The Urge for Offspring?

It would be a crime against humanity if I didn't fanther any children!
 
Most people eventually "grow into" the idea of kids. In my case I made the change from being terrified of getting a girl pregnant to being turned on by the idea at age 22 or 23. Sort of the way as a kid you can't stand girls and hear all the "they have cooties!" jokes but eventually decide they are fun, just repeated on a more serious level.

Not for everyone, of course. If you can't stand the idea, don't go making babies, there'll be plenty enough of them from the rest of us :lol:
 
I've decided now, in my 26th year, after much deliberation I will not have kids. My ex-gf was in agreeance. Now I have to find another girl that is.

I chose to adopt. There are over 100,000 children in this world without parents. Children without love + homes that are already here. Why would I bother to bring another child into this world?

BTW. I'm the last of my family, there's no one else to carry my name. Trust me my mum gives me an earful about this every time it comes up.
 
earth said:
I chose to adopt. There are over 100,000 children in this world without parents. Children without love + homes that are already here. Why would I bother to bring another child into this world?

Too right. Good for you.

As for family names - what are they? puffs of air. Meaningless. Mine will be dying out with me (unless my sister reproduces whilst keeping her own name - although the thought of my sister spawning is an excessively disagreeable one) - although as it's a very common name it won't really be. Still, nice to think I will have made one small branch of the family extinct.

It's funny to think that, ever since life began, I have had an ancestor. Ever since the first strand of RNA joined with another for comfort and began to reproduce, there has been something which survived and passed on its genetic code, and which was my ancestor. All through the ages the line has survived, and now it terminates at me - the first member of that innumerably long chain which will die without passing the flag on. Ah well! There are plenty of other chromosomes knocking around.
 
I'm going to have kids, because my wife told me so. LOL. JK.

I'd like to have kids, just not now. I'm married, but I want to have some more fun before I have to worry about my kids all the time.
 
Me at 20: I will never have kids. There are too many people in the world already, it would be irresponsible and immoral. Maybe I'll adopt.

Me at 40: Let's have another one, the're growing up so fast.

Hint for future happiness: Find me someone in the twilight of life who says I wish I had no/fewer kids so I would have had more time for career/travel/civ whatever.

Find me someone in the twilight of life who says I wish I had more/some kids or spent more time with them. ;)
 
The world has always been a nasty place to raise kids. The nasties now are just not the same as the nasties of old. Parenthood, like religion, cannot be explained. You cannot understand it or appreciate the love, joy, despair and hard work involved unless you are one. Even if your sister has kids.

Growing old without family is not so fun. But in my youth I knew everything too.;)
 
Global Nexus said:
I want to have children, oddly enough. I know there are a lot of people in the world, but I honestly want to raise children. I doubt I'll have more than two or three, the rest might be adopted. Specifically, from somewhere like China...
It's not odd at all; it's perfectly natural. Don't use this geeky forum as a stand in for the rest of society.
 
Even at 17 it's not odd to want a family. In our society (or at least mine) it may not be smart to begin so young. Wait until you are at least in your late 20s then go for it.
 
Not all young women want children. Many, especially those who have invested several years toward earning an advanced degree, choose to put career first. Some feel they have no choice since earning the degree has put them tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Dating, let alone marriage and/or children, goes to the back burner.

I would also point out that the whole biological clock thing is largely bunk; peer/family pressure is a much stronger influence.

I've also found a substantial pocket of well-educated young men who are developing the "I want everything in life--especially a family" attitude. Stay-at-home-dads are becoming something more than a statistical aberration. Actually one of our favorite baby-sitters is a wonderful young man who just finished his Ph.D. and is still trying to find the right woman (and she will be very lucky indeed).

As for the extremely young females (11/12 years old) who want children, sadly many of them have this desire because they feel unloved by what family/friends/acquaintances they have and believe a baby will automatically love them. And this isn't limited to any particular race or economic class...

And while I'm messing with stereotypes, here's a big one that is breaking. For several generations parents were supposed to work hard and make sacrifices so their children could have a better life. Not anymore. "It's all about me" is a huge theme. If kids want a good education, they can earn it (scholarships) or pay for it themselves by working or taking out loans. Can't let tuition spoil a good mid-life crisis! Sure college is expensive and it is quite possible that the family cannot pay for it all up front, but a huge number of rather wealthy people won't contribute a dime to help their children. I spent several years working in financial aid and business offices (at four different schools) so I do know how much of a trend this has become. Perhaps these parents should have engaged their brains before turning on other body parts 18+ years ago and they wouldn't have to deal with this now...
 
ManOfMiracles said:
I would also point out that the whole biological clock thing is largely bunk;
Much of what you say is true, but not the above. Genetics paly a far more influencial role in our lives than most people realize. Social pressure and peer influence do play an important part, but they are secondary to our genes.
 
Genetics and "biological clock" are not the same thing. Most childless women do not suddenly wake up at age 35 and feel the intense urge to mate immediately before their eggs go bad. This is a stereotype perpetuated by those who want women to go back to being June Cleaver. [ACK! Did mothers like that really exist?!]

There are women who have a genetically-based emotional desire to have children. This desire is usually with them from their teens (if not earlier) on until it is met. It does not appear as some weird mid-30's crisis.
 
ManOfMiracles said:
Genetics and "biological clock" are not the same thing. Most childless women do not suddenly wake up at age 35 and feel the intense urge to mate immediately before their eggs go bad. This is a stereotype perpetuated by those who want women to go back to being June Cleaver. [ACK! Did mothers like that really exist?!]

There are women who have a genetically-based emotional desire to have children. This desire is usually with them from their teens (if not earlier) on until it is met. It does not appear as some weird mid-30's crisis.
There is also another side to this. I know many women who have full careers, then want to have children in their late 30's. Unfortunately, there are a lot of reasons that this can be more difficult. Miscarriage and difficult pregnancies can be more common (especially when approaching 40+), relationships can be hard (being single or mostly so for 15-20 years as an adult can make relationships hard, it seems), and there is a sense of time restraint (35 seems to be the age when women realize they'll be 40+ soon, so if they want a family, they'd better hurry, thus pressuring the whole situation). So what you end up with is a bunch of women in their mid-thirties realizing they may have waited a little too long, so they get nervous. This anxiety makes the whole situation more difficult, and I think this is the "biological clock" - it is a psychological realization that they may not be mothers, not just for the next five years, but for the rest of their lives. Can this psychology really be separated from the biology?

So while I'm not a big fan of the Cleavers, I also don't like the myth that is sometimes pushed that women must push their careers to the full limit to be "fulfilled" in their lives. Sadly, in this sense women just have different restraints than men. I know too many 40+ women who wished they just made a few different choices - a bit of reverse-feminism. It's really just understanding themselves without the pressure of society in any direction, for or against being mothers. Guys can change their minds at 56 (I'm watching Letterman right now with a picture of his 9 month old, for example). A lot of men want to be set financially before having children. I didn't want a child until I had a six figure income, and owned some property, which seems psychological but maybe had some biology mixed in? I wanted my wife to be able to choose whether she was a working mom, and not be forced into a bad situation. She may resemble Mrs. Cleaver, but she travelled the world several times over before "settling down", so she has no regrets at all and enjoys a slower paced life for now. But we're both highly educated, and come from families that know there's a lot more to life than counting the clock until the children arrive.
 
ManOfMiracles said:
Sure college is expensive and it is quite possible that the family cannot pay for it all up front

Fortunately this is true only in the United States and similar countries where you have to pay through the nose to go to university. Still, even if it were generally true, I'd still think it the duty of parents to do everything possible for their children.

I agree that there's a lot of selfishness among the parenting generation! People seem to think that after having children they somehow deserve to pamper themselves and let the children look after themselves. Well, if you think that, you shouldn't have had children. I have no sympathy whatsoever.
 
Back
Top Bottom