# Ethical Implications of Remaining Childless By Choice **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653 "2009-12-17T17:03:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/61 "2009-12-17T20:57:05Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It will be interesting to read what the Duggar kids have to say in twenty years, assuming that they escape from their brainwashing. Is escape from brainwashing indicated by eating their porridge with sugar, or without? ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/62 "2009-12-17T21:16:27Z")
> [@Gestalt](#): > > Obviously if everyone chose like I did, humanity would be in deep fudge. And if everybody chose to pay off their credit card bills in full every month like I do, the economy would be even worse than it is. Just because society would be worse off if everybody chose to do something doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing to do. > [@Voyager](#): > > It is possible that in 20 years some people who didn’t want children will regret it, but it is just as possible that some who did want children will regret that decision also. No decision you will ever make comes with a guarantee that you won’t ever regret it. Yes, there are people who regret having kids. It’s not considered a good thing to say out loud, but that doesn’t mean nobody ever feels that way. > [@vivalostwages](#): > > Yeah, every time I have a period, I put a bag of stuff into the charity drop box. Gross! That’s _not_ what you’re supposed to do with your used pads/tampons! ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/63 "2009-12-17T21:27:05Z")
I think the selfishness is more toward your antecedents. Generations of people have sacrificed greatly in order to provide for children in your line, specifically for the purpose of continuing the line. (Or I hope they have. Not every parent does, unfortunately.) If you have siblings (or even cousins) with children, it’s a very different decision than if you are an only child. (Unfair, but true.) That doesn’t say that I think it’s a good idea to pressure anyone to procreate. I absolutely do not believe that anyone should have a child unless it is the be-all end-all desire of their life; because I believe that children do deserve to be raised by devoted and loving parents. And once you have kids, it really does become the primary focus of your existence, at least for quite a few years. That said, I also think that the primary purpose of a society is to cooperate in the raising of children. In the days when I thought it would never happen for me, I never minded paying taxes for schools, and even ran a reading program for children in the local homeless shelter on a volunteer basis. So yeah, I feel pretty strongly about that one. 😉 In the final analysis, only the individual can decide what he/she owes to the family. And the primary thing we owe to society is an honest and well-considered decision on whether we are willing to devote the necessary energy to raising children well. The worst thing we can do to society is create children we don’t intend to raise well. This can mitigated by an early and honest appraisal of the situation, and a willingness to allow the child to be raised by someone who does want the responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/64 "2009-12-17T21:45:28Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > And still more argument by assertion. Why do you think that someone who has that many kids takes their obligations lightly? > > Ok, this has some more meat in it, at least your anecdotal experience. I am not sure it’s a quantity issue. Some people are neglectful of their first and only kid. Agreed about people spreading franchises all over the country, but that’s not what the Duggars have done. This meat goes with the potatoes of the first line, of course - not every paragraph break is a complete change of subject. Say what you’re going to say, say what you’re saying, say what you said… Logically, if a parent has a large number of small children, they will be less able to spend as much time on each child as a person with fewer children, absent knowledge of other distinguishing factors. So, it is _certainly_ a quantity issue. This is not subject to debate. I’m not sure why you’re _trying_ to debate it. Of course, there are many factors that influence this one way or the other, most notably the spacing of the children. If you have a newborn, a one-year-old, a two-year-old, a three-year-old, a four-year-old, _and_ a five-year-old, then I can personally guarantee that you’re not going to be spending large amounts of individualized quality time with each child. That is a _given_. (I can also say with a fair amount of certainty that you’ll be an exhausted wreck, unless you’re not participating in raising them at all.) Whereas if you have those same six kids all two or three years apart from one another, that’s a very very very different situation. And that’s only one of many factors that influence this. Is there a parent who stays at home 24-7? How long and hard do the working parents work? And what’s the temperament of the parents, anyway? And that’s not even mentioning the factors that have nothing to do with the parent’s ability and incliniation to discharge their personal responsibilities, like number of other siblings and whatnot - which are omitted because they are irrelevent to the current discussion. > [@mswas](#): > > You just made this comment about ‘laudable’ as though you have to either think their choice is pure awesome, or pure terrible. I don’t have to think that having 19 kids is the way to go just because I don’t automatically assume it’s a bad thing. Piffle, it’s possible for something to be _slightly_ laudable too. There’s no need to push _everything_ towards desperate hyperbole, even though it might be convenient for you if I was as extremist and irritational as you’re trying to present me as. > [@mswas](#): > > Your argument really does boil down to an armchair psychoanalysis of people you’ve never met. Though I do respect that if you’ve known a lot of families that were very large and feel they were neglectful then I can see where you are coming from. I really don’t see why having older kids help raise younger kids is a bad thing. It seems to come down to this nebulous idea of ‘liberty’ that the freedom of children to be indolent is somehow paramount and sacrosanct. This thread is about _personal_ responsibilities. Is it “selfish” to avoid having children or not, that’s the question. I think it’s _more_ selfish to have kids and dump them on your older children to raise. In fact, I think that’s _obviously_ the more selfish of the two situations! It’s a true fact that kids are remarkably resilient - you can be a pretty bad parent and get pretty good kids out of it, presuming you don’t go to horrific extremes in your abuse of them. But this just means that having kids turn out okay does _not_ show that the parents were good and responsible regarding their parental duties. ---
**Author:** ![norinew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb9ed0/32.png) [@norinew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/norinew)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/65 "2009-12-17T21:47:53Z")
> [@TrueCelt](#): > > The worst thing we can do to society is create children we don’t intend to raise well. This can mitigated by an early and honest appraisal of the situation, and a willingness to allow the child to be raised by someone who does want the responsibility. QFT! Having just moved out of an economically challenged city, into an _even more_ economically challenged town, I have seen more than my fair share of people who have _had children_ not because they _wanted_ children, but because they couldn’t be bothered _not_ to have them. Ugh. If you want children (as I did) and can support them (as we could, though we did have a couple of tough years when we had to seek heating assistance and such), and you love and care for them, good on ya! And if you recognize that you are one of those folks who _should not_ have children (my mother was one such person; she should _never_ have been allowed to reproduce, though she did it five times!), and do not want to care for/support/discipline children, then choose to take measures to _not_ reproduce, good on ya! I _do not_ understand this mindset certain people seem to get that what they feel is right for _them_ is right for _everyone_. It could be having children vs not having children Homeschooling vs not homeschooling Religion vs atheism Vegetarianism vs carnivorism (is that even a word?) Anything. There is _no one right answer_ for everyone. But the world would be a better place if everyone based their answers on what they _think_ rather than the fact that they _can’t be bothered_ to think! ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/66 "2009-12-17T22:05:16Z")
> [@norinew](#): > > There is _no one right answer_ for everyone. Not in this particular case, but I disagree with this as a general statement. Sometimes one choice _is_ objectively worse than the other. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/67 "2009-12-17T22:18:47Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Logically, if a parent has a large number of small children, they will be less able to spend as much time on each child as a person with fewer children, absent knowledge of other distinguishing factors. So, it is _certainly_ a quantity issue. This is not subject to debate. I’m not sure why you’re _trying_ to debate it. Sigh, here you go again. Not understanding the person you are arguing with and then acting superior as a result. So lets break it down in bite-sized chunks for you, the purpose of those line breaks BTW. Now, you are arguing that quantity of parental attention is the only arbiter of value in a familial relationship. The quantity of attention by other family members is ignored in order to suit your argument. > [@](#): > > Of course, there are many factors that influence this one way or the other, most notably the spacing of the children. If you have a newborn, a one-year-old, a two-year-old, a three-year-old, a four-year-old, _and_ a five-year-old, then I can personally guarantee that you’re not going to be spending large amounts of individualized quality time with each child. That is a _given_. (I can also say with a fair amount of certainty that you’ll be an exhausted wreck, unless you’re not participating in raising them at all.) Whereas if you have those same six kids all two or three years apart from one another, that’s a very very very different situation. And that’s only one of many factors that influence this. Is there a parent who stays at home 24-7? How long and hard do the working parents work? And what’s the temperament of the parents, anyway? So what? The children interact with one another. I didn’t get a lot of individualized attention from my Father because he read Sci Fi novels, and my daughter would get more attention if there wasn’t so much to do on the internet. I don’t buy the idea that a kid needs constant individualized attention. The trick is to be available when they need you. > [@](#): > > And that’s not even mentioning the factors that have nothing to do with the parent’s ability and incliniation to discharge their personal responsibilities, like number of other siblings and whatnot - which are omitted because they are irrelevent to the current discussion. Right of course, because a parent can be ‘organized’ and delegate responsibilities in the home. I’d imagine a home with a dozen kids would be pretty easy to get mopped. Therefore it’s something the parent doesn’t need to do. After the first kid hits about 7 or so, you shouldn’t have to touch a vacuum ever again. > [@](#): > > Piffle, it’s possible for something to be _slightly_ laudable too. There’s no need to push _everything_ towards desperate hyperbole, even though it might be convenient for you if I was as extremist and irritational as you’re trying to present me as. Hey man, it’s your hyperbole, I can throw it out if you wish. I found it annoying too. > [@](#): > > This thread is about _personal_ responsibilities. Is it “selfish” to avoid having children or not, that’s the question. Yes, it is selfish, of course it’s selfish. But the real question is whether or not it’s bad selfish. > [@](#): > > I think it’s _more_ selfish to have kids and dump them on your older children to raise. In fact, I think that’s _obviously_ the more selfish of the two situations! ‘Obviously’, he asserts. Whether or not it is more or less selfish is actually unimportant. Comparative selfishness is a meaningless metric. Selfishness in its negative connotation is a subjective nonsense word that tells us pretty much nothing about the object being observed, and much about the observer. From what you are telling me, I have learned NOTHING about the Duggars but much about your own personal bias. I’ve never liked the word ‘selfish’ in that usage because the vast majority of human action can be characterized as selfish. Eating dinner is selfish. Is it more or less selfish than taking a shit? > [@](#): > > It’s a true fact that kids are remarkably resilient - you can be a pretty bad parent and get pretty good kids out of it, presuming you don’t go to horrific extremes in your abuse of them. But this just means that having kids turn out okay does _not_ show that the parents were good and responsible regarding their parental duties. I don’t think that a parent who has lots of kids is automagically a bad parent. You seem like you do. A person can be a good parent and delegate responsibilities to younger children. We aren’t talking about objective quantities here but subjective qualities. Large families are not tortured by their environment any more than lonely only children who get lots of attention from a smothering mother. They can learn a lot by being given responsibilities. I had to babysit my sister as a child and had lots of chores, and to be honest, neither of those things would I quote as being what fucked me up. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/68 "2009-12-17T22:27:42Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What do your kids say now that they have escaped their brainwashing? ;p Happy campers, both. Atheists too - my brainwashing was very effective. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/69 "2009-12-17T22:29:18Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Happy campers, both. Atheists too - my brainwashing was very effective. 😃 I see. Congrats. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/70 "2009-12-17T22:31:00Z")
This is just anecdotal, of course, but I did know a woman who was the oldest of 10 kids in a fundamentalist Christian household - she had no kids and didn’t want to have any kids because, in her words, she’d raised enough kids already. I can easily see the older Duggar children having similar sentiments (if they haven’t been fully brainwashed into thinking that their only purpose on earth is to bear and rear children). ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/71 "2009-12-17T22:32:46Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > This is just anecdotal, of course, but I did know a woman who was the oldest of 10 kids in a fundamentalist Christian household - she had no kids and didn’t want to have any kids because, in her words, she’d raised enough kids already. I can easily see the older Duggar children having similar sentiments (if they haven’t been fully brainwashed into thinking that their only purpose on earth is to bear and rear children). There you go with that brainwashing word again. I’ve been brainwashing my daughter into being able to read early as best as I can. I read to her all the time, and she knows her full alphabet both upper and lower case, she’s two. The brainwashing seems to be taking. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/72 "2009-12-17T22:47:21Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > I think the selfishness is more toward your antecedents. Generations of people have sacrificed greatly in order to provide for children in your line, specifically for the purpose of continuing the line. Yes, it’s an awesome responsibility. One’s line has a unique genetic complement which must be preserved. After all, what would the Elders say? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/73 "2009-12-17T22:51:59Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > This is just anecdotal, of course, but I did know a woman who was the oldest of 10 kids in a fundamentalist Christian household - she had no kids and didn’t want to have any kids because, in her words, she’d raised enough kids already. I can easily see the older Duggar children having similar sentiments (if they haven’t been fully brainwashed into thinking that their only purpose on earth is to bear and rear children). My use of the term brainwashing was snarky, of course, but I have seen a couple of episodes of that show, so I’m not totally working on biases. I suppose brainwashing is kind of required to make life bearable in a family that big, just like we train our dogs to make them well behaved. But how much of their childhood are the older kids giving up for their parents breeding desires? When I was a teenager I read voraciously in all sorts of areas, a habit that has served me well. Would I really be a better person, or more productive to society, if I had been looking after a dozen younger siblings instead? I sense that some people who think that this is great assume that kids not kept busy this way would be drug using, drag racing, fornicating monsters if not kept busy every second. Idle hands may not be the devils tools, they might hold a pen or a paintbrush instead. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/74 "2009-12-17T22:53:55Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Sigh, here you go again. Not understanding the person you are arguing with and then acting superior as a result. So lets break it down in bite-sized chunks for you, the purpose of those line breaks BTW. > > Now, you are arguing that quantity of parental attention is the only arbiter of value in a familial relationship. I read this far and didn’t read another word. If you are going to go this far in blatantly, overtly, and deliberately misrepresenting my postion, then you have nothing worthwhile to say, much less respond to. ---
**Author:** ![norinew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb9ed0/32.png) [@norinew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/norinew)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/75 "2009-12-17T23:15:06Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Not in this particular case, but I disagree with this as a general statement. Sometimes one choice _is_ objectively worse than the other. I do agree that in _some_ cases, there is a _correct_ answer; I’m referring to those things that are really _choices_, and yet, some people choose to treat the fact that others make different choices as a personal affront. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/76 "2009-12-17T23:20:27Z")
> [@norinew](#): > > I do agree that in _some_ cases, there is a _correct_ answer; I’m referring to those things that are really _choices_, and yet, some people choose to treat the fact that others make different choices as a personal affront. 😉 The word you want is “opinions”. When I choose not to punch babies in the face, that’s still a choice. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/77 "2009-12-17T23:25:01Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s more of an issue when the society becomes top heavy, particularly in a welfare state. If too high a proportion of the population is taking from retirement funds, and not enough paying in, then it depletes the coffers. Services of course are relative to the size of a population. As the population determines the needs. But too many old people can indeed hurt a society. > > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2809843/Japan-leads-world-in-demographic-decline.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2809843/Japan-leads-world-in-demographic-decline.html) Replacement total fertility rate is about 2.1 and nations like the wealthy ones in Europe and Asia sometimes only have 1.3 or so. So their population is declining, however it is also spurring innovation. The abolition of slavery helped promote investments into industrialization. So has crackdown on illegal immigrant labor for agricultural work, it has led to investments in labor saving devices. In Japan they are investing heavily in robotics because they know the low childbirth rate is going to screw up the country. A nation where 40% are elderly and 25%+ of the working age adults are taking care of them cannot sustain itself. Is not totally the same thing as a top heavy welfare state, but a society high in elderly with a labor shortage has a strong incentive to innovate to improve productivity which will benefit everyone. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/78 "2009-12-17T23:29:32Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I read this far and didn’t read another word. If you are going to go this far in blatantly, overtly, and deliberately misrepresenting my postion, then you have nothing worthwhile to say, much less respond to. Suit yourself. You haven’t made your case very well in any event. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/79 "2009-12-17T23:31:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > My use of the term brainwashing was snarky, of course, but I have seen a couple of episodes of that show, so I’m not totally working on biases. I suppose brainwashing is kind of required to make life bearable in a family that big, just like we train our dogs to make them well behaved. But how much of their childhood are the older kids giving up for their parents breeding desires? When I was a teenager I read voraciously in all sorts of areas, a habit that has served me well. Would I really be a better person, or more productive to society, if I had been looking after a dozen younger siblings instead? I sense that some people who think that this is great assume that kids not kept busy this way would be drug using, drag racing, fornicating monsters if not kept busy every second. Idle hands may not be the devils tools, they might hold a pen or a paintbrush instead. Right, and thus your entire position is that children are consumer products and sibling relationships have no value of their own. That holding a pen or a paintbrush is more valuable than say teaching your little brother to fish, or teaching your little sister to paint. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/80 "2009-12-17T23:38:01Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Suit yourself. You haven’t made your case very well in any event. I made it well enough that you felt the need to resort to blatantly fraudulent argument to try and refute it, which is good enough for me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653.md?page=5)