# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/141 "2009-12-21T20:46:07Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > In my experience as a 43 year old woman who has never wanted children, I’m finding the reactions of people who find out I am childfree by choice to be getting better than they were when I was in my twenties. Those reactions were usually people arguing with me. At this point I don’t volunteer the information because of twenty years of not having positive reactions when people find out; the reactions are getting better, and I might start becoming more forthright about my personal choice. I probably won’t, though, because it really isn’t anyone’s business, and there are still the nutjobs out there who feel the need to judge how other people are living their lives (they’ve even shown up in this thread!). Coming from a very similar situation, I’m also seen less "bad’ reactions to being voluntarily childless, now vs 20 years ago. It also seems to be heavily influenced by the age of the person I’m talking to. People my parents generation are still heavily in the “you can’t really want to be childless” camp. I see that much less in a 50 yrs old and younger crowd. That age break is not hard, but about where I pin it, based on people I’ve talked to. My 70 year old father truly believes that children are your shot at immortality/eternity/continuity. I’ve heard him use the term genetic suicide. I would be very surprised to hear that option from my friends in their 40s. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/142 "2009-12-21T21:07:05Z")
> [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](#): > > Coming from a very similar situation, I’m also seen less "bad’ reactions to being voluntarily childless, now vs 20 years ago. It also seems to be heavily influenced by the age of the person I’m talking to. People my parents generation are still heavily in the “you can’t really want to be childless” camp. I see that much less in a 50 yrs old and younger crowd. That age break is not hard, but about where I pin it, based on people I’ve talked to. My 70 year old father truly believes that children are your shot at immortality/eternity/continuity. I’ve heard him use the term genetic suicide. I would be very surprised to hear that option from my friends in their 40s. Well he’s not wrong, but if you do not value his notion of continuity then that’s fine. I can see why it would be upsetting for a Father who valued that to have children who didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/143 "2009-12-21T21:56:01Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I agree. It’s an useless word, generally just used to make the other side look bad for pursuing their self-interest. Pretty much in 100% of cases. Hyperbolic rhetorical device, little more. No. The definition of “selfish” you are using is the problem. Redefining everything as selfish is only useful as an excuse to exploit or harm others; it lets you handwave “Everyone is selfish” as an excuse. There is a useful distinction to be made between behavior where the needs and desires of others are taken into account, and behavior in which it is not; the latter is called selfishness. Redefining the word the way you do does nothing except limit the language and enable predatory people. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/144 "2009-12-21T21:58:05Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No. The definition of “selfish” you are using is the problem. Redefining everything as selfish is only useful as an excuse to exploit or harm others; it lets you handwave “Everyone is selfish” as an excuse. If I redefined it that would be a valid point. But since I didn’t, my point stands. > [@](#): > > There is a useful distinction to be made between behavior where the needs and desires of others are taken into account, and behavior in which it is not; the latter is called selfishness. Redefining the word the way you do does nothing except limit the language and enable predatory people. Sure, and that’s why grammar exists, so we can articulate more complex ideas than can be adequately encapsulated by a single word. Again, if I redefined it you’d have a point, but since I didn’t… The idea that people are not having kids for altruistic motives is pretty much nonsense. Maybe in the case of a select few, but I bet that for most people it’s a decision made primarily with one’s self-interest in mind. (that’s the definition of selfish) Maybe a lot of people make some kind of post-hoc rationalization about their motives, but I imagine that saving the world from overpopulation or saving a hypothetical child from the parent’s inability to parent are secondary. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/145 "2009-12-21T22:00:55Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > If I redefined it that would be a valid point. But since I didn’t, my point stands. No, you redefined it. You are using the word in a way that it is not normally used; a way that almost exclusively I see used by people trying to justify amoral behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/146 "2009-12-21T22:02:55Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, you redefined it. You are using the word in a way that it is not normally used; a way that almost exclusively I see used by people trying to justify amoral behavior. Just curious: what amoral behaviour do you suspect is being justified here? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/147 "2009-12-21T22:04:14Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, you redefined it. You are using the word in a way that it is not normally used; a way that almost exclusively I see used by people trying to justify amoral behavior. No I didn’t I even posted a definition. I am sorry if the dictionary and the encyclopedia bother you. > [@](#): > > 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned **primarily** with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. > 2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives. This fantasy mythos you are creating is cute and all, very religious. But I’m using the term correctly. Maybe you should read up on your Dawkins. [The Selfish Gene - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene)😉 ---
**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 21, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/148 "2009-12-21T23:05:07Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yes, it is. Everything we do is selfish. > > Using it any other way is doublespeak and that’s doubleplusungood. > > It allows us to selfishly diminish the actions of others, while obfuscating our own selfishness. > > [Selfishness - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness) > > Though I disagree that it necessitates putting one’s needs above the needs of others. Many selfish acts can be mutually beneficial. Acting in a mutually beneficial way and putting your own needs first are not contradictory, as evolution has shown us again and again. From a certain point of view, I agree that all actions can be considered selfish. However, doing so kind of makes calling either having children or being childless selfish kind of pointless. You’ve removed all the sting from the word. ---
**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 21, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/149 "2009-12-21T23:16:07Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > I’m not going to argue that **Voyager’s** experience is right or wrong; chances are very good that it was different from mine. I’m not sure which experience that is! 🙂 My parents were trying, but back in 1950 I don’t think couples broadcase the details of their fertility quite as broadly as they do today. My mother told me that she would never bug me about kids, given her experience. Since my wife got pregnant about 7 months after I left school and had a job, I’ll never know. I just said that no one should be surprised by couples wishing to remain childless. That doesn’t mean I don’t think some people will be jerks about it. We lived in an area where most women had very good educations and jobs, so even though most people in our community had kids, there was never anything said about those without. Stay at home vs. working mothers was a different story entirely. ---
**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 21, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/150 "2009-12-21T23:24:39Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No I didn’t I even posted a definition. I am sorry if the dictionary and the encyclopedia bother you. > > This fantasy mythos you are creating is cute and all, very religious. But I’m using the term correctly. > > Maybe you should read up on your Dawkins. [The Selfish Gene - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene)😉 Genes don’t have morals, which Dawkins is the first to note. There is indeed a certain view that everything we do is in our self interest. The man giving his fortune away does it because his internal calculus is such that getting praise for doing it makes him feel better than the money (or even just the satisfaction of doing it, even when it is in secret.) The problem with your use of the definition you posted is the word “primarily.” A person wishing to create a life or perhaps make a spouse who wants kids happy, even knowing that his/her life will be hell for 18 years isn’t being primarily selfish; neither is a person who would love to have kids but who won’t because of fear of overpopulation, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/151 "2009-12-21T23:32:36Z")
I think the most ethical choice for a person who wants to remain childless is to do so, or if a couple only wants one, they should have one. Then some other couple that wants to have a larger family can have three or four kids without the population’s overall fertility being increased. It seems like it could be a win-win for everyone; the children that are born will grow up with siblings and numerous cousins, parents who want a houseful of kids can have that, yet the overall fertility of the population would remain low. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/152 "2009-12-21T23:43:12Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Acting in a mutually beneficial way and putting your own needs first are not contradictory, as evolution has shown us again and again. Thank you for reiterating what I have been saying in this thread. 😉 > [@](#): > > From a certain point of view, I agree that all actions can be considered selfish. However, doing so kind of makes calling either having children or being childless selfish kind of pointless. You’ve removed all the sting from the word. Yes, it does. Calling people selfish is rhetorical self-aggrandizement, nothing more. You’re right, I’ve removed the sting from it because using it negatively is all sting and no substance. Basically when people are calling other people selfish they mean, “People who act like me are altruistic, and people who don’t act like me are evil sinners.” It goes back to old-school Christian belief where total and complete selflessness is considered the highest moral virtue, even if it is to the detriment of the self. It’s been grandfathered into our society in order to make for a cheap-shot _ad hominem_ of anyone who behaves differently from how we do. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/153 "2009-12-21T23:50:01Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Genes don’t have morals, which Dawkins is the first to note. > There is indeed a certain view that everything we do is in our self interest. The man giving his fortune away does it because his internal calculus is such that getting praise for doing it makes him feel better than the money (or even just the satisfaction of doing it, even when it is in secret.) The problem with your use of the definition you posted is the word “primarily.” A person wishing to create a life or perhaps make a spouse who wants kids happy, even knowing that his/her life will be hell for 18 years isn’t being primarily selfish; neither is a person who would love to have kids but who won’t because of fear of overpopulation, for instance. I didn’t say altruism never exists. But I also doubt that a miserable man can make a wife and kids happy for 18+ years. The man who is made miserable by having a family but sticks it out anyway is acting contrary to his self-interest, just as is the person who wants to have kids but doesn’t because of overpopulation, but I am unconvinced that either of these types are common even amongst their relative cohorts. Most people that don’t want to have kids want to not have to be on the schedule of a toddler and would like discretionary income to drive their Acura to Vegas on occasion, or take a jaunt to Hawaii. I seriously doubt that the average childfree type is doing it because of overpopulation. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/154 "2009-12-22T00:22:20Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Just curious: what amoral behaviour do you suspect is being justified here? None yet, here. But the definition **mswas** is using is one that I usually hear used by someone trying to excuse such behavior. > [@mswas](#): > > No I didn’t I even posted a definition. I am sorry if the dictionary and the encyclopedia bother you. > > This fantasy mythos you are creating is cute and all, very religious. But I’m using the term correctly. The way people usually use a word is not a “fantasy mythos”. That’s what you are doing, not I. You redefine the word until it’s useless, then act like you’ve made some sort of point by calling it useless. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/155 "2009-12-22T00:37:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > None yet, here. But the definition **mswas** is using is one that I usually hear used by someone trying to excuse such behavior. What behavior? > [@](#): > > The way people usually use a word is not a “fantasy mythos”. That’s what you are doing, not I. You redefine the word until it’s useless, then act like you’ve made some sort of point by calling it useless. No, the fantasy mythos is this idea that people are not having kids for reasons other than self-interest. People don’t have kids mainly because they don’t want them. Which is self-interested, by definition. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/156 "2009-12-22T00:43:32Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What behavior? Just about anything ruthless. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing, whatever. > [@mswas](#): > > No, the fantasy mythos is this idea that people are not having kids for reasons other than self-interest. Only by your twisted use of the phrase. You redefine “self interest” until it is impossible to be anything else, of course they are motivated by “self interest”. But then, using your definition so is someone who sets themselves on fire. I see no good reason to warp such a useful distinction as selfish/unselfish into meaninglessness the way you are. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/157 "2009-12-22T00:47:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Just about anything ruthless. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing, whatever. But we’re not talking about that. We are talking about having kids and not having kids. > [@](#): > > Only by your twisted use of the phrase. You redefine “self interest” until it is impossible to be anything else, of course they are motivated by “self interest”. But then, using your definition so is someone who sets themselves on fire. I see no good reason to warp such a useful distinction as selfish/unselfish into meaninglessness the way you are. I didn’t redefine anything, I am using it the way it’s defined in the dictionary stripped of emotionally manipulative connotations. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/158 "2009-12-22T00:57:23Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > But we’re not talking about that. We are talking about having kids and not having kids. And your use of the word “selfish”. > [@mswas](#): > > I didn’t redefine anything, I am using it the way it’s defined in the dictionary stripped of emotionally manipulative connotations. No, you are using it in a way designed solely to make it worthless. You are using it in a way such that it applies both to knifing someone for cash and feeding the homeless, which is just silly. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/159 "2009-12-22T01:04:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And your use of the word “selfish”. > > No, you are using it in a way designed solely to make it worthless. You are using it in a way such that it applies both to knifing someone for cash and feeding the homeless, which is just silly. I am using it the way it is defined in the dictionary. I am sorry if that doesn’t support whatever appeal to emotion you want to make with it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653/160 "2009-12-22T01:05:54Z")
I’m not DEFINING selfishness in any way that makes most actions selfish. Most actions ARE selfish. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-implications-of-remaining-childless-by-choice/521653.md?page=9)