Ok, this isn't a take-off on a previous discussion, here.  It's just that I'm really beginning to get a bit concerned.  It seems to be in style these days to declare that one does not want children, and quite frankly, I'm finding it rather depressing.  I've always wanted to get married and have a family, and it seems my chances are getting steadily thinner. There just seems to be so much hostility around; merely mentioning that you want kids is liable in most places to get you nasty comments, which, ironically enough, usually come from women who themselves have children.  A nice bit of hypocrisy, there, if you appreciate that sort of thing. 

I'm really hoping that this anti-child attitude is the exception rather than the rule among women today.  It is, isn't it?  Anyone?

Views: 1343

Replies to This Discussion

Except that, once again, you are deliberately mis-stating what I said. I did NOT ask anyone "why they may not want to have kids."  I asked, if the tendency towards not wanting children was on the rise, or not. 

I also did not ask "should I try to adopt?"  Nor did I ask "Is the world getting over populated?" Nor any of the other topics that any brought up.

Translation of your attitude: I'm feeling pissy today and wanted to attack someone.

You're the one with the antagonistic manner, not me. You went on the offense first, and now you're simply denying it.

I was really hoping you were a troll, but given the tenor of responses you seem to give (even outside this topic) I've come to the conclusion that you're serious.

You sit here and call names and then wonder why people respond in the manner that they do.  At this point I have yet to see evidence that you are able to change your tone or approach in any meaningful way.  I attempted a reasonable and rational response with you, which was ignored.  So, I've adopted your tactics.  You don't respond favorably to anything other than someone saying precisely what you want to hear which is "I want to have babies."

YOU're the one that's calling names (Troll, etc.) not me. 

Your first post started off reasonably, but quickly turned into criticism over "why don't you adopt."  Quit trying to push your desires on others. If you like adopting, fine, but that doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees is wrong or bad. 

If attacking and criticizing is your version of "being reasonable", then you are out of your mind.

Your last line is simply a lie, and I'm not going bother with it. You are being a troll yourself.

Just for the record, what I was actually hoping to hear was something along the lines of either,

"No, there really are plenty of women who still want children",


"Yes, there are increasing numbers of women who don't want children." 

Instead, what I got from you was, "You're a bad person for wanting kids, you should adopt instead."

Now if that doesn't make it clear, nothing will.

Wait.  You think the question "Have you considered adoption as a single parent if you're really wanting to have kids that badly?" is PUSHING MY DESIRE ON YOU?

Wow.  Just.  Wow. 

Understand, the phrase "I DO NOT WANT CHILDREN" means that I don't want them, adopted or otherwise.  Pointing out that there are means of having a family that don't require procreation on YOUR part isn't "push(ing) your desires on others".  I never said you were a bad person for wanting kids.  At this point I classify you liar, troll, and things I won't repeat in polite company. 

You're managing to do a great job creating a hostile environment here and I'm done with it.

Actually I would to have a large family.


I want to bear alot children myself and I also would like to adopt or foster some children.


I appreciate the polite reply.  That's encouraging, thank  you.

I don't have trouble finding anyone. I am however, finding that a near-majority of people state (usually without any prompting) that they don't want kids.

Your "considered opinions" are simply undisguised personal attacks, wherein you criticized me for not adopting children. Everything after that has been false accusations. 

You're just a troll.  Go away.


I'm really sorry I said anything. I was hoping for an interesting discussion of what I perceived to be a trend, that of more women not wanting children.

Instead, I got roundly criticized for having the audacity to desire a family.

My mistake, forget I asked. 

And Deidre - thank you for being the one decent person to respond. I really appreciate it.

Good night, all.

I'm late to this discussion, and missed the most piquant drama, but here goes.

Conceivably (pun intended), there are social circles where women prefer to remain childless.  For men finding themselves in such circles - men who wish to become fathers - this might be a source of frustration.  But my mind is utterly boggled in trying to imagine that such circles are common, or large.  Many women would be choosy in selecting a mate with whom to have kids - and rightly so.  Many would be taken aback by discussing the subject of children too early in the courtship process.  But to find oneself in a predicament, as a man, where most women demonstrably disavow maternal urges?  Please, help me find such women!  Show me where they live, where they work, what they do for recreation, where they congregate!  I am not at all being facetious or truculent.  Really, I want to know!  Most humans have an unconquerable urge to reproduce, despite the ravages of the present economy, fear of birth defects if becoming parents late in life, concern over decay in modern society, and on and on.  I have had many promising conversations on dating sites with potential mates spontaneously collapse, when I announced my disinclination towards fatherhood.  It comes across as a pathological defect, a sign of poor character or some sort of depravity. 

But as we discussed on a related thread some months ago, perhaps one's perceptions are strongly influenced by geographical location.  Here in the small-town rustbelt Midwest, procreation is the norm, and any grumblings to the contrary are not tolerated.  If only I could move to San Francisco!!

The religious push that all of us must breed is unfortunately still engrained in a majority of atheists. These atheists have drunk the kool-aid that "our" fundamental drive in nature is to breed... but that only depends on the context/definition of "our". If "our" is meant as species, then yes, the species "must go on", but if "our" is us individually, than these people are WRONG. In nature, many mammals DO NOT have every individual breeding. The concept of "alpha" individuals, and "satellite individuals" is almost the norm.

This push that all individual humans are driven to breed is a religious concept, and atheists need to forget their religious learnings and turn to nature for answers to our fundamental dilemmas. Homo sapiens is but another species on the planet, religion has made us forget that... and science has been a part of religious institutions for 1000 years, science needs to reacquaint itself with nature, this fundamental fact of life on earth, science needs to move away from religious values and get back to biological values.

Homo sapiensused to be prevented from overbreeding also, by reduced fertility rates, but the industrial revolution, and then the medical revolution, have removed all breeding barriers. We used to have several factors that controlled breeding:

-Seasonal ammenorhea (seasonal and yearly low fat on females, reducing ovulation)
-Lactational ammenorhea (reduced ovulation by breast-feeding exclusively for as long as possible)
-Abortion (was the norm before patriarchal morality decided to control female bodies)
-Postpartem depression infanticide (natural process of adaptation to bad conditions)
-Child mortality(death of weaker individuals allowed for stronger humans, less dependant on government aid for survival. Death is a normal part of life).

As for gestation duration, it has only a mild impact on total population. In nature, the foundation of a balanced ecosystem is that grass is most common, then herbivores, then predators are least numerous. Homo sapiens without hi-tech is but a weakling, but Homo sapiens with hi-tech is THE apex predator. We should be putting our technology to reducing population, not growing it. But we're doing the opposite.

Mammal Gestation period (days)
elephant (Asian) 616
whale (sperm) 480–590
rhinoceros (black) 450
giraffe 420–450
donkey 365
zebra (Grant's) 361-390
sea lion (California) 350
llama 330
horse 330–342
seal 330
cow 279–292
human 266
gorilla 255-260
bear (polar) 241
elk (Wapiti) 240–250
moose 240–250
chimpanzee 230–250
hippopotamus 225–250
American Bison 217
bear (grizzly) 215
deer (white-tailed) 201

Religion started the notion that dying was a "bad" thing, modern medical science has enshrined it. There are days when I wish we never had the Hippocratic Oath, it may be the principal point in human history when we made the wrong decision... that somehow a human life was so precious that it needed to be 'saved' at all costs... Death of a in-group member is sad... but it's not 'bad'. Humanity has confounded both definitions. I'd like to the medical/pharmaceutical industry to make a huge retreat, and focus on "repairing" accidents, rather than "correcting" what is genetically out-of-order.
Given that our society is obsessed with saving all lives, were we to use our brains rationally, we'd reduce our breeding to a trickle. As soon as medicine brought our lifespans beyond menopause age (natural end of life in nature), we should have given up on breeding nearly entirely.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service