Ever since I saw Marissa Tomei do that bit in my cousin Vinny, "I got a biological clock and it's ticking like this [stomp stomp stomp]!" I can't get her out of my head whenever I hear people talk about that mysterious time ticker of fertility. Especially in my early 20s, it seemed mostly comical. Or outrageous--when being used as a fear mongering tactic of folks who wanted women barefoot, pregnant, and too distracted to run the revolution.
But now I'm 29. I'm staring down 35, which most doctors agree is the age at which fertility starts to travel a decline--sometimes slower, sometimes faster--depending on your genetics, environmental factors etc. I'm watching some of my best friends in their late thirties and early forties hang out at the "fertility farms" (their words) of NYC, get shot up with hormones, endure great financial and emotional difficulties. I'm also watching some of my peers--27, 28, 29--decide to throw out the birth control or research fertility or adoption options and make a go of it.
I'm enjoying my cozy new cohab situation--the carefree combo of staying up late and sleeping in, grabbing bagels, having our biggest responsibility be who is going to choose the next track we play on Rockband. I really love my work. And my autonomy. And my total ignorance of morning sickness and the like. But I do want kids. Someday.
Apparently more young women are having kids today. According to data just released by the National Center for Health Statistics: Mothers' mean age at their first childbirth fell to 25.0 years in 2006, the most recent figures available, from 25.2 in 2005. The 0.2-year drop is statistically significant because it's the first time the trend has ever gone down in history. There are all sorts of class and race dimensions to this issue of course, not to mention regional differences--my cousin and his wife already have two kids, their second home, and a Cuisinart in Colorado while I'm still drinking wine out of coffee cups in Brooklyn.
Plus, though rarely spoken about, men have a window of fertility as well. While it shuts slower, it does squeak closed. According to MSNBC: "Recent studies have linked older fatherhood with increased risks of schizophrenia, autism, Down syndrome and other disorders in children. And in this case, "older" means as young as 40."
I'm curious as to your personal thoughts. Do the women around you seem to be or are you choosing to have babies earlier than you expected? Do the partners seem on board? What's their or your reasoning--biological, reactionary to all the fertility problems of the last decade or two, just feels right? What are the advantages/disadvantages of waiting? Are you ever really ready?
Thanks to Lynn Harris over at Broadsheet for the heads up.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Tick Tock that Biological Clock.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11816
I'm in grad school, so no one I know is planning on having kids anytime soon-- most people want to wait till they finish school and that pushes the age back a lot.
If I weren't in grad school though, I might feel ready to have kids. I like kids and definitely want them some day, and if I were more settled down I think I'd feel ready sooner.
I'm not married but I am in an LTR with a guy I think I will probably marry (fingers crossed) someday. If we weren't in school we might do that sooner but as it is there's no chance of us having the free time time or money to plan a wedding anytime soon.
Between grad school and traveling and not feeling like being in a serious enough relationship for children, I didn't have a kid until the age of 35 (and I inherited a smart, beautiful, and charming step-daughter), and I wouldn't change things if you paid me. Conceiving at 34 was easy, in fact it was totally accidental (we actually just got really drunk on St Patrick's day and forgot that it was the worst possible time in my cycle...), but we were ready. So I guess my advice is, don't freak out if you don't feel like you're ready yet. From what I've read, the whole age 35 thing is fairly random (although as you get into your late 30s your chances of conceiving do decrease). And I don't think you can be as good of a parent if you feel like you're missing out on experiences you would like to have had.
Never had a clock to begin with....my mom had me though at age 41 and I turned out okay, ten fingers and ten toes. Just to remind you all, it's perfectly okay not to join the sheeple; you don't have to have children! Yippeee!
I love the word 'sheeples!!!!!'
I'm in grad school too, and I want kids (definitely by the time I'm in dissertation writing stage (28?)). Not because it will be convenient (colleagues with children have it pretty rough), or is even really socially acceptable among other academics. But because my body is driving me crazy. I have a hormone-free IUD, so what I feel for about 2-3 days every month is my real and actual biological clock, saying, "It's time!". Ovulating is truly driving me insane! I'd have to say that the social timeline says 35 is normal for educated women. For me, it's too old, not only because of what my body's telling me, but because I want to be a youthful mom. Not that I'm judging any woman at any age for having children. I just feel like I'm fighting against a norm for having children when it's more convenient and practical, education and career-wise.
I never felt the biological clock in the 'want baby now' sort of way I've always interpreted that phrase as but I think I'm starting to understand it in a practical way. I've always wanted kids, but *someday*.
I'm 30 years old now. I'll be 31 when I'm married and my fiance and I both agree two kids is a good number. Since we haven't talked about throwing out the birth control on the honeymoon, I'm wondering where we're going to squeeze them in before that 35 deadline. Not to mention looking at finances - we're doing fine for the two of us but I have trouble imagining now anyone can support a whole other person or two.
Hmmm, if only there was a way to not have morning sickness and be a parent... hmmm... if only there was a way to not have to choose between running an increased risk of giving birth to a child with low quality of life and being financially and otherwise prepared to face the responcibilities of parenthood...
I believe I've heard about something like this, I think it start with "a" and ends with "doption". But breeding is so much more exciting, isn't it? You get to pass on your genes, and who knows, maybe you'll end up producing a kid who finds a cure for cancer after all. Of course, the chance that they will be a victim of violence at some point in their life is much, much higher, and the chance that they will experience some form of suffering is 100%, but it's all worth it to make yourself feel self-important. And ensure the economy doesn't collapse, of course.
Oh, and if only there was a way to make sure you don't end up accidentally having a child you resent... Oh wait, there is one.
You realize you just dissed most of the human population, right? And that includes your parents, your grandparents, great grandparents, etc...
I hate to think what you do when you see some parents and a kid on the street. Do you spit on them and yell about how the parents are selfish bastards?
I am very for adoption, but looking down on people who have kids biologically? That's just depressing.
If you didn't mean it that way, I'm sorry, but it's what it sounded like.
Ah yes, if the majority is in favor of something, it just has to be good. I'm sure you think prop 8 was an excellent idea, then.
Yes, I wish my parents would not have reproduced. What was your point in bringing it up, appeal to emotion? Not just because they were shitty parents, but for the same reason I wish no one would reproduce. Even if you are an excellent parent, something sucky is going to happen to your child eventually, but it doesn't miss out on anything if it hasn't been born.
I don't feel the need to spit on or yell at people to get my point across, do you? And that wouldn't accomplish anything other than get me arrested for assault. I prefer rational arguments, myself. Not that posting my opinions on the internets accomplishes much, but at least it's effective in terms of acquainting me with prevalent frames of mind, which usually only fortifies my cynicism concerning humanity.
For those of you keeping score at home -
Scripsit "Concerned Marsupial"
Scripsit "hmmm"
Scripsit "Concerned Marsupial"
I may have misquoted a couple of lines, but you get my point. All the same, you come across as kind of an asshole, Marsupial. I have no opinion on the topic in question, but I think you'd probably catch more flies with honey - or at least without resorting to hasty generalizations.
Ah yes, classy. Let's continue with the ad homs. If you can't counter the arguments (or do not have the ability to differentiate between hasty generalizations and reductio ad absurdum), criticize the tone, that works every time. Better yet, claim neutrality on the topic of discussion but manage to call someone an asshole anyway, that'll give you some credibility! Notice I'm not criticizing your tone here, I'm criticizing the contents of your comment. Perhaps you could grant me the same courtesy.
You were rude and condescending in your first post and now you want us to be nice to YOU?? It doesn't work that way.
I don't care if you're nice to me, or if you call me an asshole, for that matter. It sounds like a compliment coming from some people, in fact. That's why I don't criticize people's tone. What I did ask for is a discussion of my arguments instead of someone jumping in to merely register their disdain while not offering any substance to the conversation.
Wow. I sense youre all just ganging up on Ms. Marsupial because YOU oppose HER position. I agree with Marsupial and think you shouldnt feel so offended. Also, this highly off-topic. Her opinion isnt any more offensive than those that erroneously think that because thise that hate religion are somehow being disrespecting of their religion, when in fact thoise that are religious simply feel entitled to have thier majority rule catered too. Its her own opinion. It isnt wrong. Knock it off!
Surely there are ways to defend her that don't involve suggesting that we're conspiring to hate her and don't have a right to our own emotions.
>> Yes, I wish my parents would not have reproduced. [...] Even if you are an excellent parent, something sucky is going to happen to your child eventually, but it doesn't miss out on anything if it hasn't been born.
Yikes. That is truly the worst outlook on life I've ever encountered. One can surely live a worthwhile, even happy, life despite the assurance that "something sucky is going to happen [...] eventually". Certainly those worthwhile moments would be "missed out on" if one had never been born.
Even as a rare Christian feminist -- I'll not disrespect you or your life with a condescending pious "I'll pray for you" diatribe. But, I do truly hope that you find enough peace and happiness from here on that you believe your life was worth living.
kbz
On a side note to this argument, I just want to reach out and support another Christian feminist. A key reason why I keep returning to faith in my struggles is that, logically, I cannot justify my birth and continued existence if I do not believe in a God. I know that many people disagree with this mentality, but, when I tried rejecting faith, I simply couldn't handle the guilt of my continued existence, and my consumption of space and energy that my existence created. This is simply a personal conviction for myself.
The age old philosophical question of "why are we here and why should we stay?" continues to resonate...
A key reason why I keep returning to faith in my struggles is that, logically, I cannot justify my birth and continued existence if I do not believe in a God.
At least you're honest about it. If you try to look logically at whether or not you are responsible for your existence, you will find that you are not, and your guilt will hopefully be alleviated so you won't need god as a crutch.
And the fact that you seek out god to strengthen your will to live shows that you already value life enough to continue living it.
The way I look at it, we've already been born, might as well enjoy it if there is something to enjoy. As long as I try to avoid screwing up other human and non-human animals' lives, I don't see any reason to feel guilty over my continued existence. And if I ever get to being vegan, I intend on living a life without any existential guilt whatsoever.
Thank you for your kind words. However, my apologies-- while I find your 'God as a crutch' statement interesting, I'm going to have to avoid continuing this discussion right now, since I don't quite have the time tonight to properly engage with the topic. (However, I just want to quickly add that I was addressing the poster's 'a rare Christian feminist' statement-- personally, I've never found Christian feminists to be rare).
On a second note, your statement about your veganism helps me to understand your views on childbirth and adoption. As another vegan, I constantly run into the moral dilemma of how to reduce my consumption and my damage to the earth. I just worry about the indirect harm I cause animals and other humans in what I eat and what I buy. However, if I bring a biological child onto this earth, am I only creating another consumer?
I'm still conflicted as to where I stand regarding all these issues...
"Even as a rare Christian feminist -- I'll not disrespect you or your life with a condescending pious "I'll pray for you" diatribe."
Isn't that kind of like saying "I won't tell you how ugly I think your shirt is." I mean, by saying you AREN'T going to say it, didn't you kind of, I dunno... say it?
woot! christian feminists! :)
i don't think i could ever fully communicate to someone else why i believe in God; it's something that continues to evolve for me. but in my mind, the most important thing for christians is to take the love of God into the world, and feminism and all the humanist movements are absolutely vital to that effort.
cm's ideas strike me as those of someone with a lot of sadness and strife. i can't engage her/him in argument because it comes down to one fundamental bit of dischord: i sense and believe that my life has a meaning beyond my own existence, and she/he doesn't seem to, unless i'm misunderstanding the position. therefore this one can't be won.
While I do support adoption for those who feel that it is right for them, promoting adoption as the 'better' choice than natural child-bearing implies a mentality that 'only the rich should have children'. Adoption costs at least $20 000 on the spot (in my area at least) and involves an intense screening process. Parents might not have $20 000 of disposable income, or a spotless history, but that does not mean that they won't be able to provide a secure childhood for their child.
Also, it's important to remember why it's so difficult to adopt. I know, in Canada in the nineteenth century, there was a custom of farm families adopting unwanted children from orphanages, or having them shipped over from Britain. (Anne of Green Gables is an example of a farm family doing this). These 'home boys' (for they were mostly boys) were used as free labour, and, in many cases, treated rather badly and not as a true part of the family. This is partly why adoption became more difficult to secure, to prevent these types of system abuses.
And, also, if feminist ideals continue to succeed, and birth control use increase, the number of unwanted pregnancies will decrease, and the number of children available for adoption will shrink as well. (I read an article a few years ago saying that this has been the case in Canada, and that the number of unwanted children, abandoned children, and infanticides have plummeted since abortion and birth control became easily available).
I am certainly not in favor of the idea that only the rich should have children. It's kind of incompatible with being a communist. But I do think at the very least that prospective parents, whether biological or adoptive, should be able to pass a background check of some kind. Are biological children not entitled to the same protections as adopted children? Biological parents can and do abuse their children in every way imaginable. The whole sentiment about blood ties being a guarantee of good treatment is nothing but a myth.
BTW, as onevoice mentioned, it's free to adopt from foster care, at least in the US (not sure about Canada). In my home country, it's very easy to adopt if you're a citizen. You even get benefits. Almost no one does it anyway, which leads me to believe that people tend to prefer reproduction to adoption regardless of availability and costs of the latter.
You seem to think that if adoption is not an option, it's okay to reproduce on a whim. Here's a thought experiment: would it be worth it to kill someone in order to experience the joy of parenthood? Because that's what reproduction is, essentially. You knowingly cause someone to die by procreating them.
"Because that's what reproduction is, essentially. You knowingly cause someone to die by procreating them."
That's just about the biggest quasi-existential bullshit I've ever heard. Not everyone has a shitty life. Just because you had shitty parents doesn't mean everyone else will. And if you really really hate being born so much...why don't you do something about it, instead of being angry at just about everyone on the planet and trying to make everyone you come in contact with more miserable?
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to suggest that I kill myself. Not that long, as it turns out. I don't have a shitty life, at least not at the moment. Not that it matters to my argument other than perhaps bringing it to my attention that life is not automatically good.
It's not that everyone has a shitty life, it's that everyone has some shit in their lives. Are you an exception?
I try to minimize misery by advocating making sure less people experience it and mainly by not reproducing myself. It's not my intention to make you miserable and if you somehow became so as a result of what I said, it's not my responsibility. I always love it when I get accused of being angry on a feminist blog for antinatalism, or on an atheist blog for vegetarianism. Why is it that some people who often face the same baseless accusations and dismissals for being concerned with important issues are so eager to throw them at others for the same reason?
Are you actually suggesting that we lessen suffering and death by not allowing people to be born? Really? That's the best you've got? Let me quote Richard Dawkins to you:
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here."
By the way, making people pass some sort of test (while emotionally satisfying at times) is called eugenics. Whether you're a communist or a libertarian, you have to be pretty fast and loose with human rights to suggest that some arm of society or government will determine who can and cannot reproduce as per a set of arbitrarilly determined criteria.
I mean, for crying out loud, it's not 1920 anymore.
exactly. so, because we're mortal-i.e. going to die eventually, nothing can happen between birth and death to make life worthwhile? I call b.s. on that. Yes, everyone has some shit. adopting rather than being born doesn't guarantee a shit free life. and really, the only people who say they have shit free lives that I know are lying.
Are you actually suggesting that we lessen suffering and death by not allowing people to be born?
Yes, unless you have evidence that the suffering caused to people by not reproducing biologically is greater than the suffering of their ofspring throughout their whole life.
I know what Dawkins thinks about being lucky to be born. I think he might be biased by his background as an evolutionary biologist and thinking in terms of natural selection. I actually thought a long time ago about starting a thread on his board about it. He does reply sometimes.
I don't advocate eugenics because I suggest no one reproduce. It's not eugenics if no one's discriminated against. But I do think that as long as the current system is allowed to continue, it would be a good idea to apply the same requirements to biological parents as adoptive ones. Do you think it's fair that adopted children are given more protection than biological children? Or are you in favor of eliminating all screening for adoptions? What about the black market organ dealers and child pornographers?
""We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here."
Aside from the fact that this is the same type of argument anti-choicers use, none of the above quote makes any sense. If people werent born, then that means that we wouldnt have cancers, or need for poets. I believe these are all simply things we use to entertain ourselves (except of course such things as cancers, illnesses) before we die. Also, of all those "unborn babies," are murderes, killers and rapists. Who cares if we have genius in a Taliban type environment. The genius will be tortured and killed off and then another brutish tyrant will take over and inhibit genius once again. Essentially, humans are the Great Enemy. With humans come diversity and that is a risk I cant fathom leaving an innocent human being to have to deal with. Even geniuses become mentally ill and have to watch their decline. But what does society care, after all, they got their 'formula' or whatever. Its simply exploitation and greed, nothing miraculous as far as I'm concerned.
Gawd, it's refreshing to finally see a person who actually reads and understands your posts. I was givng up hope. It's pretty fucking amazing how defensive people get when you dare suggest that using a human being to your own ends might not be a good idea. And those are the people who you'd suppose would be able to relate to the sentiment since they argue for gender equality. I gotta go have a funeral for my irony meter.
"I was wondering how long it would take for someone to suggest that I kill myself."
That is the logical conclusion of all your arguments here. I mean, if all these human beings being alive sucks so bad, for themselves and for the planet, why don't we all kill ourselves? Why, if the only important thing is the ends not the means as you seem to be suggesting, stop reproducing when you can murder and commit suicide instead?
You are being totally absurd. I don't want to die. I think death is bad! For many reasons that are obvious. It might come as a total shocker to you, but life sort of leads to death, which is one of the biggest reasons why it's better to not have been born. If someone is not born, they don't die. It's all pretty clear-cut, really.
And I don't murder people because I value freedom and consent. Clearly, most people don't want to die, myself included. I'm not entirely sure why you have so little regard for consent, but it's kind of essential to a free society.
I think this is the moment you count as a troll. You've been arguing that life sucks so bad that we shouldn't have babies because we are condemning them to suffering, and then you say its absurd for someone to conclude that you don't value life-- actually you value life and hate death!
If you're not going to try to make sense people are going to quickly give up talking to you.
I can't tell if she's a troll or just so wrapped up in her dogma that she can't climb out of it.
If anyones being a troll on this website, its fucking YOU two. Fucking stuff it, -K-.
Freedom of opinion, not oppression. I think you need to learn the difference.
Freedom of opinion doesn't mean we all have to agree. Do you see anyone advocating censoring CM? We are, however, allowed to disagree with her (him?) and point out obvious logical fallacies.
You also should probably check the definition of a troll in this context. It isn't anyone you disagree with or even anyone who is being rude. It is someone who consistently and repeatedly posts things that don't make sense and are clearly designed just to inflame. They are also known for being purposely obtuse and misunderstanding other peolple's posts in order to seem like they are being oppressed somehow.
No fucking shit! It's times like these when I realize just how UNwelcome true dissent and radical ideas and thought can be around here. I don't FULLY agree with Concerned Marsupial, but I do agree with some of her points, and furthermore, I can think about it rationally enough to not let it get to me on a personal level. It reminds me of a harshly critical comment I made about Obama that had people comparing impeachment to beheading and suggesting I was a right wing troll pretending to be a feminist... because a REAL feminist would NEVER think something THAT crazy, and if she does, why, that's offensive to ME!!
"And if you really really hate being born so much...why don't you do something about it"
Agnes, are you suggesting she execute suicide? Gawd, what bullshit spews from your fucking posts! Marsupial simply seems concerned for the welfare of kids, and is taking a different perspective on it. You act as if she is waging war on humanity. Get a FUCKING grip! For the record, I agree with Marsupial. I never had a bad childhood, but have the same perspective as she does. Technically, your first breath is also the first day you begin to die. Thats reality. Dont fucking cry about it.
It may have been a little rude* to phrase it as suggesting suicide, but it really IS the logical conclusion of Concerned Marsupial's posts. (I don't think murder is-- you can respect the right of others to live even if you don't want to have been born).
*rudeness that may be warranted based on the comments being responded to
Suggesting suicide is "a little rude?" Hot damn, what would be considered a "lot rude" to you?
My point was that the phrasing was a little rude, but the question made perfect sense.
If someone says life is full of suffering and its better for people not to be born, its a logical question to ask why that person chooses not to kill themselves. It could get some interesting answers. The answer could be "actually I am totally enjoying my life, I just don't think others should be born" or it could be "I would like to die but I"m afraid of the physical pain of suicide" or it could be "I do plan to kill myself as soon as my aging mother dies," etc. It is an interesting topic of discussion and is a very obvious response to CM's previous posts.
What I meant is that the person who said it sounded more like they were suggesting suicide than asking for answers, and that's why it was a little rude. But it is a fair question in this context, even if it didn't come with a disclaimer.
"Technically, your first breath is also the first day you begin to die. Thats reality. Dont fucking cry about it."
I'm not sure how this is you agreeing with CM. She seems to be the one crying about it, saying that life is so bad because you will suffer and die that no one should live in the first place. The rest of us are saying yes, death is a part of life, but we accept it and live anyway.
How is she 'whining' about it? You read her comments and constructed it that way, simply because you reacted superficially to her philosophy. I cant logically see any whining in her posts. She states she doesnt want kids, because from her perspective, having kids is bringing them into a world of diverse suffering. Her theoretical kid might suffer a take-over from a hostile army, suffocate from environmental pollution, have a rare genetic disease, be hit by a car, be held up at gun point, tortured and shot, or any number of problems. Technically, shes right. If her side is simply to err on caution and be realistic then so be it. Its simply another angle on the child theories umbrella. To put another human into a world of violence and ignorance for some people is unconscionable.Lastly, its not right the way you treated her comments. It was highly intellectually myopic of you and simply stemmed from the fact that you were put out of your comfort zone. Pretty petty.
Also, its fucking blazingly obvious shes not a fucking troll. She sounds concerned for human kinds welfare and is simply tossing out an unconventional theory as a means to possibly lessen misery on people.
Shes no fucking troll. I think its fucked up to try and start a reactionary mob against her simply for her unorthodox views. Its innovating and I'd rather read that than your blather.
I didn't use the word whining at all, so its odd that you put it in quotes. I used the word crying, because you used it first. You told the rest of us not to "cry" about how life leads to death, and I pointed out that if anyone is saying that, it is CM.
I'm not sure why you're getting so angry. At least CM, for all the logical issues, is keeping profanity-free.
You and she are certainly entitled to your opinion. What you're not entitled to is everyone else automatically agreeing with you. If someone doesn't want to have kids, fine, I don't really care. If they want to believe that giving birth is a crime against that child because they will die one day, well, obviously they're entitled to believe that, but if they post about it publicly the rest of us are entitled to point out issues with that view. Freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to tiptoe around everyone else's ideas, it means we don't put them in jail for expressing them.
I'm going to try to defend Concerned Marsupial here. I guess sarcasm doesn't translate very well in text.
After 5 years as a Social Worker in the foster care system, I get a little frustrated with women spending tens of thousands on fertility treatments, or rearranging professional lives to accommodate a "ticking clock," while hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of children around the world need parents. FYI, it is free to adopt through foster care! If you live in a more progressive state, this option is available to the GLBT community as well.
Personally, I am 27 and attended HS in a fairly blue collar area. A few of my friends had children very early. I am thrilled for their happiness. But, I personally have little urge to parent and possibly never will. Expressing this to my HS friends is often met with extreme defensiveness, as if my own doubts about parenting is an attack on their life choices. Im surprised to see this same reaction in a few of the comments here. This sort of "defend the norm" thinking is evoked to defeat gay marriage activists too.
Thank you, onevoice. I was about to mention foster care myself. Tons of kids age out of foster care, and a lot of the times group homes and sometimes even proctor and foster homes treat kids like a living paycheck and don't have their interests at heart at all. And my heart goes out to you for working in the system. I know the expectations from social workers are unrealistic, and the pay is absolutely incommensurate with the demands of the job.
If I ever adopt while living in the US, it will be from foster care.
Adoption is a great option for a lot of people who are willing to prepare and do their research, but it's not the end-all be-all solution for parent or child. When I was growing up with my adoptive family, my biological family were freaking over the amount of headlines about abused adopted kids.
Also, speaking as an adopted kid who knows many others, there is a common feeling of detachment from the people you love, and feelings of missing part of your identity. Such things about me I didn't understand suddenly made sense when I met my biological family. Biology accounts for more than we give it credit for.
I'm not saying adoption is a bad choice. I'm lucky and thankful to have both families, and would have turned out very different if I weren't adopted out to my parents. It should remain a good option. However, if your cynical about people reproducing, and I agree there are people who shouldn't, you should also be cynical about some people who choose to adopt.
Also, while I fully support people who choose not to have kids, I don't think the fact that a child will experience suffering at some point in their life is a legitimate reason to deem birthing kids as selfish. It's too simplistic a black/white argument for my taste.
I appreciate your insight, and I realize that identity-related experiences like yours are almost universal among adopted children, but I think they result largely from the fact that society values the norm and makes those who don't conform feel somehow deficient. I do feel cynical about adoptive parents who abuse children, as well, but my argument is concerned with the fact that reproduction itself is a form of abuse (or at least neglect).
I am glad that someone has addressed my argument, though. Could you please elaborate on why you think it's black and white and simplistic? I should probably mention that I think every human action is selfish in some sense, so I regard my own antinatalism and vegetarianism as selfish because it brings me pleasure to know I'm trying to minimize my contribution to suffering. I'm more concerned with utilitarianism than intentions in this case. As I mentioned earlier, if one is not born, he/she is not missing any of the good things life has to offer, so there are no downsides to not existing, while existence has obvious downsides. Do you disagree with that?
I don't think this logic holds. If a person is not born, then the pleasure (or fulfilled preferences) they would have had don't exist, so the sum total of good things is lessened, because that person doesn't experience them. So, there is a negative on the "good thing" balance of the utilitarian equation. If they are born, there is a chance for them to experience suffering, but there is also a chance for them to experience pleasure, fulfilled preferences, etc. If they are born into a good situation, with good parents, their chances of the pleasure scale being higher than the suffering scale are very high. So, it would be a sum total positive for people in a good situation with personalities and behaviors suited to caring for children to have a child.
Now, it seems as if you are in favor of adoption, but against people procreating on purpose. But what happens when people procreate accidentally? Do you think more of them than people who get pregnant on purpose?
You are not addressing the fact that a non-existent person is not deprived of pleasure or fulfilled preferences. Sure, they don't experience them, but it doesn't matter since they are not there to know what they're missing.
Perhaps instead of concentrating on the dichotomy of happines vs. suffering, it would be helpful to think of it in terms of feeling deprived of something. For instance, if you're hungry, you feel deprived of food, if you're sick, you feel deprived of health, etc. If you're in love, you want to be with the person, you feel that you need them, you can't live without them, etc. You feel deprived of their companionship. That's why most people prefer to pursue relationships with the people they love instead of admiring from afar Dante and Beatrice style - they want those feelings of deprivation to go away. And, of course, the main issue is that you have to know you are being deprived. A non-existent person is not aware of anything, so they cannot possibly experience any kind of deprivation. A non-existent person can't experience happiness, either, but it doesn't matter to them. Not to mention the fact that happiness usually results from having felt deprivation for a prolonged period and then finally getting what you want/need. I was really happy to see my husband after six months apart, but it was preceded by six months of misery. I'm still happy to see him, but I don't feel the same incredible elation I did then because I see him every day now.
So, if we look at non-existence vs. existence in terms of experiencing deprivation, the total for the former is 0, while the total for the latter is always greater than 0. Therefore, it's more beneficial to not exist. Furthermore, you cannot obtain consent from your child before you give birth to them, and they might not be as optimistic as you about it.
Of course, you could argue that parents are deprived of the joy to pass on their genes or whatever. It's almost universally accepted, however, that living children cannot consent to sex, but it doesn't occur to anyone that non-existent children cannot consent to being born. So if someone feels the biological clock ticking, I feel bad for them, but the fact remains that it's impossible to consent to being born. They can still have sex and adopt as long as they satisfy the requirements. I'm aware of discrimination in adoption, and it needs to be fought, but it still doesn't mean it's okay to reproduce biologically.
As for people who reproduce accidentally, it depends. I don't really think "less" or "more" of people for the things they do because I try to not fall into the trap of assigning blame. I only think less or more of people's actions or beliefs. I think it's fairly easy to avoid reproducing accidentally in countries that have legal abortion. If abortion is illegal, then I'm inclined to feel sympathetic towards the parents for having to live in a more oppressive society. Personally, if no contraception was available at all, I would forgo vaginal sex. If there were no kids available for adoption in the whole world and I really wanted to be a parent, I would still not reproduce. Of course, most of us here have the option of contraception, abortion and adoption. I'm certainly not demanding anything like forced sterilizations or abortions, I just wish more people would try to make conscientious choices.
>> Furthermore, you cannot obtain consent from your child before you give birth to them, and they might not be as optimistic as you about it.
Consent is not morally required. This is a nonsensical argument.
>> I don't really think "less" or "more" of people for the things they do because I try to not fall into the trap of assigning blame. [...] I'm certainly not demanding anything like forced sterilizations or abortions, I just wish more people would try to make conscientious choices.
So, you're not judgmental -- you just wish people were as highly conscientious as you? Such condescention toward those who disagree with you could be considered quite judgmental. Is it entirely impossible that someone came to a logical conscientious decision that does not coincide with your own?
Do you have a monopoly on conscientious decision-making?
kbz
Consent is not morally required.
So rape is okay, then?
As for the rest:
I wish people would adress my arguments instead of accusing me of smugness left and right. I mentioned my feelings on the matter because I was aksed a question, and I saw no reason to withold an answer. Take it or leave it. I could point out that I think there are people who are more conscientious than me, like vegans, but that would put a damper on your glee, wouldn't it? If you think it's impossible to judge opinions while not judging people, I'm really not sure what I can do to make myself any more clear. Besides, wouldn't you be judgmental by your own definition by accusing me of condescencion?
Yes, we are being judgmental. But we never claimed to NOT be judgmental.
Personally, my judgment right now is telling me that you're either unintentionally acting trollish with your circuitous "logic" or simply a troll, period.
>>> Consent is not morally required.
>> So rape is okay, then?
I think you're being intentionally obtuse. Consent is not morally required for birth. If fetal consent is morally required for birth, then it would be morally required for an abortion as well -- and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't take that particular position.
>> I wish people would adress my arguments instead of accusing me of smugness left and right.
Your arguments are, generally speaking, the poius nonsensical rants of a person trying to appear "conscientous". You talk of "avoiding suffering" -- and in the process, avoid living.
>> Take it or leave it.
Leave it.
>> Besides, wouldn't you be judgmental by your own definition by accusing me of condescencion?
I never said I wasn't judgmental -- you said you were.
kbz
Consent is not morally required for birth. If fetal consent is morally required for birth, then it would be morally required for an abortion as well -- and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't take that particular position.
You think you'd have noticed by now that I'm not talking about fetal consent. Indeed, I agree that fetal consent is not required for abortion. For that matter, if it were possible for me to attach myself, a grown woman, to you and parasitize off your body, you would have the right to detach myself from yourself even if it resulted in my death because you have the right to control your body. But when someone decides to reproduce, they don't intend on harboring a fetus in their uterus forever, they intend to produce a separate living person and then inflict all kinds of things on them solely for their own pleasure which I argue is outweighed by the child's suffering throughout its life. You can control you body, but it doesn't mean you are entitled to direct your finger to push the trigger and fire a shot at me. A pregnancy that you intend to carry to term is similar in this respect.
"As I mentioned earlier, if one is not born, he/she is not missing any of the good things life has to offer, so there are no downsides to not existing, while existence has obvious downsides. Do you disagree with that?"
Yes, I disagree because I think the majority of people are at least happy enough with their lives that they want to live/stay alive. I'm pretty sure the percentage of people who commit suicide is lower than the percentage of people who don't. Yeah, nobody is going to have a perfect life, but whether or not you get over it is your own choice. I don't see why a potential responsible/loving parent should choose not to have kids just because there are downsides to existing. I've experienced downsides and I think my parents did a fine enough job and I'm grateful for it...Adoption provides a home for children whose parents are not fit, but that doesn't mean all biological parents should be distrusted as automatically abusive. And in response to your outlook on life: the real issue is that, whether you have your children through reproduction or adoption, parenting should be about giving kids happy, loving, nurturing homes, not bringing them into your personal hell...If you think that most parents are that bad, why would you want them to adopt kids any more than give birth to them?
I think you misunderstand me. I never said most parents are bad or that biological parents are necessarily less fit to provide a good environment for the child once it's born. A lot of people adopt only because they can't reproduce biologically, so it's not like they necessarily have the moral high ground. Not that I consider the concept of moral high ground meaningful in any sense. I'm only making a point that reproduction is harmful, independent from any further abuse that may occur.
You are not addressing my point, either. One can want to stay alive while simultaneously realizing that they would have been better off to never exist. The fact that some people do want to kill themselves should make it clear that life is not automatically a good thing for everyone. Again, just because most people have an optimistic outlook on their quality of life, doesn't mean everyone will. I'm simply not prepared to run the risk of inflicting that kind of suffering on anyone or sacrifice the minority to the majority. Especially since they can't consent to be born.
What is so bad about suffering? Seriously. I know we all want to minimize it as much as possible, for ourselves and for others, but there is value in suffering that your argument doesn't acknowledge. Personally, all of the suffering I have experienced has made me a better person who can better appreciate that all that suffering is now in the past - and potentially the future, but not the present. For god's sake, feminism was/is born out of suffering. Life is balanced by suffering; we can't have every moment be a happy one, though we can certainly dream about it. It makes the other moments more valuable than they would be without it.
So while suffering may suck, no arguing that, it's pretty ridiculous to use the avoidance of suffering as the basis of a philosophy.
>> As I mentioned earlier, if one is not born, he/she is not missing any of the good things life has to offer, so there are no downsides to not existing, while existence has obvious downsides. Do you disagree with that?
I will agree to the extent that an unborn individual will never know the experiences that were missed. I simply don't see how you then come to the conclusion that "he/she is not missing any of the good things that life has to offer". The fact that one does not know what they're missing does not negate the fact that he/she is, in actuality, missing everything.
I've never been of the opinion that ignorance is preferable to knowledge. That one would not KNOW what they were missing doesn't mean that they aren't missing it.
kbz
If you want to get technical about it, they are missing ignorance too. How can something that doesn't exist be ignorant? Real people's ignorance may contribute to their suffering, that's probably why you are opposed to it (I hope it's not some sort of absolute morality thing). But there is no need to worry about the ignorance of people that don't exist, I assure you.
It would also then follow from your premise that people like the Duggar family or the woman who's just given birth to octuplets are the greatest philantropists because they make sure as many people not miss anything as possible.
You've mentioned you're a Christian. You don't happen to be a Mormon, by any chance? I ask because Mormon theology is about the only belief system I'm familiar with in which you are actually doing kids a favor by birthing them since they exist in the form of intelligences before you conceive them, and god sort of found them lying around and decided to make the into gods, as well, ehich requires a physical body. As far as I understand, all the other Christian denominations think the soul is sort of created at the moment of conception/birth or something like that. Correct me if I'm wrong. So it would actually make sense in those belief systems to not reproduce, otherwise you might end up producing someone who is sentenced to Hell for eternity. It would be interesting to find out how you combine your religion with your reproductive views, but I'll respect it if you don't want to answer.
so, you're saying that they can miss out on dying, even though they don't know it, and that's good, but they can't miss out on good things because they don't know it? Internal consistency fail here.
Here, let me help you: you miss out on everything if you don't exist. That includes deprivation/suffering. Suffering is bad; the absence of suffering is good. Where's the inconsistency?
Perhaps if you spent less time setting up semantic traps, you would see my point.
You say the absence of suffering is good.
Then logically the absence of pleasure or other good things would be considered bad.
Because in that case, not existing means missing out on bad things (good) and missing out on good things (bad) so it evens out. Of course you can argue about whether life is more good than bad, but you seem to be discounting the good parts completely, which isn't consistent unless you have a reason why the absence only counts in one direction.
I'm only 22, so the pressure to have children has not descended upon me yet. However, my family has the slightly unusual situation in that my parents essentially had two sets of kids. They had a boy at 27, and a girl at 31. Eight years later, they had another girl at 39, and a second boy when they were 44. My youngest sibling was an accident; my Mum, after taking a huge promotion, found out she was pregnant two weeks after moving into her new office. Her two later births were slightly more difficult than the earlier ones, but she had easier pregnancies. Anyway, watching how my parents raised the two sets of us demonstrates advantages and disadvantage to having children young, and later in life.
Anyway, my brother and I were born when my parents were still relatively young. They were out of grad school by about two years, and still struggling financially and trying to establish their careers. This meant that they had to learn how to balance career and family and money was always extremely tight. However, on the plus side, they had more flexibility in terms of putting careers on hold to stay home (both my parents did this) and my grandparents were young enough that they could help out a lot (my grandmother once lived with us for a year to babysit me).
With my younger brother and sister, my parents were in a much better financial situation. They could afford babysitters and quality daycare, dance lessons, electronics, etc. Their careers were more established, so it became a lot easier to manage both quality family time and their jobs. However, they now have to deal with both a young family and their aging parents with severe health problems. Also, there's the energy consideration-- they're 53 now and have a lot less energy than they did when they were 33. (Of course, this just might be from having children around constantly for the past 27 years).
Anyway, there's definite advantages and disadvantages to either age. Just, in my opinion, it's extremely important to have a solid 'before children' time period in a relationship, in order to develop important fundamentals. My best friend got pregnant at the age of 22, after dating her partner for less than a year--- she's now constantly lamenting her lost youth and her relationship is struggling severely.
Very insightful post. Thanks for sharing.
I definitely see the older parent situation a lot more in my family, since many of the past generation has had their first kids after 40. My parents were close to that when I was born as well. Seeing them deal with their own aging parents has made me realize a lot more about a parent-child relationship.
My grandparents generation was the opposite and included a lot more children starting around age 20.
I agree about having a solid "before children" time in a relationship. Very important.
I'm 26 and while none of my college or graduate school friends are having babies, I have noticed that many of the people I went to high school with (graduating class) now have kids (and have been having them for over six years now). It's hard to compare the HS group to the grad school group since grad school ages vary so much, but the college group and the HS group are approx. the same age cohort. The major difference I can think of is that my hs town was a lot more conservative than my college town. it's hard to generalize though, because out of the people I know who have kids: some are married, some aren't; some have college degrees, others don't; some reflect more conservative values while others are more liberal. Although it does seem like the ones who went to college are having babies more recently (within the past 2-3 years?) than my friends who didn't go to college, who had them within a few years after HS graduation. At my university, I do not know of as many people who are having kids, but I am sure some must be. I would guess overall that how much time you spend in post-secondary education might play one of the biggest roles but have no way of knowing for sure. I am probably not going to have kids until my 30s, but for me that has less to do with my educational level than it does with my sexual orientation, needing to find the right partner (definitely not on the fast track here), needing to go through the right channels for adoption or reproduction, etc.
This is a little bit off track from some of the other comments...
I'm 19 at the moment, so my biological clock is not exactly ticking noticeably yet, but I do find it incredibly frustrating to have my desire to be childless constantly dismissed with the timeless comment: "Oh, wait until you're thirty... you'll change your mind."
I'm sure for many people this is true, but it feels somewhat rude to the significant number of people who have happy fulfilling lives without progeny. The thing that annoys me most about this argument is that is it almost impossible to respond to. I cannot say for sure that I will not ever have children, but I resent being told that my body will make the choice for me regardless of other factors.
Any tips for confronting these biological clock know-it-alls?
I would always just say, "Maybe I will but right now I don't." How are they going to argue with that?
I'm almost thirty, and no sign of that ticking in my uterus yet. The "oh, you'll change your mind" people used to drive me nuts, though - ever noticed that no one says that when someone decides to have kids, rather than not have them? Suddenly 20 or 25 or whatever isn't "too young" to make a life-changing decision like that (even though it's a lot easier to change your mind later if you don't want kids than if you have them and decide you don't want them).
Um, people might not say that aloud but they do think it. (I've thought it when some of my friends have been baby-crazy in their early twenties, and have either changed their minds, or had children and regretted their haste). However, there's no tactful way to say to someone "you'll regret this decision". Not having children is easier for people to criticise aloud, because, it's true, you always can change your mind about not having a family. However, the decision to have children is a little more irrevocable; it doesn't matter if someone changes their mind about having kids. Once they've had them, they can't undo their decision...
Tell them it would be worse to have a child and then change your mind.
(By the way, I'm 29 and still happily childfree, and happier that way daily. It does happen. Life without children of your own can happen, and can be fulfilling and wonderful.)
I'd like to point out the option of adoption but not as crassly as Concerned Marsupial. I saw my little brother being born when I was 13 so I have never wanted to bear my own children and simply don't understand that desire at all.
But I do love kids and lately I've been hanging out with my awesome niece a lot, which is kind of making me want a kid of my own because she's so rad. I feel like adoption would be a good way to make a big difference in the world too, since giving love and attention and stability to a child who doesn't have that (and might not if not for me) seems like such an awesome thing to do. I think we're going to go for cats first though and see if that makes the "craving" subside.
Actually, I can agree with this sentiment. While, I do have the biological desire to bear my own children, I also feel that it would be more environmentally and socially responsible of me to adopt. However, my SO and I are already having debates over this because he wants to have his own biological children, whereas, for me, the notion of pregnancy both attracts me and freaks me out. The idea of being 'inseminated' definitely bothers me, because it feels like a violation of my bodily integrity...
But, when I got my dogs, I got them from the humane society rather than a 'breeder'... can I apply the same mentality to my children?
I'm glad that you got your dog from the Humane Society! That is definitely how we will get a cat, HS or the ASPCA. We know for sure that we don't want a kitten so that's really the only sensible thing to do.
But adopting a kid isn't that simple (which is what I think you were saying); the difference between a kitten and a cat is that kittens are just a little more rambunctious, whereas the difference between a baby and, say, a toddler is huge. So yeah, that's definitely a big question.
I'm glad that you got your dog from the Humane Society! That is definitely how we will get a cat, HS or the ASPCA. We know for sure that we don't want a kitten so that's really the only sensible thing to do.
But adopting a kid isn't that simple (which is what I think you were saying); the difference between a kitten and a cat is that kittens are just a little more rambunctious, whereas the difference between a baby and, say, a toddler is huge. So yeah, that's definitely a big question.
I'm glad that you got your dog from the Humane Society! That is definitely how we will get a cat, HS or the ASPCA. We know for sure that we don't want a kitten so that's really the only sensible thing to do.
But adopting a kid isn't that simple (which is what I think you were saying); the difference between a kitten and a cat is that kittens are just a little more rambunctious, whereas the difference between a baby and, say, a toddler is huge. So yeah, that's definitely a big question.
Er, didn't realize hitting "refresh" would send that again!
Good luck with the kitten search! I definitely think shelters are the best way to go, since so many places have cat population problems... plus, at my local humane society, it's much cheaper. You get a couple rounds of shots, spaying/neutering, micro-chipping, three months of pet insurance, and the pet for between $100 to $200 dollars.
Anyway, back on topic, that is what I was trying to get at... a purely selfish part of me worries about trying to adopt an older child and discovering a whole host of unexpected problems. Anyway, I'm still confused about the whole topic and have no idea what I'll decide to end up doing... all I know is that I want a family at some point in my life.
I suppose that I'll be the outlier here. I'm not the worst-case-scenario, but definitely not the best case either. I wasn't worried about having children at 29, but I also wanted to wait as long as possible for the right guy to raise them with. He came along when I was 35, and we started trying as soon as we got engaged a year later -- after my OB-GYN said that my FSH levels were rising. I had two early-term miscarriages over the next year. We turned to IVF, and I'm now 3 1/2 months pregnant and things look good. But the 18 months of trying/failing have been just incredibly stressful and expensive. Fertility drugs can be $800 per month -- and that's after great insurance paid 1/2. IVF is $10-15K per try. And ovulating healthy eggs is, on average, so much easier at 32 than at 36. So my recommendation, if you've found your guy/girl, is to start trying by the time you are 32 or 33. That's a lot of time to play Rockband and sleep in. If you are equally OK adopting, of course, take longer. FWIW, YMMV, etc.
Unless you realize one day that sleeping in and doing what you want with your time is what you'd really like to CONTINUE doing, like I did. ;)
I agree with your post (and congrats and best wishes on your pregnancy!), but I'd just like to point out that rushing to try to get pregnant just because you're a certain age might be a bad idea. I think a lot of my peers don't seem to really think about the option of NOT having children, and they might decide that's right for them if they did. If, like, me, you wake up one day, realize it's prime baby-making time, and you still have NO urge to have a baby, or a child, or to be a parent, and you still think it's "too soon", it just might be the case that, for you, it's always going to be "too soon".
For the most part, at least in America, women and men alike are postponing having children what with more people going to graduate school and the general difficulty in achieving financial independence in today's economy. Additionally, many of us (such myself and most of my female friends) simply do not want to have children so as to a). not relinquish any personal freedom and b). not bring any more children into an already over-populated world.
My family is super lucky when it comes to fertility, as my mom had me when she was in her late 40s, my grandma had her last kid when she was 40, and my great grandma was in her late 40s also.
So I feel, if genetics can be counted on, I have a bit of time to decide.
If I have kids, I'd rather have them in my mid-to late 30s, as hopefully I'd be put-together and settled, but still have plenty of energy.
I love kids and am very interested in child psychology and development and all that, but as to whether I would like to have biological children, I'm not sure. If my siblings don't have biological kids and instead adopt, then I want to have at least one biological kid, mostly so my parents genes can go on, I guess. Otherwise, I'm very big about adoption.
I do know I want to raise a little person and fill its head with Feminist ideology so he/she can make funny and kinda awkward statements in preschool, just like my family did with me :)
"Recent studies have linked older fatherhood with increased risks of schizophrenia, autism, Down syndrome and other disorders in children. And in this case, "older" means as young as 40."
This quote stuck out to me. My father was 40 when I was born and I have asberger's.
I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure the father's age is not a significant factor unless the mother is also older. I don't really trust MSNBC for my science news -- most of mainstream media is too interested in an attention-grabbing headline than actually reporting the truth.
Well, my mom was also older. She was 36.
It's not just MSNBC, this information about paternal age being a factor is in my developmental psychology textbooks.
some of these comments really bother me. it's fine if you don't want to have kids, i totally respect that... but don't treat people that do want or have kids with disdain. i feel really offended when people say i'm selfish for having my daughter or that i had her to feel self important or that i'm just conforming to the expectation that women should be baby factories.
i must be a horrible feminist because i'm a 23 year old mother, a stay at home mom, and i never went to college...
I'm not feeling my biological clock ticking, but my husband is. He's 28, I'm over five years younger...and I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons of going for a baby while I'm still in law school, or waiting for 4+ years while I finish school and get an essential foothold in my career. I wish there were an easier middle ground to decide on. I am glad I have no pressure from him to get pregnant soon; he absolutely wants me to be excited and comfortable with the timing. It's something I think about all the time. We'll see...for now I don't feel like I'm ready, but that could change.
It's nice to hear there's little pressure on his side.
I'm not thinking about having children too soon (21 and still very much in school), but I also have an older boyfriend. I'm currently heading into grad school. I wonder, if we stay together, how this will affect our relationship.
One sweet result of my partner being the baby-hungry one is that we have lots of nice moments where he expresses how much he will love being a parent with me, taking care of our kids, being part of the pregnancy and labor learning process, etc. It's been really helpful to see him so loving and caring. I think that no matter what age I am, I will always be apprehensive about making the decision to go for a baby - but his support really helps mitigate my nervousness.
I'm a mom through adoption. I'm 30 now and I became a mom at 25. I see a lot of my friends stressing about getting in their set number of children before the magic age of 35. They space their children very close to get 2 or 3 before 35. Which is great if it works for them but seems strange to me. Also, I don't personally have the desire to pass on my genes and have biological children, but I also don't think adoption is for everyone. It was fairly easy for me to adopt as a married, middle-class heterosexual. Unfortunately, it's not always that way if you don't fit that mold.
i want a huge family so badly. i do want to have the experience of being pregnant and going through childbirth. but i also want to adopt many children. its so scary to think of though because i am queer and i am studying to be a social worker. sooo the money factor isn't on my side and neither is the fact that im gay as hell. i don't think i would be capable of being a single parent but i almost think it would be easier to adopt as a single mom than as a gay couple. does anyone know what adoption policies look like nationwide for the non-heteros right now?
it sucks that no matter what, i will need to save up LOTS of money when i decide to have kids (both through adoption or if i decide to get prego through sperm donations/ivf)
I know that first becoming foster parents of a young child (baby age) can be easier than straight out adoption for gay couples. From foster you can move to adoption if the circumstances are right and you are approved. This worked for people I know.
I am nearing 32 and my biological clock alternates between a distant ticking and an ear-splitting drum. I briefly broke up with my current partner last year because he told me from the very beginning that he never wanted kids. In the end I realized that I wanted him more than I wanted kids, and we stayed together. I'm madly in love but I worry that one day my desire for children will come back.
I am happy and fulfilled in my professional, social, and romantic life and frequently think that having kids would just ruin everything. At the same time, when I hold a friend's new baby (and there have been a lot of them in the past five years) it speaks to something very primal that I can't ignore. I also work in a profession where going the "traditional" route of children and / or marriage is seen as being a slave to norms and a patriarchal society, so in a way there's reverse pressure NOT to have kids.
In the end it's all very confusing and I don't know when, if ever, my own answer will be clear. If anything I'm grateful at the moment that I haven't chosen to have kids for the wrong reasons, and that I have a partner who loves and respects me for exactly who I am. For now maybe that's enough. Once I hit 35, though, all bets may be off.
I'm glad you brought this up, Courtney! These topics have been on my mind a lot lately.
I'm so tired of people asking me when I'm going to have kids. Does anyone else have this problem? My husband's boss's wife asks me every single time I see her - about once a week. What a rude question; why do people presume it is their business to know the reproductive plans of people they barely know? I can't seem to find a polite way to say "none of your business, and don't ask me again."
I'm 24. As far as I'm concerned, my biological clock does not exist! I've never been one of those women who can't resist babies. My husband and I have been together about five years now. I currently have absolutely no interest in having kids. I am happy with the way things are with just the two of us. I feel like it has only been recently that I've gained an identity of my own and an appreciation for myself and my independence, and these feelings are immensely valuable to me! I don't want this happy equilibrium to change any time soon.
I work full time, and I'm putting myself through college to earn my B.A. I want the opportunity to work and be successful in my field and perhaps even attend grad school. I absolutely refuse to be expending this much money and effort on school to never make any career progress, which I think is what would happen if I had a child now. I have a lot of friends who graduated, got married, and had babies... and never worked a day since earning the degree. I do not want that for myself under any circumstances. Additionally, I plan on being with my husband forever, but if something ever were to happen, there's no way I could support a child monetarily on my own within the next few years. My income now is paltry. If I can't support a child financially, it's obviously not a good idea for me to have one. If I were to have a baby, I'd want my car, student loans, credit cards, etc to be paid off first. I'd want a significant savings account. We want to own a home. These financial goals should be fulfilled by my husband's and my early 30s, so we may consider having children (or adopting) between 33 - 35 if we want them by then. And hey, I want time to enjoy being young and free. I don't want to be one of those parents who wishes she would have done this or that before having children. People (i.e., friends who keep pushing me to have children) always seem to construe this as me being selfish, but I think I'm simply planning ahead! I don't think there's any excuse for me to NOT plan ahead on something as serious and life changing as this.
I get so frustrated when someone asks me a rude question like that, and then I'm worried about not hurting their feelings or creating social awkwardness by calling them on it. So frustrating. Once I flinched when asked a similar question and said, "Oh, I feel like that's really private." She didn't know it but I was being polite by leaving off the rest of the sentence which was ". . .you intrusive mofo."
Yeah. I know from friends of mine in long term relationships that they get this question all. the. damn. time, and there are so many scenarios in which that question isn't just rude, it's painful. What if you've been trying unsuccessfully or have medical problems? What if it's a sensitive issue between SO's? They don't want to explain it all to some half-joking relative or acquaintance who considers it 'making smalltalk'. I wouldn't want to, either.
It's sensitive personal information, and thus nobody's business.
(Disclaimer: I am absolutely not trying to pressure you into having kids or tell you that you will change your mind! I am just speaking from my own experience here.)
"I feel like it has only been recently that I've gained an identity of my own and an appreciation for myself and my independence, and these feelings are immensely valuable to me! I don't want this happy equilibrium to change any time soon."
I finally began to feel that a little while ago myself, and have actually found that it makes me want kids more, because I finally realize what an awesome person I am and think I could actually do a good job of not taking on the traditional mother role of giving up my entire life for my child. (It also helps that I have a lot of people around me now who would be willing to help me out when I need it without judging me as a "bad mom" for it.)
"I could actually do a good job of not taking on the traditional mother role of giving up my entire life for my child."
I know that's what good parents do (and, in the patriarchy, especially women), but this attitude has always struck me as pathological (and especially disturbing in a patriarchy). I cannot understand why anyone would feel this way. I guess that's why I'm not meant to have children.
I agree that that seems pathological, and I honestly don't believe that good parents (male or female) give up their entire lives for their children. Good parents find ways to incorporate their children in their lives (which does require some major sacrifices but not the sacrifice of absolutely everything the parents have known and done before) while still finding ways to meet their own needs.
Exactly. And it's really bad for kids to have parents who are so deeply invested in them that they've given up their own lives and identities. Kids will flourish the best when cared for by adults who are well-rounded, confident, and fulfilled. After all, how are you going to raise well-rounded kids if you're not well-rounded? At least this is how I justify dragging my kids to protests and community actions, to academic and political talks on campus, to the library and museums, etc.
I had my son at 23 and my daughter at 27. I thought it would be more fun and I would have more energy for it. There is no perfect time for children. There's always going to be something - whether you are 25 or 42 - that will make it difficult.
I've had a really great experience as a young mother. I have my bachelor's degree, a certificate in marketing, and I am the breadwinner of the household. I think because I am young and have all this energy I am able to tackle work and family with a lot of vigor.
I also look forward to being able to travel and have fun early in life. After all, I will be in my early forties by the time the children are heading to university.
Sometimes I wish I could go at 1 am to eat pizza or hang out clubbling with my friends. But I'm very happy with my situation.
One thing I do have to say: children are not the end of the world. I had children young and went to school and have a full-time well paid job. It's not like having babies immediately shackled me to the household.
Since almost everyone in my family's last generation had children after 40, it's nice to hear the perspective of a young mother. I'm 21, about to graduate with a science BS and go off to graduate school, and I'm thinking...
i'm with ya here. i got pregnant at 23, after i'd finished my BFA and was working in advertising design (lots of long hours). my ex-husband and i weren't married at the time but had been planning to get married when i got pregnant. my daughter was born, and then about 7 months later, i got pregnant again and had an abortion....marriage was falling apart, wasn't physically ready to have #2 so soon after #1, and i didn't think i could personally give two children so close together in age the attention they deserved. (i've always wanted two or three kids, but with big age gaps in between.)
i went back to graduate school full-time when i was 26, and i'm almost done now at 29. i'm fortunate in that i have family living nearby me who are very supportive....they pick up my daughter from school when i have a night class, etc. (everyone picked on hillary, but it really does take a village.)
i'm glad i had my daughter when i did. and honestly, i went back to school in large part BECAUSE of her, not in spite of. i didn't think i could ever encourage her to go and fight for her goals if i didn't do so myself.
i would love to adopt someday, but i'm a bit scared of it. some friends of mine who struggled with infertility were foster parents with the goal of adopting. on their first adoption, the birth mother changed her mind an hour before the final adoption deadline and decided she wanted to keep the baby after all....this after my friends had cared for and fallen in love with the baby literally for months. this ripped my friends apart. fortunately, now, they have two gorgeous adopted kids. but this event was a huge emotional setback for them and it scares me to think of that happening to me.
not to mention, i know a lot of other people who feel that adopting is exploitative; feels like profiting off the fact that other people can't care for their children, and are worried that in some parts of the world, parents are coerced into surrendering their children. however, i also have many friends who were themselves adopted and are very thankful. so i do understand why some people are ambivalent about adopting.
I am 21 and having kids is about as far from my mind as marriage, yet I can't help but feel like society pressures us to think about our own fertility cycle by constantly reminding us that we are getting older.
Even though I am 21, eventually I will be confronted by someone about my choice whether to have kids or not, especially because of the type of family I belong to.
But regardless of your plans and life...sometimes things happen whether you planned for them or not. Ultimately, one has to look at ones self and be honest....if you don't want a kid, that is perfectly fine just because you see women lining up at "fertility farms" doesn't mean that you have to reevaluate yourself.
I think it's a bit strange that within Feminism it is apparently often OK to express hatred for a woman's reproductive choices if that choice was to have a child. We essentially have a post telling women that if they reproduce then they are bad/evil/irresponsible people and it gets handled with kid gloves.
I don't think the original post said that, more some specific comments. The original post shows a trend and looks for reactions.
Oops, I meant to reply to a post and instead replied to the thread so the context was kinda lost - I was more referring to the first post by Concerned Marsupial, and at the time nobody had really challenged hir comments - which has since changed. Certainly not to the extent that someone criticizing single mothers or women who have abortions would normally get. Though I still note that s/he has hir defenders.
Handled with kid gloves? More like laughed at or ignored.
I'm 37 and single and childless. I knew when I was 19 that I'd like to have at least one child one day. But I wanted to wait until I was more mature and financially ready.
Since then I've experienced all kinds of traumas, including my ongoing battle with depression. I've just never felt there was a good time to bring a child into my life - for the child's sake, not my own. Sometimes my longing to have a baby is so intense that it's painful for me to see a baby or a pregnant woman.
But I still haven't made a effort to fall pregnant or made plans to adopt, simply because I know I have too many other issues in my life that need to be resolved, or at least managed, first(those issues are too complicated to go into now and I'd rather not discuss them any way).
So my clock ticks very loudly. I've had some gynaecological problems in the past that might make it difficult for me to conceive and that is a worry too.
Also, I value my solitude and peace and quiet. Children can be a joy but peace and quiet (not to mention sleep!) tends to be in short supply when you have children. That's something I need to confront too - am I willing to give up the simple pleasures of a solitary life?
I suppose the only way I'll know is if I ever do have a child. My friends who are parents tell me that everything changes once that child is there. So much of what you thought was important now seems trivial in comparison.
Ultimately I think that the decision about whether or not to have a child is intensely personal. A woman who chooses to remain childless is no less of a woman than one who chooses motherhood.
So yeah, I'd love to have a baby. I even have dreams about being pregnant and being a mother. But if I don't feel capable of taking care of a child I'd rather remain childless.
I'm ten years younger than you, but I feel the same in a lot of ways. I grew up in a very conservative community, where the vast majority of my high school classmates married and had children very young. My younger sister married at 22, just out of college, and now at 24 just had a baby. I love the hell out of my new niece, but I'm getting tired of relatives and family friends making cracks about how my younger sister has achieved all the markers of adulthood while I'm still coasting along as a single woman at 27.
Sometimes all of this gets to me and makes me think I should be actively looking for a partner and planning kids in the near future, but every time I start to think about it, it makes me shudder. I love kids, but I'm not so sure I'll ever really be ready to be a parent. At this point, sometimes I'm not even sure I'll ever be ready to settle down with a live-in partner, I love my single, childless, solitary ways so much. And I hate that it makes me feel guilty and defective so much of the time, because I know it shouldn't, but it's hard to fight against all the conditioning I've gotten from the conservative atmosphere I grew up in.
I grew up in a conservative community too but I moved away when I was 21 so I'm largely free of that pressure (thank goodness). When I go back there (which is very seldom) I get asked a lot about marriage and children and I wish I could just tell people it's none of their business.
I'm fortunate that my family has never nagged me about either marriage or children. The only comments I have received have been positive - my nieces said they would like me to be a mom because they think any child would be lucky to have me for a mom. (Yeah, that made me want to weep.)
I've seen so much child neglect (and some abuse) that I'm super-wary of being a mother, unless I'm reasonably sure I have the financial and emotional resources to cope. Sometimes I wish I could turn off the broodiness - I melt whenever I see those tiny baby clothes in the shops and I've even bought a few items because I simply couldn't resist.
That's interesting, as the average age for women having their first child in Sweden decreased by .1 from 2006 to 2007, which is only the second time that has happened since 1970 (the other year was in 1988, which was also at the top of an economic boom, don't know if there's a correlation). Of course, in Sweden's case it's from age 28.62 to 28.52. 25.0 was the end of the 70s here.
Aside from that, I think it's true both of Sweden and the US (though more so in the US) that we don't value child-birth the way we should, given that politicians are always very concerned to have positive population growth. If having children is an essential part of society, then logically it should be rewarded as such. Instead men and women who have children have to deal with incredible hardship to make their finances work with raising children, and a greater burden is put on women to sacrifice their economic independence. Of course, solutions are not so simple, but I think we'd take a strong step forward if we started getting policy based (as it is in many other cases) on the idea of individual benefit/loss and economic incentives, rather than holding children as something that people will have anyway because they're precious and magic or whatever (they may well be, but that's not really how the government should look at it). In other words, if society wants children, start paying for it (of course, "pay" in this instance also means having valid systems for parents to maintain their jobs/job abilities during time at home with the child, more opportunities to stay home with sick children, larger efforts to provide good child care, and a number of other issues).
I'm sure I was going to add something here, but.. it's gone.
In my opinion, the older mom thing is just one more way to exploit and intimidate women. I'm aware that diabetes and Down syndrome are more likely with older mothers but the reaction of the medical community was simply a matter of commerce and shame, not help.
Because I was 39 when I had my first (and only) child, I had to have lots and lots of tests. Even after thus-and-such a test came back normal, there was yet another--each of which had to be paid for.
I drew the line at amnio. When I pointed out to the doctor that amnio had a greater chance of causing a problem than of finding the most likely one and that it wouldn't matter anyway, he was ticked and of course only talked to my husband, not me.
My husband is even older than I am but his old sperm were not even a matter of discussion, even though I was reminded every single pre-natal visit that I had done something risky by getting pregnant at my advanced age. Look, the deed had been done by then.
Good God -- that behavior by your doctor is appalling. Also, re: "the older mom thing is just one more way to exploit and intimidate women": I completely agree.
I'm surprised, in fact, that every comment I've read so far on this thread that refers to the "biological clock" takes the phrase at face value -- except Sandra's, which rightly points out the class lines drawn with the phrase. I'm also surprised not just that so many commenters take the phrase at face value but seem invested in it.
This is so true. I was only 34 and they tried to use my "high risk status" to push all these tests on me, most of which I politely declined. Of course, you have to continue politely declining for about 30 minutes before they give in. I had read a ton of research and knew about the risks, the false-positive rate, etc for each test, so that probably actually helped me convince them that I didn't want the tests. It seems to me like the get a lot of insurance $$ for administering these tests, so that's a major motivation.
I don't know when you had your amnio but I've read that the ones they have now are much much safer than they used to be.
I found this, from the F-Word, and she expresses much of what I feel.
I'm 30 and my bf is somewhat older. He wants to have kids, preferably soon. He's always been sure he wants them, and for various reasons he feels that now is the time. I don't know if I want them and I dread the decision, because I've never felt the urge, ever, but I know that this is very important to him, and that me not wanting children might very well be a reason for him to break up with me. I feel pressed to decide in the near future because I think it's unfair to him to build further on our relationship - we've been together for about a year - if I end up deciding no.
Like Redfern writes, it depresses me and I resent it. A lot.
I'm 21, and my desire for kids is still pretty vague. I definitely want them, and hanging out with my friend's kid is awesome and my boyfriend feels the same. But we are sooooo not ready. We both work in bars, have bizarre schedules and are positively allergic to housework. It's stressful enough to have a child over for tea, let along get up in the middle of the night to tend to one that's screaming.
But when I look at the way my friend (who got pregnant accidentally at 21 and refused to stay with the father in the face of fierce opposition) and her two year old daughter interact, my womb is definitely tugged. I want that bond. It's not just my womb though, my boyfriend reacts in just the same way. So maybe it's my heart that gets tugged.
I haven't thought that much about when it'll happen. I guess money is the biggest factor, but I'm really bad with money so I might not ever be 'secure'. I'd like to have my first kid within ten years. I want to do some living first, and I want some life left after they've grown. And I'd like to have at least one biological child, so fertility is an issue I guess. My boyfriend's sister and her boyfriend have categorically said they do not want children ever, so I guess I'm my mother-in-law's only chance for biological grandchildren.
Anyway, I guess the point is I want kids, but there isn't any ticking yet.
I agree that we can never be completely ready, although we ideally aim for some semblance of stability (personal, financial, emotional, etc). I wonder, though, how much of life people spend waiting for things to be perfect... akin to the "search for happiness" as an end rather than a journey. I'm almost afraid that I will spend so much time preparing for life, that when I'm finally ready, it will have passed me by. But what do I know? I'm pretty young. Probably a consequence of being in school.
Most of my college friends, girls and guys, want kids someday and preferably in that 10-year span around 30. I only know two girls who outright stated they never want kids.
I personally feel like a family is a journey I want to enjoy for a long time, without my kids having to think too hard about the issue of putting me in a old folks home before they are 30. I want to see my grandchildren grow. For this to happen, I would need to be a young mother.
But maybe I'm being idealistic. Life surprises (as the TLC slogan goes) and life is certainly not fair. My parents had fertility issues for almost a decade, so maybe I feel I should get an early start to be safe. I also know that families can be anything but perfect sometimes, yet I hope I have the fortune, good judgment and strength to make things work.
One step at a time though. I would definitely prefer building a family with a partner who I love. This is probably a consequence of how I was raised and socialized. I would find it extremely difficult without this support (personal, financial, emotional, etc). The next five to six years of my life are going to be spent working towards a PhD, so I will be thinking some more about this as I get older.
I had no problem conceiving at 31 and I'm very happy I put off having my daughter until then. University, grad school, travel, work and getting to know my spouse very well first were well worth the wait. Plus, according to Steven Leavitt (the economist who offended with his prostitute question), women who have their first child after the age of 30 are statistically more likely to have an intelligent, successful child. It's got less to do with age than it does with the probable educational and socio-economic status of the woman who delayed child-bearing until then but it's still a statistic that made me happy when I read it.
This is purely anecdotal and I've never seen any sort of statistics on what the fertility issue is with older couples but every couple I've ever known who pursued fertility treatments did so because of an issue with the male partner. I know 6 couples who conceived with varying degrees of medical intervention and in ever case the causal factor was the low sperm motility (sp?). Of course, in each case, it was the female partner who had the most invasive treatments - well, all the treatments - and who felt the pressure and disappointment of failing to conceive. Why doesn't anyone suggest that older women start hooking up with 18 yr old college boys, once they hear their bio clocks ticking?
In any case, all this brouhaha about bioligical clocks is too steeped in class and race for my liking. It reminds me of the fuss in the Victorian/Edwardian era when it was decided that middle-class women (and First Wave feminists) were spending too much time learning and not enough time producing. The language has changed slightly but the intent is the same. No one is going on talk shows to warn us about the poor or racially visible woman who put off having a child and then found her fertility compromised.
I am 25 and people around me are slowly having children. Although, the women who started their working life earlier than I (I'm in university).
But I am with Simone De Beauvoir on this one, and I won't have any children.
I want to get my tubes tied, but my doctor doesn't allow it. Unfortunately. Because even when I would get an urge, I think adoption is the only ethical option. There are too many children in this world to bring in a new one.
When I saw Marissa Tomei performance during the final court scene. . . I wanted to be a mechanic more than anything. Te he.
haha, yeah I get frustrated when people look at me weird when I stomp everytime I hear the term "biological clock"
This is a good post. I'm 23 (very young I know) and scared. I feel like I would need 10 years before I had kids, but I sure do want them in my life. The health implications that you bring up are legitimate. But I dont really see myself being ready in under 10 years.
It freaks me out to think my mother was married and pregnant with me when she was my age. And she was/is a perfect incredible mother. I am not living in the same world as her, I suppose.
There are massive amounts of research over 50 years showing that it is the father's age, without the mother's age that causes genetic disorders, de novo, such as autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, some cancers, etc. etc. See the paternal age effect how old is too old blogspot.com. There is much to read.
I'm 26 and a PhD student, and I've been struggling a lot with this decision. Do I have a child now while I'm in school and my time is flexible? Do I wait until I'm an assistant professor somewhere busting my ass for tenure? Or do I wait until after I am tenured?
My husband and I have been married 2 years and are financially comfortable, so we're planning on timing childbirth for the summer before my last year. I'll be going on the job market and in the dissertation writing stage. Graduate assistants don't exactly have the best maternity leave, so we'll have to shoot for a May-July delivery.
About two years after I graduated high school (in a suburb of Tampa, FL), it seemed as though about a quarter of my classmates had gotten married and gave birth immediately after. I myself have never felt a need to have children in the sense of either personal fulfillment or the ticking clock, and, at 40, still don't. I have recently finished college, and I plan to pursue a PhD. I think that having to take care of children while doing PhD work is too much. Coupled with the current state of the economy, children are definitely not an option for us right now.
Even though I am on the downside of the fertility curve, I am not discouraged to try having a biological child in the future. If I can't get pregnant or the risks are too great, my husband and I are comfortable with adoption. We can sort out whether we want to adopt a baby or a foster kid later.
I have known from a very early age that I had no desire to have a child and it's been no big deal to me, but certainly has to other people. All my life I've heard people either tell me "oh you'll change your mind" or attack me for being a selfish or damaged person because I lack maternal instinct. I have no problem with other people's choices to have children, I just know it's not for me.
Like any big life choice, I think that all people should feel free to make the choice that is right for them without pressure or expectations blanketly applied due to gender. Not everyone wants to or needs to have children, and since it IS a big committment, it should be a well-considered and conscious choice. Raising children well takes a lot of resources and dedication.
THat being said, I am a wonderful "aunt" to my friends and relatives' children. I teach, I coach, I mentor...and those are good ways to contribute to the next generation. Most children/teens benefit from having adults in their lives who are not their parents. I like being able to talk with them about the stuff they don't feel comfortable talking about with their mom and dad.
Also, I have realized that knowing I didn't want to have children has freed me from many of the pressures and agonizing that my friends and many of the commenters here have expresses so well. I don't have to even think about balancing career and family, I don't have to weigh biological clock vs. tenure clock...it's a form of privilege that I took for granted until my friends started facing these choices (we're all just out of grad school or finishing up).
I love this post and all the discussions in the comments. But I cannot read the first paragraph--the huge picture of the clock with wings obscures the text.
Is anyone else having this problem?
For years, I was anti-pregnancy, anti-baby, anti-child. Before we got married, I told my husband that though I expected my mind would change eventually, there was a possibility that it would not, and he should be prepared for that. He said he was ok with it. In the 2 1/2 years we've been married, there's been absolutely no pressure (nor desire, really) to have kids. I really thought I'd be content to live forever without going through that little nightmare.
But for some strange reason, that's all changed. I've watched close friend and family members have kids, and their experiences have seemed like such adventures that I'm itching to try it. What's unfortunate is that neither me or my husband is in a place where it's financially or logistically viable (he's in grad school, and I'm the "breadwinner"), and since I want to go back for the Ph.D. part of grad school once he's finished, babies look so far in the future.
I'm only 25, so I still have a wide window of possibility, but I'm just not sure I want to wait five years for a kid.
And to top it all off, dealing with this wild new desire is giving me hell, psychologically.
I think it is great to see such a variety of different choices.
Being "pro-choice" is more to me than just providing women with abortion rights. We should recognize that our differences mean we make different choices with regard to children. Whether that is the choice to have 14 children or to have none... whether that is the choice to adopt, to carry a child to term, or to abort... I respect that the choice a woman makes is based on what she knows about herself (because she knows herself the best of anyone).
This is one of those subjects that a little emotional for me right now. I have never wanted to have kids for various reasons. But my grandfather died recently and since then, it feels like my biological clock (which I didn't even know I HAD) has started screaming. I'm an only child and an only grandchild, so part of me feels that my truly wonderful grandparents will be forgotten, that I'll never have a chance to pass on the stories of how my grandfather taught me to fish or my grandmother taught me to swear (she was the best grandmother EVER). Since the funeral I've often looked at my husband and seen the beautiful little boy or girl we might have that would have his dark hair and warm brown eyes.
Overall, it's making me incredibly sad and incredibly uncomfortable. I made a decision based on sound reasoning and it feels like my body is completely disagreeing with me. Argh.
My mom died a couple of years ago, and I think it's had a big impact in my desire to have children and to have them sooner rather than later, for so many reasons: I feel orphaned (she was definitely the center of my family life) and want to rebuild a family for myself. She was 35 when she had me and 63 when she died, and I want to be around to see my child beyond the 27 years she got to be with me.
The 0.2-year drop is statistically significant because it's the first time the trend has ever gone down in history.
Unless "history" is not very long, that looks like a highly suspicious statement. I would expect massive fluctuation around the wars for a start.
My husband and I were together for over four years before we got married, and his parents are very traditional (read: right-wing Christian types). On the day of our wedding, when we were both 22, (yes, for those doing the math, we were high school sweethearts) his mom asked when I was going to, in her words: "Settle down and give me grandbabies."
I agree with earlier sentiments; why is it anyone's business when we have children? We're financially stable, but not necessarily committed to a) having kids at all, or b) carrying on our genes. Good grief, we haven't even been married two full years, but every single time we see either his parents or even my dearly-beloved-but-I'm-going-to-strangle-him grandfather, it's "what, not pregnant yet?" Argh. It's enough to make me tie my tubes and have the SO get a vasectomy out of sheer cussedness.
I think this is a fascinating discussion, addressing an issue that I have been struggling with a lot in the past few years.
I used to be firmly in the "I'll have kids if my partner wants them too, if the circumstances are right, if XYZ" camp. I always planned to have any kids I did have relatively late, since I wanted to wait until after I finished grad school. I’ve also always been very interested in adoption and/or fostering—in no small part because I’m bisexual and very likely to end up with a woman long-term, and I’ve always thought that there was something very odd about spending tens of thousands of dollars (or more) on fertility treatments when there are so many children who need homes and love.
Well, around 26 or 27, despite the fact that I hate the idea of the biological clock—that I am suddenly going to want something based entirely on biology and hormones just because I'm a woman—I turned into sort of a crazy person. And, it was more than just "I definitely want kids someday." It was a complete obsession with pregnancy, midwives and doulas, breastfeeding, cloth diapers, baby sign, stay at home vs working parenting, etc., etc., etc. Okay, I have a somewhat obsessive personality sometimes, but it was still really bizarre. (In this same span of time, the first of my very close friends (people I relate to and identify with in terms of our life goals and timelines) had babies, and I think that the abstract became concrete for the first time for me and perhaps kick-started that biological clock.) Because so many of the things that fascinated me about parenting--experiencing pregnancy/childbirth, breastfeeding, etc.--are only possible if I have a biological child, my belief that adopting/fostering is one of the more socially responsible ways to create a family was suddenly in serious conflict with my heart and/or body.
And, equally suddenly, thanks to the biological clock that I don’t even want to believe in, I’m on a timeline that has nothing to do with my stability in my career, finances or personal life. It’s all about my body, and whether there’ll be eggs when I want them, or whether my conscience can accept spending money on fertility treatments just so that I can see what a “little me” would be like while kids languish in foster care, or whether I’m dooming my child to Down’s or autism by waiting until all those other ducks are in a row to try and have kids. (God bless the medical establishment for making me feel guilty about theoretical ills that my theoretical future children may have because of my selfish desire to live a full life before becoming a parent!)
So, now I’m almost 31, single, and just trying to start my career (job hunting after finishing my masters degree), and knowing that if I want to have a bio kid, I’m going to have to start my career planning to be at a place in 3-5 years where I can take time off (at least a little, though I’d definitely like to take significantly more than the few weeks of miserable unpaid leave provided by our fabulous American family policy) and be able to provide financially for myself and a child (despite my crushing amount of student loan debt and total lack of assets), make a choice about whether to do all this as a single parent if a partner hasn’t appeared on the scene, make sure that wherever I end up in my new career, I build up a community that will provide me the support that I need to raise a child… and the list goes on and on.
I can’t even tell you how much stress all this stuff running around in my head has added to the already stressful task of trying to start a career in the clusterf*ck that is our economy these days. And, wow, am I suddenly scared about being a woman in our society, juggling the career vs. family dilemma (which shouldn’t have to be a dilemma at all).
I always knew I wanted children and I always wanted to have them as a young woman. I think there are very valid reasons to wait until you are older and more established, but for me it never held a draw. I had my daughter when I was 23 (I got pregnant right after I graduated college) and my son when I was 25 and I love being a mom. This is not to say that it was a perfect choice or one without it's own share of problems- money can certainly be tight, there are times when I just want to sleep in and there's a 2 year old yelling "Mommy! Me wake!! Want wiggles!" or a 4 year old grumpily demanding her cereal at 7:00am. I recently decided to go back to school for a second degree and that has made life crazy busy, but we always get through it, we have fun and my kids are great. They are extremely close, they love spending time together and they love spending time with their father and I, but they also know how to entertain themselves. They even play Rockband with me- my daughter sings and my son plays drum (no fail option, obviously!). Most of the people I know are waiting at least a little bit longer to have children though. My husband and I had talked about it though and we love the idea of having our children grown and self-sufficient by the time we're in our mid 40's and I loved the idea of getting my maternity leaves done and over with while I was in a job that I knew wasn't going to be my lifelong career. I have a very family friendly position with great benefits, but now I'll graduate with my masters by the time I'm 30 and be able to start my chosen career without worrying about interrupting my career to have a baby or take maternity leave. I don't know- it just made sense for me and my life. It certainly doesn't mean it makes sense for everyone else though! And doing school with two young children is definitely tough!
I have an animal and career clock! I've been having dreams about little kittens lately! I want one so bad! I miss my cats/dog that I left at my mothers house when I moved out. My student apartments wont allow me to have anything other than a goldfish!
On resisting motherhood:
The wavering realization, a few months ago, that I might not want children has become more definite of late. I'm also 29. And feel no biological clock whatsoever. I still find it "comical" and "outrageous", and increasingly so.
I say "resisting" because I think that, while most women do want to have children, the minority who do not is large - larger than most assume. I think there are probably many women like me, some of whom knew from an early age that they did not want be mothers (despite being given miniature babies to play with while still babies themselves), and some who realized as they matured that they did not (despite being pestered and second-guessed by friends, relatives, and even strangers). Many of these women become mothers, anyway - either through poverty, rape, or religious coercion, but most often because of garden variety, unquestioned social and familial expectations. Why is it the default that all women want - and should have - children? This expectation doesn't exist nearly so strongly for men, but is still present. Perhaps this is just a case of our mentality failing to keep up with our technology. But if one doesn't actually stop and think about the reasons she might or might not want children, most women (and men) will end up simply having them. After all, like marriage, it's just "what people do."
Last year, I was reading a childfree blog, and and I saw myself in it. I think I assumed I wanted children for all the usual (and I now think, ill-thought-out) reasons: as a buffer against loneliness, particularly in old age; to carry on one's name; to "see what they'd look like"; to be considered an adult; because we humans want to make both ourselves and the love we may feel for our partner immortal; for Kodak moments; because our parents want grandchildren; for social acceptance; to do all the things we didn't, or couldn't; to keep a relationship together; because we think they'll "fulfill" us or complete us or make us happy. Yet none of the things I envision for myself involve children. Few of the people, and almost none of the women, I admire and would like to be like have children. I'm not really thinking of people I know, but aspirational role models beyond any actual possibility.
Life - and my pool of resources - is finite. I want to travel, to taste, to write, to experience, and, if I'm lucky, to contribute something lasting that will change the course of uknown lives with which my own will never overlap. I don't want to leave a "legacy" in the form of DNA. I don't want to negotiate potential romantic relationships around the constricts of my biology. I don't want to wait until retirement. I don't want to contribute to global overpopulation or capitalism's demand for more - always, more, more - consumers. I don't want to relive childhood through the glow of a happy little face. I have never had a maternal instinct, or heard the incessant tickings of any mythical biological clock, or been smitten with babies, or enjoyed being around children. Yet I always assumed the day would come when I would want to have a child. It hasn't.
The older I get, the less urgent the supposed need seems, which is surely opposite what one is expected to feel, and does not correlate with the experiences of most of my generational peers and some of my friends. The older I get, the more unfathomable it becomes that some of my fellow female human beings voluntarily bring upon their bodies the changes childbirth wreaks. The older I get, the less I want to subsume my entire life's work and hopes into some poor small person who would have done nothing to deserve the resentment I would surely feel. The older I get, the happier I am. Nothing is missing. My life is my own.
This epiphany has been rather exciting for me.
I don't want to be anyone's mother.
I am married, pregnant now (first baby due in June) - I'll be 30 when the baby comes. All my life I was really ambivalent about having children - one moment I would really want them, the next I'd be sure I never would. Children are really important to my husband, and that's one thing that convinced me to have kids (not his pressure - he never did that - just his perspective).
I just wanted to say in the last few years among my friends I've come to observe that the "biological clock" for men is very real. I don't mean that men get too old to reproduce effectively or safely, just the strong urge for children seems to be hitting all my male friends, both straight and not, as they enter their thirties. I would say it's almost more common among my male friends than my female ones.
I'm 42 years old and I have a four month old daughter, my first baby. There are advantages to having a child early in life, and advantages to having a child later. I always knew I wanted to have at least one baby, but when I was younger I never felt mature enough to have one. I was too selfish, too wrapped up in my own life. When you have a child, you have to put that child first, and I wouldn't have a child until I was prepared to do it. Also, I didn't want to have a child alone, and I didn't meet my husband until I was nearly 38.
So here I am, a very happy mother of a wonderful baby girl. Some of my friends and family had their children in their twenties, then I have friends who are also starting now, having one or possibly two children after the age of 40. I don't think it matters when you have a child, as long as you're mentally prepared for it. Having a child is such a huge commitment--this child or children will be the most important thing in your life for the next eighteen or twenty (or more) years, and if you're not prepared for that, wait.
And for all the people who talk about adopting instead of having a baby--adopting a child is a wonderful thing, but it's not anything like adopting a pet from the Humane Society. Adoption is expensive, can be very expensive, is time consuming, and can be emotionally draining. Having a biological child is frequently easier. I admire anyone who adopts, but it can be a difficult road to travel.
"Adoption is expensive, can be very expensive, is time consuming, and can be emotionally draining."
Um, so is having your own biological children. Bearing them from your own body doesn't make them any less expensive, time-consuming or emotionally draining.
I'm sure this comment won't even be noticed, but it's actually pretty important and relevant to this post.
"The 0.2-year drop is statistically significant because it's the first time the trend has ever gone down in history"
The fact that it is a downward shift DOES NOT MAKE IT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT! Statistical significance is calculated based on variance. Unless you have the mean values and the standard error of the measurements you cannot say whether these changes are statistically significant.
I'm not talking about raising a child, I'm talking about just the adoption process. Yes, bearing a child is expensive, time-consuming and emotionally draining also. However, no one interviews you as to your fitness to raise a child, checks your background, etc. I know a couple who were looking to adopt who were told that they would be able to adopt a child, believed it for months, and then were told at the last minute that the mother had changed her mind. It was devastating. I know another couple who adopted a little girl from China, whose expenses ran into the high tens of thousands of dollars, not including the money lost when one of the mommies lost her job because she took so much time off work traveling to China. My hospital expenses, which were considerable as I had a C-section, were covered completely by my health insurance. I didn't pay a dime, other than for the TV in my room. Few people have benefits that cover adoption expenses--and many adoptive parents have to take significant time off work, and few get paid maternity or parental leave. I got three months of paid leave.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't adopt--I think there should be more adoption, as there are too many children languishing in foster care. I just don't think that a lot of people realize what a commitment the adoption process will be. I think it should be made easier.
I want to highlight the political side of the issue.
I'll be 32 years old next month, and I've lived with my man for 8 years. To be honest, I have no idea whether I want to have children. This is very lucky, because there are so many barriers stacked in our path that it's just not possible to have kids right now. I would love to look at some of these barriers through a feminist lens, rather than a personal one:
* Although both I and my partner have graduate degrees (in fields that we love), we earn a low-middle income.
* We'd love to be full-time employees, but we both work in industries that hire almost exclusively "part-time" workers -- and provide no health care (I've read that this is happening in more and more industries, as company's struggle to afford benefits for employees).
* Single payer health care plans (at least in our neck of the woods) do not cover pregnancy (what's up with that?). Also, I am routinely rejected as "un-insurable" because I have migraines (more women suffer than men from these) and, 15 years ago, had an eating disorder (a result of over-valuing our society's version of beauty?). Our premiums (even for catastrophic insurance) are high -- especially at our income bracket.
* Since we are part-time, we do not get medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. I don't know the laws, so I'm not 100% sure on this, but I suspect so, since I don't qualify for vacation time or sick days. Whether it's jury duty or a sick day, I lose income if I'm not there.
* My partner was laid off (Recession). He has not found work. He's been looking for months.
Add to that some of the great points comment-ers have made here:
* People (family, but also our landlord, the dentist, random people on the street) love to ask us when we're having kids. I've even gotten this: "You're selfish until you become a parent. You'll see." I've stopped being nice and have started to be political: "We don't have kids because we can't afford real health care and don't earn a family-sized living wage."
* While I don't have a loud biological clock, I also haven't had the luxury of considering parenthood as a real option that I can entertain in the near future. So I sometimes think about adoption, if I run past the 35 year mark. Still, adoption is pricey. You need a certain income, a certain number of rooms in your house, etc. (yes?)
* It seems that, rather than dividing ourselves into mothers and non-mothers and duking it out, it might be more helpful, as a community of people committed to women's rights, to look at the real problem of rights for all women and all mothers to have basics like health care, child care, and working environments that are friendly for parents.