down too....but there are some people who lack any sort of maternal instinct, and actually to them the idea of kids horrifies them. Let those people not reproduce and have those with a deep desire for children have them as they ought.

rusmeister
04-10-2011, 20:52
Yeah..now don't go knocking sodomy!! What sodomy ever do to you?!?
(Seriously though...what two consenting adults agree to behind closed doors is entirely up to them)

Hi Carl,
What I get from your post is that you don't really want to attempt to understand my position.

If I have reason and you do not know what it is, then you can't even argue. You can't argue with what you know nothing about. I'll bet you think I have some blind religious dogma and that's it. When you ask, maybe I'll tell - if you are polite about it. But if you don't even ask, then it wouldn't matter what I say, for you would just not be listening in any event.





So....UNmarried people should not be allowed to adopt as well?? Again one of your righteous propagations?

See above.

But if you do want to step up to the intellectual plate and try to understand, then I'll talk to you.

robertmf
04-10-2011, 21:00
Why would someone worry about having more children when their parents pay for everything anyway?

:11629:

SINK == single income, no children :10806:
DINK == double income, no children

Carl
04-10-2011, 21:31
Hi Carl,
What I get from your post is that you don't really want to attempt to understand my position.

If I have reason and you do not know what it is, then you can't even argue. You can't argue with what you know nothing about. I'll bet you think I have some blind religious dogma and that's it. When you ask, maybe I'll tell - if you are polite about it. But if you don't even ask, then it wouldn't matter what I say, for you would just not be listening in any event.






See above.

But if you do want to step up to the intellectual plate and try to understand, then I'll talk to you.

I have absolutely no intention of 'stepping up to the intellectual plate' with you..much too boring for a guy like me. I feel quite comfortable with my intellectual prowles and debating the most benign subject matter with you..well, just does not sound that stimulating.

From the frequency and copious volume of your writings here alone, it's apparent that you often times feel the need to quantify your 'worldly knowlage' & understandings.

Continue your ramblings, you may just find an open ear or two at some point.


I for one, find god highly overrated.


And by the way, Sodomy Rocks!! You should try it sometime...with a girl of course)) (But I certanly would not judge if it where with a man....to each his own, right?)

TolkoRaz
04-10-2011, 22:14
:11629:

SINK == single income, no children :10806:
DINK == double income, no children


Single Income, No Kids
Double Income, No Kids

:bookworm:

robertmf
04-10-2011, 22:43
Single Income, No Kids
Double Income, No Kids

:bookworm:

Thanks. My ошибка. A slip in that I think of "kids" as baby goats :elf:

TolkoRaz
04-10-2011, 22:46
Thanks. My ошибка. A slip in that I think of "kids" as baby goats :elf:


You are quite correct, but one tastes better than the other! :p

justbe
04-10-2011, 22:49
Gosh, happy to know it started on the 10th page, not on the 1st leaving a lot of space for serious discussion!

TolkoRaz
04-10-2011, 23:01
1,000 Apologies - I'll shut up, cease typing & Log Off! :coffee:

justbe
04-10-2011, 23:02
1,000 Apologies - I'll shut up, cease typing & Log Off! :coffee:

Haha, nop, it's high time for dessert, please stay.

rusmeister
04-10-2011, 23:09
15 minutes once a month might be something-but 15 minutes a year is not.

I tried to build a house for my ex, would have cost me $350000, just so you could live in a good neighbourhood, because I didn't like where she was living.....it was actually a joint decision of my then girlfriend and I....but my ex was unpleasant about that the whole thing and made my life hell, that my girlfriend refused to have us indebted to someone so ungrateful.

A few months ago I offered to buy my ex a computer so I can skype the kids once a week. she refused. I said I would buy the computer, pay for the internet access and everything-even put her through a computer course. Still no.

When I was a realtor she was making $80000 a year in child support from me-but the children's position didn't change and I couldn't see them any more than now.

In February I went back to Australia and she was "too busy" and the children were going camping-for them to see me.

Only messy court procedures can change any of that. And I look at the fact she is, actually, a fairly good mother. lives her life through the children. Does not work and hasn't for 15 years now. She simply hates the "daddy, daddy" and running into my arms. I am sorry but to go back to Australia and wrestle with her-when most of those planned trips to see the kids has her suddenly change her plans and be busy etc-ain't good for my own mental health. It destroyed me each and every day.

And I think you are being too judgemental on people without kids, Rus. As I said, it is really up to the men to make the woman fell secure enough to even think about it....and it is men who are lacking mostly. Sometimes people may put on "false bravado" and claim they don't want kids but deep down too....but there are some people who lack any sort of maternal instinct, and actually to them the idea of kids horrifies them. Let those people not reproduce and have those with a deep desire for children have them as they ought.

Hey Yak,
In extreme brief, I'll reiterate what I said about personal situations - and I DO acknowledge that there can be valid details or reasons for a committed couple's refusing to have children when they can (for that is the only issue at hand) - only I insist that there are few cases that are truly conceivable as qualifying.

I question your idea that a certain "maternal instinct" is required IN ADVANCE - I hold that when the child comes down the pipeline, the "instinct" (if there be such a thing) kicks in when needed and by no means necessarily before. Again, things like simple fear are things to be faced and overcome. Things like laziness need to be beaten down for what they are - vices related to what sin is (which would require post after post to disabuse westerners of some of the erroneous ideas they have about that highly abused word).

If they have said, "We will NOT have kids", again, I ask, "Why not?" Why all this evasion of the simple and obvious question. The responses are always at best vague and undefinable. "I am not "cut out" - whatever that means - to have children". I am not "ready" (whatever that means). "I am too busy" (doing what that makes it more important than children?. really, for all of the paganism of Elfquest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Ekuar certainly got it right regarding children. But the answers are all too obvious to me, and they are more than 90% along the lines of people wanting to be free of children (thus "child-free", as if children were merely an undesired burden of life, rather than a most essential part of the normal cycle of life, the evasion of which amounts to an evasion of that cycle, of a futile attempt to live forever without taking on the responsibility and maturity that child-raising naturally brings. The fact that certain people may be horrified by this natural state of being - which they themselves once were - is notable for its abnormality and pathology.

rusmeister
04-10-2011, 23:12
I have absolutely no intention of 'stepping up to the intellectual plate' with you..much too boring for a guy like me. I feel quite comfortable with my intellectual prowles and debating the most benign subject matter with you..well, just does not sound that stimulating.

From the frequency and copious volume of your writings here alone, it's apparent that you often times feel the need to quantify your 'worldly knowlage' & understandings.

Continue your ramblings, you may just find an open ear or two at some point.


I for one, find god highly overrated.


And by the way, Sodomy Rocks!! You should try it sometime...with a girl of course)) (But I certanly would not judge if it where with a man....to each his own, right?)

Wrong.
But not much point discussing it with that kind of attitude, eh?

What are "prowles" and how are they intellectual?

natlee
05-10-2011, 10:00
Your personal situation is something I am unwilling to address, mainly because I do not wish to offend you and I don't feel I know enough about it, and this IS a public forum. But I DO think there are alternatives, and that you might make, or have made different choices, more painful for you, but of greater benefit for your fatherless children. Even 15 minutes in McDonald's once a month is much better for such children than nothing at all, although it might require a good deal of sacrifice. But that's all I'll say on that. Circumstances can vary greatly, and I would steer someone to a priest and/or Christian psychologist.

I have to agree 100% here..

natlee
05-10-2011, 10:20
15 minutes once a month might be something-but 15 minutes a year is not.

Only messy court procedures can change any of that.

I am sorry but to go back to Australia and wrestle with her-when most of those planned trips to see the kids has her suddenly change her plans and be busy etc-ain't good for my own mental health.

Yak, no one is judging. Having said that, I know smn who was in a very similar situation only way worse, and fought until he got to see his son regularly. Courts and everything. It was bad for his mental etc. health not to. We're all different... My own daughter's father is now more than ok with seeing her once to twice a year at most having had the opportunity (which I gave him) to see her daily. He has chosen his new family over his daughter and while I don't think that should even be a choice, do not understand and doubt that I ever will being that I have done the exact opposite (as I believe that the partners who aren't ok with/for our children are the wrong ones) I am far more accepting of it today and can honestly say that he isn't the worst dad in the world. :) I can't imagine not seeing my girl daily, and yes I'm the mom, but if any of you knew my ex-husband back in the day you would've seen what an amazing father he used to be. So Yak, really, it's not that we're judging, it's just that it's a very, very sensitive subject for most of us.

L'oiseau bleu
05-10-2011, 14:08
No income, one kid.

there is never enough money to have kids. because money is not criteria at all. i became pragnant when I was almost divorced and had no job. And I bless each day for that decision. Besides, these 9 months were only period in my life when I truly believe that I am the most feminine and beautiful woman in the world. Now I am happy to watch my small improved copy day by day.

kassandra
05-10-2011, 14:16
there is never enough money to have kids. because money is not criteria at all. i became pragnant when I was almost divorced and had no job. And I bless each day for that decision. Besides, these 9 months were only period in my life when I truly believe that I am the most feminine and beautiful woman in the world. Now I am happy to watch my small improved copy day by day.

That s very true. It feels great!
I got divorced when I was 5-month pregnant and everybody in the court was pitying me. That was funny, they all were so wrong :)

robertmf
05-10-2011, 14:19
That s very true. It feels great!
I got divorced when I was 5-month pregnant and everybody in the court was pitying me. That was funny, they all were so wrong :)

What is court ordered "child support" like in Russia :question:

L'oiseau bleu
05-10-2011, 14:27
That s very true. It feels great!
I got divorced when I was 5-month pregnant and everybody in the court was pitying me. That was funny, they all were so wrong :)

absolutely:) when I was in court these women were all on my side but first they thought this is because I am pragnant and I will change my mind.
and btw, as I had to spend in roddom last month, during all this time I had to care about other pragnants who were constantly crying (and married): why he did not call, my neighbore said he is with another woman, he got drunk yesterday etc. Looked like I was the only calm and confident:)

justbe
05-10-2011, 14:30
absolutely:) when I was in court these women were all on my side but first they thought this is because I am pragnant and I will change my mind.
and btw, as I had to spend in roddom last month, during all this time I had to care about other pragnants who were constantly crying (and married): why he did not call, my neighbore said he is with another woman, he got drunk yesterday etc. Looked like I was the only calm and confident:)

:applause: Woman, you are great!

justbe
05-10-2011, 14:44
That s very true. It feels great!
I got divorced when I was 5-month pregnant and everybody in the court was pitying me. That was funny, they all were so wrong :)

I respect a woman that is able to laugh at the situation that can look as a tragedy for someone else!

kassandra
05-10-2011, 14:50
I respect a woman that is able to laugh at the situation that can look as a tragedy for someone else!

Oh come on! That has nothing to do with me being strong and him being a jerk. I was REALLY happy to get out of that marriage

justbe
05-10-2011, 14:55
Oh come on! That has nothing to do with me being strong and him being a jerk. I was REALLY happy to get out of that marriage

It is the irony, i am on the same side of barricades.
+1 as they say.

L'oiseau bleu
05-10-2011, 15:11
It is the irony, i am on the same side of barricades.
+1 as they say.

Frankly speaking, any mentioning of strength concerning woman in this totally male world I percieve as irony:)

mrzuzzo
05-10-2011, 15:14
Frankly speaking, any mentioning of strength concerning woman in this totally male world I percieve as irony:)

Totally male world? Yeah... ok

....Feminazi...

TolkoRaz
05-10-2011, 15:15
It is the irony, i am on the same side of barricades.
+1 as they say.

Fighting talk! :10806:

I hope the baby / your child is not stranded from his / her mother on the other side of the barricade(s)! ;)

justbe
05-10-2011, 15:21
Fighting talk! :10806:

I hope the baby / your child is not stranded from his / her mother on the other side of the barricade(s)! ;)

Nope, but i am still not sure if the fight is FOR or AGAINST. And will have a break till clear it up. :11629: Whatever.

L'oiseau bleu
05-10-2011, 15:22
Totally male world? Yeah... ok

....Feminazi...

Why Nazi? I just say this is not our planet, we are your guests:)

mds45
05-10-2011, 15:36
But you have a real, full-time job.
One income, one kid.

Actually I would love to have my parents paying for me, really love it!! I hate working !!! especially with a hangover that seems to be lasting all day((

mds45
05-10-2011, 15:47
You left early last night. I can only be held accountable for a small portion of your hangover.

A little "hair of the dog" later?

)) I blame you for everything ! Put the kettle on will be in at 7 ))

mds45
05-10-2011, 15:50
You left early last night. I can only be held accountable for a small portion of your hangover.

A little "hair of the dog" later?

I did have some good news last night I found Corner Burger !! they have a very comfortable step at 3am

TolkoRaz
05-10-2011, 15:50
Why Nazi? I just say this is not our planet, we are your guests:)

LOL! :D

It is a man's world, there is no doubt about that and I'm truly thankful that I was born a red, hot blooded baby male :)

I'm also relieved that being born a male, I have stuck to me s*xuality, not shaved my chest and have not gone seeking a feminine side or knowingly entered any Gay bars! ;)

Women may be 'guests' but they are definitely here to be enjoyed! :10310:

kassandra
05-10-2011, 16:01
LOL! :D

It is a man's world, there is no doubt about that and I'm truly thankful that I was born a red, hot blooded baby male :)

I'm also relieved that being born a male, I have stuck to me s*xuality, not shaved my chest and have not gone seeking a feminine side or knowingly entered any Gay bars! ;)

Women may be 'guests' but they are definitely here to be enjoyed! :10310:

Some women are here to enjoy. Definately.

rusmeister
05-10-2011, 18:48
On "a man's world", I would say that probably that is true. But as long as we are speaking in general, and not about exceptional/extraordinary cases, home is definitely the woman's world. Any man who is not a little afraid of his wife at home, even and especially when they love each other, has something wrong with him. There is no doubt who rules the home. And without the home, who cares about the world? It's on the level of gaining the whole world and losing your own soul.

natlee
05-10-2011, 23:11
On "a man's world", I would say that probably that is true. But as long as we are speaking in general, and not about exceptional/extraordinary cases, home is definitely the woman's world. Any man who is not a little afraid of his wife at home, even and especially when they love each other, has something wrong with him. There is no doubt who rules the home. And without the home, who cares about the world? It's on the level of gaining the whole world and losing your own soul. Awww. Very touching!

yakspeare
05-10-2011, 23:19
if women didn't have babies...then there would be no yummy mummies or MILFs and that would be a true loss.

TolkoRaz
05-10-2011, 23:57
if women didn't have babies...then there would be no yummy mummies or MILFs and that would be a true loss.

MILFs? :eh:

robertmf
06-10-2011, 00:05
MILFs? :eh:

No more knooky-knooky :eek:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MILF

TolkoRaz
06-10-2011, 00:23
No more knooky-knooky :eek:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MILF

:eek:

And, there was I thinking that it was an abbreviation for the Moro Islamic Liberation Front which only indicates that I never stop thinking about work related issues! :coffee:

robertmf
06-10-2011, 00:45
:eek:

And, there was I thinking that it was an abbreviation for the Moro Islamic Liberation Front which only indicates that I never stop thinking about work related issues! :coffee:

No problemo !! :whisper: Phillipinas are at the top of the MILF category !!

rusmeister
06-10-2011, 02:19
Awww. Very touching!

I'm really serious, though, Natlee. Home is both the center of the most important human activity and the basis for society. It's where, traditionally, birth and death happen, the raising of children, and most of our human drama occurs. It's why marriage is so important and why things that attack marriage - divorce, adultery, sex outside of marriage and the idea of "same-sex marriage are bad - because they destroy the sanctity - the holiness of the marriage, the thing that creates the home (which I mean to include the family, not merely a place where you hang your hat). I'll add that divorce can be justified and there can be victims, especially in case of infidelity, but more often it should not be justified.

The effect of this view is to elevate, not demean the woman - to insist that she is no more a slave in the home as a wife and mother than the man (or woman) who goes out to labor for somebody else who is wealthier than they are; indeed, she is much freer; that the wife and mother in the home is a queen, not a slave, in the kingdom of the family, a state within the state that makes the nation-state possible. It's the opposite of the feminist notion that being a housewife is somehow demeaning, while being a wage-slave at McDonald's is glorious freedom.

natlee
06-10-2011, 10:12
I'm really serious, though, Natlee. And so am I! Despite being divorced... but I do agree with what you're saying.

L'oiseau bleu
06-10-2011, 10:57
I'm really serious, though, Natlee. Home is both the center of the most important human activity and the basis for society. It's where, traditionally, birth and death happen, the raising of children, and most of our human drama occurs. It's why marriage is so important and why things that attack marriage - divorce, adultery, sex outside of marriage and the idea of "same-sex marriage are bad - because they destroy the sanctity - the holiness of the marriage, the thing that creates the home (which I mean to include the family, not merely a place where you hang your hat). I'll add that divorce can be justified and there can be victims, especially in case of infidelity, but more often it should not be justified.

The effect of this view is to elevate, not demean the woman - to insist that she is no more a slave in the home as a wife and mother than the man (or woman) who goes out to labor for somebody else who is wealthier than they are; indeed, she is much freer; that the wife and mother in the home is a queen, not a slave, in the kingdom of the family, a state within the state that makes the nation-state possible. It's the opposite of the feminist notion that being a housewife is somehow demeaning, while being a wage-slave at McDonald's is glorious freedom.

Ohhh please. I was always sure these are men who created marriage. why on the earth we have to be stuck to home?
listen, are u agree himans are different from species 10 000 years ago? so why do we use the same moral? modern men are absolutely adapted to be at home alone: they can cook, wash and do whatever all women do. They do not need woman for "home world". there is no home world, there is second mother at home and you feel yourself little son again after you come back from office.
-People are together for other reasons than keeping home world and adapting each other.
- marriage is justified only if people really want to be with each other and not because society requires it as it is easier to control and surpress. This is free choice. If it is not it himiliates both.
- finally, if I want a son I give him a birth, not adopt big man during marriage.

natlee
06-10-2011, 10:59
if I want a son I give him a birth, not adopt big man during marriage. Hahahahaha true too, I guess, depending on the man ;)

rusmeister
06-10-2011, 12:59
Ohhh please. I was always sure these are men who created marriage. why on the earth we have to be stuck to home?
listen, are u agree himans are different from species 10 000 years ago? so why do we use the same moral? modern men are absolutely adapted to be at home alone: they can cook, wash and do whatever all women do. They do not need woman for "home world". there is no home world, there is second mother at home and you feel yourself little son again after you come back from office.
-People are together for other reasons than keeping home world and adapting each other.
- marriage is justified only if people really want to be with each other and not because society requires it as it is easier to control and surpress. This is free choice. If it is not it himiliates both.
- finally, if I want a son I give him a birth, not adopt big man during marriage.
Sorry,
Who said you have to be "stuck" at home?

I happen to think that we are precisely the same species and I do believe that morality is eternal; that it doesn't change; that murder and rape were as wicked 2,000 years ago as today.

It's a little difficult to make out what you're saying, but it looks like you are saying that all men in married relationships are immature in relation to their wives (maybe I misunderstood). That's absurd. Certainly some people, both men and women, may be immature, sometimes, most of the time or even all of the time in their married relationship, but a blanket statement about all of them is unreasonable.

I don't speak about couples being "together" (something which can break apart at any moment) but about being "married" - in a bond sealed by a vow and approved by society that affirms a lifelong relationship. People can be "together" for any reason at all; to conduct a business deal (even an illegal one) or to watch a movie together before going their separate ways. It is marriage that creates a family; merely being together creates nothing in particular.

It is the family that justifies marriage, and the lifelong bond that creates the stable environment in which children can grow up healthily, and the vow which holds the husband and wife together when the going gets rough to maintain that stability. It provides companionship that is not mere friendship, this holding together with the necessity of learning to truly love each other so that the children might visit two elderly grandparents that live at the same address and find a thing that holds together despite the emotions and conflicts which surge back and forth that is the human ideal, not this meaningless wandering from person to person, making and keeping no vows, here-today-and gone-tomorrow-"relationships", deliberating evading children under phony pretexts and excuses that are in general only masks for extending childhood indefinitely.

In general, you speak about marriage as if it were a thing forced upon lovers. That is simply not the case. Let me offer this response:


The revolt against vows has been carried in our day even to the extent of a revolt against the typical vow of marriage. It is most amusing to listen to the opponents of marriage on this subject. They appear to imagine that the ideal of constancy was a yoke mysteriously imposed on mankind by the devil, instead of being, as it is, a yoke consistently imposed by all lovers on themselves. They have invented a phrase, a phrase that is a black and white contradiction in two words — ‘free-love’ — as if a lover ever had been, or ever could be, free. It is the nature of love to bind itself, and the institution of marriage merely paid the average man the compliment of taking him at his word. Modern sages offer to the lover, with an ill-flavoured grin, the largest liberties and the fullest irresponsibility; but they do not respect him as the old Church respected him; they do not write his oath upon the heavens, as the record of his highest moment. They give him every liberty except the liberty to sell his liberty, which is the only one that he wants.

– The Defendant (1901) GK Chesterton

It is why lovers carve their initials into trees: "S+L forever" and so on. So when you speak of being "forced", "control" and "suppression", I really don't know what you are talking about.

rusmeister
06-10-2011, 13:08
Hahahahaha true too, I guess, depending on the man ;)

What women need are men who will make and keep vows. Who will be faithful. For that, you need the right philosophy and worldview.

While religious faith is no guarantee of anything, certainly the person who holds a creed that demands faithfulness, monogamy, the keeping of the marriage vow and the shouldering of responsibility - esp. because something higher than he ordains it (ie, God) - is much more likely to be the faithful husband the woman wants, if that is how he truly sees the world. Traditional Christianity (of which I think Orthodoxy the highest expression) or Judaism are such creeds, Islam less so, the absence of a creed least of all (ie, the agnostic or atheist, who may be noble, but not thanks to his creed). Note that nominal believers of any stripe are probably worse than the agnostic in that respect. They ostensibly hold belief but do not really do so in practical terms. It would be the believer who takes his faith seriously as a worldview, and sees it as applying personally to him 24/7, and not only on Sunday morning, who would see marriage in the necessary light.

It is the modern man, flitting from woman to woman who has been taught to see any marriage as a contract to be broken when the going gets rough who is most likely to walk when the going gets rough, leaving a wife and children in the lurch - because he has been taught to (as my BIL has done, lest you think I'm talking a theory of which I have no practical experience). Men without chests, as CS Lewis predicted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_man

nmurobha
07-10-2011, 00:11
As a mother and soon to be doctor, as well as English teacher and artist...:inlove::punk: I feel that my life is just PERFECT. Can't even imagine my life without my baby boy.

rusmeister
09-10-2011, 06:20
C'mon, Yak, where's the thanks for my posts?
:)

shurale
10-10-2011, 00:05
They are a group of adults who all share at least one common desire: they do not wish to have children of their own. They are teachers, doctors, business owners, authors, computer experts — whatever. They choose to call themselves «childfree» rather than «childless», because they feel the latter term implies that they're missing something they want — and they say thay are not being quite happy alone. They consider ourselves child FREE — free of the loss of personal freedom, money, time and energy that having children requires.

Honestly, i think it is ok to be childfree when you are 18–25 and concentrated on doing other things in life. But any alive creature tends to get kids and if a woman and a man later are still obsessed aggressively with childfree idea, come on, visit a doctor to know what is wrong with you.

"Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf."

shurale
10-10-2011, 20:17
Sorry,
Who said you have to be "stuck" at home?

I happen to think that we are precisely the same species and I do believe that morality is eternal; that it doesn't change; that murder and rape were as wicked 2,000 years ago as today.

It's a little difficult to make out what you're saying, but it looks like you are saying that all men in married relationships are immature in relation to their wives (maybe I misunderstood). That's absurd. Certainly some people, both men and women, may be immature, sometimes, most of the time or even all of the time in their married relationship, but a blanket statement about all of them is unreasonable.

I don't speak about couples being "together" (something which can break apart at any moment) but about being "married" - in a bond sealed by a vow and approved by society that affirms a lifelong relationship. People can be "together" for any reason at all; to conduct a business deal (even an illegal one) or to watch a movie together before going their separate ways. It is marriage that creates a family; merely being together creates nothing in particular.

It is the family that justifies marriage, and the lifelong bond that creates the stable environment in which children can grow up healthily, and the vow which holds the husband and wife together when the going gets rough to maintain that stability. It provides companionship that is not mere friendship, this holding together with the necessity of learning to truly love each other so that the children might visit two elderly grandparents that live at the same address and find a thing that holds together despite the emotions and conflicts which surge back and forth that is the human ideal, not this meaningless wandering from person to person, making and keeping no vows, here-today-and gone-tomorrow-"relationships", deliberating evading children under phony pretexts and excuses that are in general only masks for extending childhood indefinitely.

In general, you speak about marriage as if it were a thing forced upon lovers. That is simply not the case. Let me offer this response:


– The Defendant (1901) GK Chesterton

It is why lovers carve their initials into trees: "S+L forever" and so on. So when you speak of being "forced", "control" and "suppression", I really don't know what you are talking about.

I think morality does change. I think majority of us would think it is immoral to kill all males in the city, and enslave women and children because of one bad youth.
Genesis 34:25

25And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly and slew all the males.
----
I think it is immoral to kill wife and children of a thief. Even if that thief stole an icon from a church.

And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver and the garment and the wedge of gold, and his sons and his daughters, and his oxen and his asses and his sheep, and his tent and all that he had; and they brought them unto the Valley of Achor.
25And Joshua said, "Why hast thou troubled us? The LORD shall trouble thee this day." And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones.

rusmeister
10-10-2011, 21:07
I think morality does change. I think majority of us would think it is immoral to kill all males in the city, and enslave women and children because of one bad youth.
Genesis 34:25

25And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly and slew all the males.
----
I think it is immoral to kill wife and children of a thief. Even if that thief stole an icon from a church.

And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver and the garment and the wedge of gold, and his sons and his daughters, and his oxen and his asses and his sheep, and his tent and all that he had; and they brought them unto the Valley of Achor.
25And Joshua said, "Why hast thou troubled us? The LORD shall trouble thee this day." And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones.

And all of this from a person who a year and a half ago was telling everybody to embrace his own version of Christianity.

I think the trouble is that you were your own authority to understand Scripture, Shurale, and so you wound up walking altogether, because you could not reconcile what you read and did not understand it.

How much better to have an authority to ask what Scripture means - and to find the explanations satisfying!

If morality DID and DOES change, then there is absolutely no reason to suppose that it will not continue to change. Thus, we can suppose that murder of defenseless people will become legal in a few years...oh wait, "abortion" is already doing that...

The idea of justice - an extremely moral one - has never become outmoded, and was fought for as diligently by the Maccabees as by women suffragettes. Murder is still murder and theft is still theft, though war was recognized as not murder but open armed challenge. (Not that that constitutes my response to the huge question that you do not ask but that others might ask, but it does make a point. People still feel about murder and theft as they did in the time of the Ten Commandments.)

The trouble is that public perception does indeed change, but that is only the degradation of the society that allows the change of perception - it is not a change in morality to first condemn, and then allow abortion or homosexual behavior any more than it is a change to first allow and then condemn something, as you posit from your examples.

Your objections have responses - otherwise belief would have completely evaporated, and not one intelligent person would defend it - yet you never seem to ask what those responses are. And those responses, unlike your ideas, are NOT shouted from every street corner - public schools and the mass media have too efficiently blocked them - so unlike your responses to our ideas, which we know very clearly from constant chant and repetition, you do not know what we would say, and you do not ask, for you think you already know. Yet your inconstancy in faith has me doubting your certainty now. If you would convince others, it is necessary to get it right from the beginning - waffling does serious harm to any case you might present - if you do not believe what you believed six months ago, why should we?

I note that this takes us OT and that it does not respond to my prior post - meaning you fully agree?

SV1973a
10-10-2011, 21:19
Very strange, Rusmeister.
Even though I am a firm atheist (while you in contrast are very religious), on points like marriage, family and abortion,... we share the same opinion...
We come to the same conclusion but from totally different points of view.
I am married for almost 15 years (with the same wife) and we have two daughters. This small unit of `family` (which is better expressed by the Russian word semya) is the most important thing in my life, and in fact the only thing worth giving up my own life, should that ever be required.
Like all couples, I have conflicts with my wife, but this does not kill the love.
As such my children get to see a father and mother that love each other and that love their children. The same way, I also saw my parents when I was a child. Also, my wife`s parents are a happy couple. I am sure that my parents and her parents also went through difficult times, and they hang on to each other. As a result my children grow up in an environment where there is love between father and mother, grandfather and grandmother.
I hope with all my heart that they will follow this example.

justbe
12-10-2011, 13:26
Very strange, Rusmeister.
Even though I am a firm atheist…

I think it has nothing to do with atheism. Family, life (the universe and everything) are basic human values.

rusmeister
17-10-2011, 04:53
Very strange, Rusmeister.
Even though I am a firm atheist (while you in contrast are very religious), on points like marriage, family and abortion,... we share the same opinion...
We come to the same conclusion but from totally different points of view.
I am married for almost 15 years (with the same wife) and we have two daughters. This small unit of `family` (which is better expressed by the Russian word semya) is the most important thing in my life, and in fact the only thing worth giving up my own life, should that ever be required.
Like all couples, I have conflicts with my wife, but this does not kill the love.
As such my children get to see a father and mother that love each other and that love their children. The same way, I also saw my parents when I was a child. Also, my wife`s parents are a happy couple. I am sure that my parents and her parents also went through difficult times, and they hang on to each other. As a result my children grow up in an environment where there is love between father and mother, grandfather and grandmother.
I hope with all my heart that they will follow this example.
Hi SV!
I absolutely believe in the existence of the moral atheist. We Christians don't think that Jesus invented morality. I would say that He brought it from "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you" to "Do to others what you want done to you", or, more clearly, what we have to morally become in order to become like God (actually holy in moral terms).

The one thing where I think the religious view, in general (generally meaning the traditional major world religions and excluding whacky cults that last a mere decade or century) has something to offer that atheism really doesn't is a moral basis whose authority is higher than man's, which therefore cannot be changed by human sophistry. "Because God says" (the most simplified version of the religious idea) really does prevent a new generation (each of which, in
it's turn, becoming an old generation) from changing moral understandings merely on human authority. Scientists, or pseudo-scientists, may "discover", for example, a "gay gene" or "polygamy gene" or whatever justifying the latest change in sexual morality ( and we have fallen quite a bit over the last century - there is a definite progression in a definite progression and no reason at all to suppose that that progression will stop with the latest fashion of "gay marriage" (suddenly determined, by people rejecting traditional moral authority held in common by all the major traditional religions; in short, because on the whole they reject God) will stop there - I'd need a separate post to describe that progression. If we are mete lumps of flesh, if there is no soul and our thinking mere activity of electrical synapses, then anyone who wants can think of reasons to justify murder - and they do, and so now we have nice, sanitized words like "abortion", "euthanasia", "dignity of death" ( referring to assisted suicide) and so on, things that our ancestors commonly recognized as murder.

So I fear that hoping that your children will follow in your footsteps is in vain, although your good example will hopefully have some influence. My grandparents good example did not prevent my parents from getting divorced, and my generation all fell into some kind of sexual sin that left its metaphysical scars, and my nephews and nieces in the states have all gotten into worse trouble and more quickly than we did. If human reasoning can (wrongly, as I insist) change moral understanding on its own authority, then your children will most likely reject, at least in part, the moral understandings held by you and your parents. And that "in part" is what enables further moral regression.

The Christian ideal has rarely been attained, and most Christians have fallen afoul of it and failed to attain it (the minority that do are called "saints" - who set the example of what we are to strive for). But there is no doubt that it IS the highest level of morality conceivable, and any lowering of moral standard is a fall away from that. The fact that many Christians have done wicked things changes that not a whit, and is generally predicted by traditional Christian
teaching. And it is the fact that morality is NOT subject to human arbitration that provides the soundest barrier to moral fall and moral insanity.

My best friend is an agnostic - can't really say atheist - who does not (as yet)
believe. I see him as quite moral. But he admits that he has nothing to offer his own now-adult children except on his own authority. And again, I don't think the Christian to be morally better of the atheist. It would be truer to say that the Christian has a clearer understanding that he, the Christian, is actually bad, and not good, in his general tendencies, and the Orthodox view is that he is (I am, that is) the chief of sinners. IOW, I am, in a sense, worse than you, the main difference being that I am aware of this. (I could even offer my private opinion as to how that is.) Just so you don't think I have any illusions of personal moral superiority.