Just what we need - women wanting to have children to improve their own health! Then again, I suppose that would be as valid as any other reason I've heard.

Ok, so why not make the pregnancy hormones available to all women so that we can all have the benefits of pregnancy without the risks and children?

It's interesting that you should mention this now.  I'm working on my continuing series of articles on human sexuality, and this installment is on sexual selection and runaway selection.   If we were to work in reverse, we would predict that females who had developed beneficial "side effects" would outbreed those who didn't, so it's not surprising at all that nature has given women perks for reproducing.

I think I sometimes get a bad rap because I'm one of the childless, and shamelessly advocate it for anyone and everyone.  I was hoping to surprise everyone with a section devoted to the benefits of childbearing for women, but now you've gone and stolen my thunder.  Since it would just look like I was kissing ass now, I'll go ahead and give away the punchline from my essay.

"Higher" moral decisions are often made in spite of our instincts.  The classic example is laying off of sugar even though we crave it more than just about anything else.  Our sugar craving was a life saver... literally.  Now, it's a death sentence.  I would say that all instinctive behaviors should be scrutinized through the lens of realistic goals, and women should consider not only the long term health benefits of childbearing, but the negative hormonal effects that often happen, and then should consider the social, environmental, and humanitarian elements involved with having kids. 

Oh, and for what it's worth, men who have kids live longer too.  It's been theorized that they lead more docile lives after childbearing, but I don't know that the evidence supports this as a sole cause.  A factor, certainly, but not the sole cause.  I have noticed striking correlations between childbearing in men and a sharp decrease in artistic creativity.  This does not fit the "more docile life" scenario well enough to write it off.

IAGAY post in

3...

2...

1...

>.>

Then again, in his last post, he noted that he's out of rum... We've never seen what happens when he runs out of rum...

All of my mothers whining hasn't made my husband and I sway in our decision to remain childless... this argument of 'better health' hasn't either.

I am 36, no kids, good shape including fantastic cholesterol and blood pressure, good vision and don't have a clumsy bone in my body. I am high energy and according to my doctor - very healthy. Now of course I rarely drink and I have never smoked in my life, I get 8 hours of sleep a night and do not have a stressful job.....SO, when do these negative effects kick in? A family friend and his wife recently died childless...he in his early 90's, she her late 80's.

-Renee

Renee, it's a fair point you make.  Also, we have to factor in the realities of whether or not your life would be what you want with kids.  Happiness has been shown to be an accurate predictor of longevity, and it's really hard to cross correlate these two studies.  If you'd rather not have kids, but you do, will your decreased happiness offset the minor increases in health benefits from having kids?  Hard to say.

The bottom line, as I've said, seems to be weighing all the factors against what you really want.  Hell, I enjoy alcohol enough that I'm shortening my life by drinking several times a week.  It's an informed choice, too.... just like parenting ought to be, IMO.

As a  member of the loyal opposition here at Rational Response Squad, I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but I agree with Kelly on this issue 110%.  Also, as the surviving spouse of a woman who did all the "right" things concerning breast health, but still contracted breast cancer at the age of 40, and who succumbed to the metastasis of that disease four years later, I urge women to be aware of their family histories of cancers as well as doing these right things.

Thanks for the article, Kelly.

How much does this have to do with religion hijacking "family values"?  Churches have convinced people that without religion children will grow up without any values. So instead of atheism causing people to want to be childless, the opposite is true. I think cause and effect are reversed. People who don't want children don't find a need for so called family values that supposedly only religion can provide.

We are victims of the greatest marketing campaign in history. Namely, that you don't care about children unless you join our religion. Every day is like Mother's day or Valentines day, you don't love your mother or wife if you don't buy our shit on the day we tell you. You don't care about children, if you don't indoctrinate them with our religion. 100% Bullshit.

I think there needs to much more organized and groups to mirror what the churches do for children. Namely things like Sunday school, summer camps, fun activities. Morality based on common sense and mutually beneficial relationships.

Another downside to the tendency for atheists to not want to have children is the fact that it makes it that much harder to lower the percentage of believers when they are popping out 3-4 kids a piece or more and we are not.  Not that I'm suggesting we just have a bunch of kids to improve our ratio, but it is a problem.

I wanted to add some information to this thread. As Kelly mentioned, this is not meant to criticize any woman for her choice to have or not have children. I am only looking at the peer reviewed literature, and this is something that has been studied (and is still being studied) for many, many years. I couldn't find the study Kelly mentioned in the literature, but perhaps it hasn't been published yet.

Currently, according to the literature, there is no significant difference (this is a statistical term, not a subjective one) of health between parous (women who have had children) and nulliparous (women who have not had children) women; however, women who have children are more likely to:

1. have diabetes

2. have high blood pressure

3. suffer from depression

4. be obese

5. have vitamin D deficiencies

6. get divorced (and have 8 times more arguments with a spouse than women who are married and have no children)

7. have gingivitis (!)

8. have bone loss

This is the short list!! The literature also suggests that women who have children may have a better sense of well-being (during a lifetime), but the studies were statistical, so such a result is questionable. Some studies say the opposite...that women who have children are more likely to be depressed.  But there are so many variables that it is a hard thing to study. 

I have never had children, but I have pets, and when I lose one, I feel as though I lost a child, and it affects me to the very core of my being. I get depressed and can't function for weeks, months. Heck, I never get over it. It just hurts less as time goes on.

And it is a fact that having a pet is good for one's health. I haven't looked to see if anyone has scientifically compared (I don't even know it this is possible) pet ownership to parenthood...some people get angry if the subject is brought up, insinuating that a comparison can't be made between losing a child to losing a pet. I disagree, but of course my opinion doesn't really count because I haven't had a child and lost him/her.  But I do have a sense of well-being when I am with my pets. They make me happy (most of the time).

There is no doubt that having children is a difficult thing physically, socially, financially and emotionally. I am very thankful that I had a choice though. My choice was not to have a child. I don't regret it, but admit that my husband and I are very close to many of our friends' children. They are like children (well, they are in their 20s and early 30s) to us, and we are very involved in their lives. We are "Emergency Replacement Units"(analogous to godparents) to 3 babies (they, if we had been parents, would be our grandchildren GAH!!!). 

The literature is quite clear about other things; women who work have better health than those who do not, and married women are healthier than non-married women. Women who have more "roles" have better health trends.

Here's just one article that mentioned the well-studied fact that women who have children are less likely to have cancer of the reproductive organs...but also lists some of the negative effects.

From the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, V39

Long term effects of childbearing on health

V Beral

"Information on whether a woman had ever had any children was recorded for all deaths registered to ever-married women in England and Wales between 1938 and 1960. Analysis of the relation between parity and cause of death for 1.2 million women aged 45-74 years revealed that parous women had lower mortality from breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer than did nulliparous women but a higher mortality from diabetes mellitus, gallbladder disease, cancer of the uterine cervix, nephritis and nephrosis, hypertension, ischaemic and degenerative heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and all causes of death. There is a parallel between the long term effects of pregnancy and of oral contraceptives on health."

Great subject Kelly!

I love science so much.

Great post, ento, and yes... great subject, Kelly.

Here's another angle.  When we observe the rest of the animal kingdom, we see that childbearing is often detrimental to one or both parents.  It is not hard to imagine that we, just like other animals, have been selected such that the mother is weakened for the sake of the child.  There's some evidence of this from the relationship between the fetus and the mother during gestation.  What was previously thought of as a mutually beneficial symbiosis is beginning to look more and more like parasitism.  There's a type of diabetes that only occurs during pregnancy, and is the result of a deficiency in a hormone that prevents the fetus from taking too many resources.  The fact that the hormone exists in the first place is evidence that this is a war, not a peaceful agreement.  My brain's a little fuzzy at the moment since it's been a long time since I studied this stuff, but there are lots of negative things the fetus does to the mother's body.

The flip side of this is that we have been programmed with some really odd emotional responses to childbearing.  I mean, let's face it.  We need to be irrationally attached to our children, or we'd abandon them after about the tenth vomit-inducing baby shit.

It goes well beyond that.  Children are, in biological parlance, closer to parasites than anything else.  Yes, we do get happy from raising them, but in terms of resources, they're nothing but a drain.  In order to raise children, we have to work harder and make sacrifices.  Ask any parent.  The thing is, there are two sets of consequences.  You lose contact with your friends, you don't get to go on vacations, you lose interest in sex, you become more conservative and conscious of your mortality, and all of these things have negative emotional consequences.  These consequences are normal and natural, and are designed to discourage us from doing bad things.  When we are not raising children, those kind of behaviors would not be beneficial.  To counteract this, we get an emotional benefit from our bond with our children.  Women are crazy hormone factories because they have to be.  Without the swings of hormonal emotion, the degree of attachment necessary to raise a child wouldn't be possible.  For extreme emotions, it takes extreme drugs.  (Pardon my teasing of a previous post.)

Though most people don't want to say it this way, having a child is both an intense high and an intense low.  Every parent, because of their intense attachment (and let's not forget public scrutiny) is loathe to say that their children are anything less than the best thing that ever happened to them.  However, we have to be careful if we're talking about science.  Statistically, it's debatable at best whether childbearing is beneficial to the parents.  Psychologically, it's not much better.  Socially, well... duh.  No children, no society.  But, these are three very separate realms.  If indeed it proves to be detrimental to the mother's health on balance, we need to be brave enough to admit it when the facts are in.

Ok.  Here's where the parents blast me for not understanding.  Oh... and not understanding because I'm not a parent...

Bottom line: Atheists should not have children unless they feel there isn't enough drool, snot, and puke in their lives. There's plenty already in my life so no thanks.

close your mouth, blow your nose, and eat healthy foods...? problem solved! ^_^ now go swap inferior genetics

Wow, just. . . wow.  I know you meant no offense, but for someone who claims to be in a rational response squad, your skeptisism is sorely lacking.   This is entirely anecdotal, but I am a breeder who, if not for the miracles of modern medicine would be dead, with my first child, and if not from that one then definitely with my second.  I suffered complications from both, including a category 4 tear, which would have lead to death from bleeding.  Since then I suffer from depression, hair loss, high blood pressure, and memory loss on a scale that leaves me unable to work in my chosen field.  Also, did this study look at mortality rates of people in lower incomes, or did the incidence of depression not come up because the subjects were perhaps in a better place on the socio-economic scale?  Now, do I regret having my kids?  No, but I would have been in much better health without them.

Also breeding to keep up with the Jeebuses is stupid, as I'm sure there are plenty of people on the earth as is and a lot of them tend to reject god later in life, like myself.

There are already more web references to material mocking Vox Day than to his actual material.  I tried finding "Vox Day" with Google and had to go to the second page of results before I could find the first reference which didn't say he's a moron... and of course it was his own page.

The audience for your blog is the web.

The web already hates Vox Day.

Jeez, just move on already.

I guess it is up to me to be the pro-kids voice again. Get ready to hate me, Hamby.

People who do not have kids have no idea what they are talking about as far as the emotional and lifestyle impacts of having children. This is why parenting and child rearing are so baffling to them. Everything about it appears negative, yet almost all parents report that they wouldn't have it any other way. Why? Because they love their children and having them has made their life richer. Not always better, but richer in terms of variety, depth of experience, new and stronger emotions. It is like you were on the kiddie coaster at the amusement park and now you are on the Swirling Vortex of Death. Shortly after having kids the tendency is to wonder how you could have been so obsessed with the pointless shit you used to do.

Science can reveal a lot, but this shit is pretty hard to study and quantify.

Hamby likes to dismiss statements of this sort as being hopelessly warped by the instinctive feelings of attachment and love that parents have for their kids. Ya, so? Aren't feelings of attachment and love good things and worth some sacrifice in their own right?

I would characterize the choice between having kids and not having kids as similar to the choice of whether or not to travel to distant places around the world. To many people, travel might seem like an irrelevant thing to do, possibly interesting but expensive and not a high priority. To others, travel will seem positively threatening due to the risks of having a bad time. But people who do travel almost always find it enriching in ways that are very hard to describe. Part of it is that travel changes your perspective and opens up new options in your imagination that you never would have otherwise had access to.  No matter whether your experience is good or bad, someone who has traveled has learned more, done more and is a more complete person than someone who has not. Child rearing is like that. Whether you love it or hate it, you will grow from it and your personality will advance to new places that you cannot imagine from where you are today.

Then there is the philosophical question of what the hell is your life for if not to reproduce? The contents of your brain are going to be dust in 100 years, no matter how fabulous they are now. Unless you think you have it in you to produce some immortal work of art or the like, everything you do and think is worthwhile is so only within the solipsist confines of your own skull. Death, my friends, is out there for all of us. IMO, kids are one of the few good answers to that problem.

But all of the above continues to miss the point. It is a mistake to analyze childbearing as a personal lifestyle choice that is about what it will do or not do for you. Ultimately, it is about the children and your desire to make their existence possible on its own merits. It really is about putting those lives ahead of your own, for their good and for the good of your family and your society. It is about getting out of your own meager existence and trying to achieve a higher good. I remember when my wife and I were thinking about starting a family my feeling was that we had so many resources and so much love and time and other good things that it was a shame to just blow it all on ourselves. I felt that having kids was a great act of generosity that I could be proud of and that would outlive me and any other accomplishment that I could make in my life.

Anyway, those are some reasons why I have kids and would recommend it to others.

I don't hate you tilberian.  I understand that you have no choice but to feel the way you feel.  Everybody, atheists included, has blind spots, and yours is that you can't see the double standard you impose on logic when it comes to parenting and childrearing.

I would argue against your post, but it would be pointless, since there isn't an actual argument contained in it, only your opinion on the matter, which is only as good as any other unsupported opinion.

I will remain silent on the issue since anything I have noticed concerning my spouse *cough*better ass*cough* and her health *cough*tighter*cough* would merely be dismissed as subjective AND anecdotal.

Now, on to the topic of women wanting to improve their health through pregnancy...

I'm sure that I can help some select women with this issue as soon as the youngest child moves out on her own. Of course, there will be several practice sessions using prophylaxis until the results of the mandatory STD tests arrive and show negative for all.

Shortly thereafter, an entire day will need to be set aside to insure proper impregnation by repeated intercourse in multiple positions.

No fee will be charged, but the results of the post-partum physical examinations will be checked for accuracy and published in respected medical journals.

I'll do it for science, baby.

And once you have a child you MUST take care of the child. You can't just put the little loin muffin on the couch and continue life as you did. People who say "OH, your life changes when you have a child!" are right...it HAS to change or you would be arrested for child abuse.

I do have to say though; I respect parents for their patience and the sacrifices they make to raise their children and I guess I would say thank you for populating the world

Please note that there are many links in this post. I tried to be thorough. I apologize in advance for writing such a long post.

Well, say what you want about how you disagree (???)...but the "pro kids" stance doesn't hold up to the conclusions of the scientific literature. As I wrote, having children in general, is NOT good for women for many reasons. This is not my opinion...I am simply looking at the conclusions of the studies which cover about 50 years of research. And the research is/was not "anti children". It was about effects of pregnancy, childbirth, and raising children on the short term and long term health of women.

Although Kelly and I (and the rest of the planet) do not always agree, one thing for sure is that she never sounds as though she is proselytizing about anything, no matter the subject (including this one). Thank you Kelly. You are literally the only person I know who has kids who has not given me a lecture!

Why are those of us who choose to be child free often lectured by those who have children? Why the need to proselytize about how "great" having children is? Why the need for a "pro kids" stance? To this day, I am questioned about my "lifestyle" (with insinuations that something is psychologically pr physically wrong with me because I didn't feel the call of motherhood), insulted (I'm selfish, etc.), and harassed (I have no right to cite the literature because it is only science and can be interpreted in other ways....) because I chose NOT to have children.

I have even been discriminated against because I chose NOT to have children. When I worked in audio, I wasn't entitled to the same vacation as employees with children, despite having worked more than a decade for the same company and despite being the top salesperson for almost 16 years. I did not receive the same pay (my base pay was always less than employees with children) or the same benefits. I was literally penalized for my high sales volume (I was told that I was making more because I sold more, which was true, but my base pay should have reflected my years in the business and it never did). Now that I think about it, it pisses me off even more, the bastards!  Ach!! That is why I left and decided to get educated. No more retail for me.

And when I was a member of an art forum, it was a regular thing for new members to PM me to say that they were praying for me to get pregnant (this was about 10 years ago) .  My "about me" page had my "# of children = 0" which seemed to upset a lot of people.

Let's get back to the science and take out the emotion for a bit (if that is possible).

There are other types of tests that show that childless women are more likely to end up in institutional care than women with children (from a 2007 study that tracked elderly women in England from 1991-2001). This is because they could not support themselves and end up in state care.

The current studies indicate that there is no statistical difference in women's well-being whether or not they had children. If anybody would like a pdf file of of the studies listed, PM me.

Life-history related differences in possible selves in very old age, 2007. Hoppmann, C., Smith, Jacqui.  International journal of aging & human development. 64(2):109-27.

BTW, look at the interesting abstract of this article re "family themes":

"The impact of early life events that take place under specific historical and societal circumstances on adult development have rarely been investigated in old age. We examined whether having started a family in young adulthood was related to the contents of possible selves generated by women aged 85 to 100+ in the Berlin Aging Study (N = 129; M age = 93 years). Health-related possible selves dominated in the entire sample. However, mothers (n = 79) and lifetime childless women (n = 50) differed in their endorsement of family- and friend-related possible selves. Contrary to expectations, childless women mentioned more family-related themes, while mothers addressed more friendship-related themes. Despite these differences both groups of women reported equally high levels of well-being. These findings indicate that starting a family in young adulthood still has an influence on the self up until very old age and that these distinct pathways can still lead to similar aging success."

While researching for this post, I discovered that there is a professor at my university (UF)  who specializes in all of these subjects. Dr. Tanja Koropeckyj-Cox  published a study about childless women in old age, etc. (if you click on her name above, you will see her fields of study).

UF Study: Remaining Childless Does Not Lead To Loneliness In Old Age

Here is another study:

Never-married childless women in Australia: health and social circumstances in older age. 1982. Social science & medicine. 62 issue 8 :1991-2001.

"A growing proportion of women reach older age without having married or having children. Assumptions that these older women are lonely, impoverished, and high users of social and health services are based on little evidence. This paper uses data from the Older cohort of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health to describe self-reported demographics, physical and emotional health, and use of services among 10,108 women aged 73-78, of whom 2.7% are never-married and childless. The most striking characteristic of this group is their high levels of education, which are associated with fewer reported financial difficulties and higher rates of private health insurance. There are few differences in self-reported physical or emotional health or use of health services between these and other groups of older women. Compared with older married women with children, they make higher use of formal services such as home maintenance and meal services, and are also more likely to provide volunteer services and belong to social groups. Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that these women are a "problem" group. Rather, it seems that their life experiences and opportunities prepare them for a successful and productive older age."

To have or not to have children is a personal choice. I don't think a WOMAN should be criticized either way for making such a choice. I'll step out on a limb here and state that a lot of people who have children...shouldn't have them. If a woman can't take care of herself, why would she want to bring a child into the world?

I'm not talking about women who have no choice. For them, I am furious that we live in a world that allows women in some countries (even here in the USA) to have no power over their own bodies. This is UNACCEPTABLE! That woman who is pregnant with her 18th kid...I think her husband should be put in jail. But that is another thread. I'll leave that one up to Matt Shizzle.

And let's be honest here, the literature indicates that if women who had children could go back in time and do it all over again, between 40 - 85 % WOULD NOT HAVE CHILDREN. 

PLEASE DO NOT GET MAD AT ME...THIS WAS NOT MY STUDY. I AM MERELY POINTING IT OUT!

The first non-scientific study was done in the 70s by Ann Landers. In her survey, about 70% of women said they would NOT have children if they could do it all over again. The question was:

If You Had It To Do Over Again—Would You Have Children?

The question was NOT, "Do you regret having children?" or "Do you regret getting married?" or "Do you not love your children?" or "Do you not love your spouse?"so PLEASE, don't respond by telling me how much you love your children and your spouse. This has nothing to do with the question asked on the survey.

Many point out that this was not a scientific study, which is true. But people who study this kind of thing are quick to point out that answering "no" to such a question is a social taboo. That would be AWFUL to admit such a thing! The women who took Ann Lander's survey were anonymous because it was a mail in survey, therefore were probably being honest.

Dr. Phil (yes, I know, he's an asshole) did a survey that is in the process of being published. It was a scientific study. And it isn't the only one. There are zillions of them. OK...not zillions. But many!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/10/earlyshow/leisure/books/main642634.shtml

Here is great site for childfree (Happily ChildFree) people, and those with children (who want to give us a lecture) should check this site out because it has a list of the insults that the childLESS (by choice) get on a daily basis.

http://happilychildfree.com/faq.htm

Here is the 2000 US census. It has some interesting information.

Other links of interest pertaining to these subjects:

Why Women Have Fewer Babies

Third of graduate women will be childless

Sydney Brenner: Biological Evolution Is An Obsolete Technology

The Mommy Gap

Educated Women Have More Orgasms (sorry, I couldn't resist putting in this one!)

So please, I don't care if you have kids...but please respect my decision NOT to have them.

Geez.  It's going to take me a long time to get through all of those links.  Thanks for doing the legwork, ento!

I'm sure it's worse for women, but I have experienced the same things to some degree.  Granted, I haven't had salary discrimination, but then... I'm the boss.  However, consider this.  When I taught private music lessons (for about 16 years) I regularly lost students when their parents found out I was single and childless.  Apparently that makes me a predator.  In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that I've lost more students because of being a childless bachelor than an atheist.  Statistically, children are most often abused by someone in the home, but there it is.

To this day, people are flabbergasted when they hear that I've had a vasectomy. 

Them: "OH MY GOD!  What if you change your mind?!" 

Me: "I'm not going to, but if I do, I'm still making sperm.  There are ways of getting it done."

Them: "But don't you want to know the fulfillment of being a parent?"

Me: "No.  I like the fulfillment of having lots of money and the freedom to travel unencumbered."

It goes on and on like this, as if I'm somehow doing something horrible to the human race by not making it "Population: Six Billion and One."

I don't feel like digging the book out of a box, but in "The Way We Never Were," by Stephanie Coontz, there's a detailed account of how family themes are distinctly not the norm for aging families.  Contrary to the Rockwellian notion of kids taking care of their parents during "the Good Ol' Days," there was never such a time in American history.  If anything, people are taking more care of their parents now than they used to, but it's still not a prevalent practice.

Since you've got access to all the journals, if you get a chance, I'd like to know if there's anything fairly recent involving hormonal changes and mental stability after childbirth.  Anecdotally, I have seen LOTS of cases where women's personalities changed drastically, and often for the worse, after childbirth.  I think I remember reading something about the onset of Bipolar disorder and childbirth, but it's fuzzy.

In the 1960s, Redbook Magazine solicited letters from mothers who felt "trapped" by motherhood.  They received 24,000 testimonials... the most ever received from any question.

From the Childfree website:

I hate this one.  I don't talk about only the negative.  I just don't talk about the positive as if it's heroine and I need a fix.

It wouldn't bother me, but I don't particularly desire it.

Damn straight.  Never had to, and gee... I go out of town whenever I want, and have enough money to eat at the nice restaurants.  In fact, I think tonight I'm going to have sushi.  By myself.  It'll be awesome.

See previous answer.  I haven't spent 10k on diapers... it's in an IRA.

Yeah... I'm smart enough to know that there's precious little genetic correlation between a parent's intelligence and their children's.

With any luck, a young, nubile college student who likes to wear maid outfits.  That's why they make basement apartments.  For free rent and some spending cash, I guarantee I won't be hurting.  Oh, and the really awesome thing... college students are better than family because if they treat you like a petulant child, you can fire them and get someone who will be nice to you.

Anyway, I could go on, but I won't.  Thanks again, ento.  Great research.

And yet you can't point out a single logical flaw in anything I've said.

Believe it or not, once they have a child most parents actually want to take care of it.

Let me ask you this: do you "respect" my decision to not learn how to play the piano?

Oh, I'm sure you recognize that I have made a personal decision that is entirely within my rights and capabilities. I'm sure you acknowledge that you could not know all the highly personal factors that went into the decision and understand that only I could make such a decision for myself. You probably don't even care a lick whether I play piano or not.

But do you "respect" the decision? In what way has that decision increased your respect for me? After all, what has the decision really revealed about my character? Well, I have not done a thing that would increase my options and capabilities as a person. I have stalwartly refused to grow or change. I have avoided an activity that would require work, discipline and sacrifice on my part. I have made sure that something positive has not entered my life.

In what way is any of that worthy of respect?

Having kids is the same. Like eating your Wheaties, it is a good thing to do that you can choose to do for yourself or not. I think everyone who doesn't want to have kids is well within their rights and I would not dare to question or criticize their personal decision. But I don't have to respect it.

This is such a ridiculous question I am not going to answer it.

Here we go again. Another lecture.

See my first comment.

It depends upon the situation. If you are capable of taking care of yourself and your children, I respect your decision. If you have a family history of mental illnesses, violent behaviors, are an alcoholic or drug addict, etc., I would NOT respect your decision to have children.

OK. I believe you.

Another lecture.

No you don't. You just wrote an entire post in which you insulted us, one by one (Hamby, Renee and me...and anyone else in the same situation) because we choose/chose (I am, thankfully, beyond childbearing years) NOT to have children. And you lectured Ad nauseum about the supposed "benefits" of having children, which is not supported by the scientific literature. And you followed up on it by saying that you don't respect our decision.

You sound like a christian!

So let me get this straight, you think it should be mandatory for every human female to have children whether she wants them or not? If you respect only people who have children, logically, this means only women with children are worthy of your respect. That is just sickening.

Maybe this explains it (OH LOOK! UF again...yay!)

Childlessness Bothers Men More Than Women

And MOST of those parents plan to have the child and are well aware of the time and effort raising it will be. They commit and reproduce with the desired outcome of a wee one.

I'm childfree and proud of it.  The childfree community tends to look at people that have children as inferior, but not all of them.  I love other people's children, but have no desire to have any of my own.  I call my "children" the people I take care of like crackheads, streetwalkers, friends in need of help, etc.

OK look there's a childfree wiki!

http://nokidding.info/wiki/Childfree

Here's the points that apply to me:

A range of motivations are cited for choosing a childfree lifestyle; these individuals may agree with one or more reason across the range.

Lack of desire for children

1. Lack of a compelling reason to have children
   
2. General dislike of the behavior of children.
   
3. Seeing the effects of children on family/friends.
   

Personal environment and advancement

1. Not wanting to sacrifice privacy/personal space for children
   
2. Not wanting to commit to increased financial responsibility or burden
   
3. Perceived or actual incapacity to be a responsible and patient parent
   
4. Not wanting to commit to reduced free time for leisure, hobbies, friends, second jobs
   
5. Prefer to maintain ability to change career or city of residence at short notice (spontaneous mobility)
   
6. Wish not to redesign home to fit a child’s needs and safety (for example, expensive houses, art pieces, and collectibles)
   
7. Belief that childbearing would reduce career advancement.

-RR

Tilberian, I've spelled out for you many times already the flawed logic.  You claim that you must be a parent to speak authoritatively on parenting.  This fails on two levels.  First, it does not take into account the well documented ability of humans to empathize with others.  As I have said before, we do not ask psychologists to experience everything they are going to help people with.  We teach them to recognize sets of behaviors that correspond with certain states of mind.

Second, you are setting up an unfalsifiable claim, just like Christians.  "Well, you have to love Jesus before you can know what it's like to be a Christian."  Horse-shit.  You have busted many Christian balls when they try to pull that, and yet you cannot see the beam in your own eye.

I try to remember that my perception is not the only valid one on the planet.  It makes me less of a prick when dealing with people who have vastly different, yet valid, goals and aspirations.

This is the problem that I was trying to address. And of course, it occasionally happens to the childless from ignorant asses who would like to force you to get pregnant/impregnate somebody. I never planned any of my children, but I don't love them less than anybody who did plan. I just happen to be extraordinarily fertile. I don't care if people choose to not have children--I feel it is the responsible thing to do if you don't feel like producing progeny. I also don't want to be looked down upon because I have 3 kids.

I certainly also understand the feeling of being trapped by motherhood. It takes a supportive and loving partner/family to sometimes help with the burden of childrearing. I didn't leave my house alone for eight years--I was quite literally trapped. That could have been completely different if my ex-husband wasn't such an asshole, but that's another story.

I think that some of the studies presented by Ento may have some confounding factors, but honestly, I don't have the time to read all of them ATM. Just some of my initial thoughts are that the increase in diabetes is likely related to the weight gain most mothers experience and the subsequent lack of exercise after having children, which can be completely avoided by simply making time to care for your body. The old letting-yourself-go excuse should die a painful death. The increase in hypertension and heart disease can be correlated similarly to weight gain and lack of exercise and not inherent to childbearing. The increase in cervical cancer could be a result of having unprotected sex (kind of a necessity if you want to get pregnant) and likely an increase in HPV infections which can be prevented by vaccination.

There are other benefits not mentioned in the snippet I provided, such as less endometrial cancer due to the reduction in menstrual periods. Ento mentioned other reproductive cancers, but breast cancer is inversely correlated to length of breast feeding over the course of a lifetime--doing it once doesn't provide as much protection. (I'm pretty safe--5 years of breastfeeding. Now malignant melanoma--that's where I'm headed.) I can dig up some more studies, but as we all know, there are studies to support just about any argument. The fact is that if having children was as dangerous as society would like to portray it, particularly the act of partruition, we would not live on a planet with 6 billion people.

I'm trying to make time to read some of them.  I'm wary of the confounding factor problem because it's damn hard to produce any result without them in such a complex situation.  Unless you're separating for a LOT of socioeconomic factors, even things as seemingly clear cut as cervical cancer or breast cancer can be confounded.   For instance, cervical cancer is linked to HPV, which becomes more likely with more sexual partners.  Women who have children and marry early might have less partners, thereby reducing their risk of cancer.  It's not from having kids... it's from having less partners.

I'm also very wary of putting normatives anywhere in a conversation like this.  Saying that mothers should take better care of themselves so that weight gain doesn't confound the data is bad data evaluation.  If mothers gain more weight than non-mothers, then the two are correlated.  Wishing that it wasn't so doesn't make the correlation go away.

I'd be first in line to ask for more studies with better controls.  I agree with you completely.

In all honesty, Kelly, I guess this is something I have not experienced.  If I had to guess, I'd say 80% of the hate I see around me is directed towards the childless, particularly women.  Even as much as I advocate abortion and childlessness, I don't have any ill will towards existing parents.  My point of view is that parenting should be delayed until both parents are really, really sure they're ready, and I think that if someone has doubts, they should wait.  If they never get over their doubts... well... see step two.

I know you and I have talked about this in person a lot, so I'm posting this as much for the rest of the readers as for you, but while we're talking about studies that need to be done, I think a good comparative look at bias towards the childless and parents would be a good thing.  I kind of think the childless would be the more reviled group, but I'd like to know for certain.

These abstracts were on the first page when I did a literature search with key words such as "social",  "stigma", "childlessness" or "childless women".

[Voluntarily childless women--wherein lies the problem?]

Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening, 2002 Jan 10, 122(1):76-8

NOTE: This article is in Norwegian, I can get it, but you have to translate it!

BACKGROUND: Most present-day Norwegian women choose to have children. This article explores the experience of the small group of voluntarily childless, or child-free, women. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study is substantially based upon a small number of in depth interviews conducted in 1999 and 2000. The findings are not statistically significant; the objective is to highlight some themes and demonstrate different ways of experiencing and explaining a life without children. All respondents either lived or had lived in heterosexual relationships; at the time of the interviews their marital status were single, divorced, remarried, or living with a partner without being married. All were well-educated city-dwellers. RESULTS: According to their own accounts, the women lived happily without children, though problems arose in their meeting with others (family, friends, colleagues) who did not accept their choice of life-style. INTERPRETATION: Modern reproductive medicine has improved the predicament of women who want children but need assistance in order to give birth. On the other hand, women who do not want children find that their choice is criticized and that people around them fail to take it seriously.

Regret and psychological well-being among voluntarily and involuntarily childless women and mothers.

International journal of aging & human development, 2002, 54(2):89-106

This study examines regret and psychological well-being among 72 middle-aged and older women who are either voluntarily childless, involuntarily childless, or mothers. Group comparisons indicate that, when compared to involuntarily childless women, voluntarily childless women show higher levels of overall well-being, rate themselves as more autonomous with greater environmental mastery, and are less likely to have a child-related regret. An unexpected finding is that about one-third of women categorized by researchers as involuntarily childless indicate that they are "childless by choice." These women report making an active decision to accept the childless lifestyle and focus on the future, in essence exerting control over their situations. Results from this small and selective sample should be interpreted cautiously. However, they do suggest that researchers' definitions of childlessness may not map directly onto those of participants, and they emphasize the importance of ascertaining respondents' perceptions of control over their situations.

The effects of sex and childlessness on the association between status and reproductive output in modern society

Evolution and Human Behavior, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 392-398, Nov. 2007    
 

Examining the association between socioeconomic status and reproductive output in modern societies has led to conflicting results. In this study, we used a representative sample of contemporary Swedish men and women to analyze possible reasons for the contradictory results. We found that the relationship between socioeconomic status-described here by income and highest educational level attained-and reproductive output is dependent on sex and the inclusion or exclusion of childless individuals. In men, there is a strong positive association between income/education and average offspring count if childless individuals are included in the analysis; this association is absent when such individuals are excluded. We attribute this reversal mainly to the higher proportion of childless individuals among men of lower socioeconomic background. Among other factors, female choice appears to be a major cause of this association because the proportion of men who never married increased with decreasing income category and educational level. In women, however, including and excluding childless individuals both yielded a negative association between income and average offspring count as well as a null or negative relationship between education and average offspring count.

Attitudes About Childlessness in the United States

Journal of Family Issues, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1054-1082, Aug. 2007

The study used cross-sectional analyses of the National Survey of Families and Households (1987-1988, 1992-1994) to examine attitudes about childlessness in the United States. It (a) assesses prevalence of positive, neutral, and negative attitudes about childlessness and (b) identifies the correlates of different attitudes in the population. About one fifth of adults disagreed with prescriptive norms that favor parenthood over childlessness, whereas two fifths gave neutral responses. More than 86% agreed or were neutral on whether childless adults could have fulfilling lives. Positive attitudes were consistently found among those who were female, college educated, or childless. Those with negative attitudes were distinct from those with neutral or positive attitudes and were more likely to be older, male, non-White, less educated, or have conservative religious beliefs, net of other factors. The authors argue attitudes reflect acceptance but not endorsement of childlessness, and substantial proportions of neutral responses merit closer examination. [

Through the Lenses of Gender, Race, and Class: Students' Perceptions of Childless/Childfree Individuals and Couples

Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, vol. 56, no. 7-8, pp. 415-428, Apr 2007

Earlier research has documented negative percept