Posted on 09/15/2005 9:28:57 AM PDT by qam1
The truth.
Growing up I had a wonderful, blessed "nuclear family" life.
But I have never, and I mean never, wanted children.
My spouse is pretty much the same.
We may get a cat or two someday. :o)
It is not possible for a man to enter a legally equitable relationship with a woman. Married men are 2nd class citizens and men married with kids are little more than serfs. I.E. no real claim on their future labor or even the custody and upbringing of their children.
No thanks.
I think it is difficult to get one's hands around this problem and there are many factors: No-fault divorce is one. The ease of travel and consumerist lifestyle is another. A third is high taxes and the high cost of living. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Of one thing, I am sure, though. The country, as a whole will drift "rightward" as time goes on. Conservatives are more likely to have babies (and not abort them) and religious conservatives are more likely to have more babies.
Oh PULEEEEEEEEEEZE
ROTFL. This moron just described the Baby Boomers to a T.
Aha. I see you're back with your anti-marriage screed. For all the happily married folks reading this thread, I say to you: pthpthpthpthpth!
This is an idiotic argument; it presumes that having kids in your 20s is the only way to grow or have fulfillment. So I guess a priest or a monk cannot grow as a person or have a wonderful sense of fulfillment? If this is the only way you can grow or be fulfilled, it brings into question your value as a human being.
The reality is that a very significant chunk of the people who have kids in their 20s today did so as a result of a character flaw, personal stupidity, or random chance. Hardly a ringing endorsement. For most people, it does not make sense to have children in your 20s which is the real reason this is happening -- if it isn't rational, most people won't do it. GenX is under no obligation to meet the vacant ideal of anyone.
I wonder how many who opine that the nuclear family is overrated will still feel that way years down the road, sitting alone in a nursing home with no children and extended family to take them in and give them dignified care in the final, often difficult, years?
Conservatives have more legitimate babies, granted. But not more babies overall, IMO.
Personally, I think marriage is an important pillar of civil society. However the legal disincentives for marriage have become so great that we are now witnessing its decline.
I'm simply trying to articulate the causes of an empirically observable phenomenon.
Perhaps you care to respond with some farting noise now.
You don't have children so they can take care of you when you're old. Do you?
Besides, who's to say they won't die before you do?
Who's to say they won't develop some kind of disease or get hurt terribly in an accident and you won't have to take care of *them*?
I feel sorry for who plan their old age around "who's going to take care of me"? Very leftist viewpoint when you think about it.
Currently the Boomer's plan to confiscate roughly 2X all privately held wealth in order to fund their retirement. Even if you have kids, they will likely be so heavily taxed that they will be unable to provide assistance.
You're shipwrecked on an island with some other people. The supplies on the island can support you for years, but not forever. Across the water is a town with food and water, more people, companionship, real shelter, employment, etc...
On the beach sit a bunch of row boats. A few of your fellow castaways hop in boats and desperately try to reach the shore. You watch in horror as half of the boats sink, drowning their occupants, and leaving the rest to hungry sharks. You even try taking a boat yourself, it sinks and you somehow manage to swim back to the island, almost drowning and with a bloody shark bite on your leg.
There sits another boat in front of you. Want to take another ride?
(In this analogy sharks represent divorce lawyers)
"Perhaps you care to respond with some farting noise now."
If you wish.
I'm happily married. I've also been divorced. My ex-wife and I got our divorce, after 17 years, by going to a divorce mediator. We divided our assets equally. We're both good earners, so there was never any discussion about spousal support. We had no children, so there was no child support discussion, either. After we were divorced, we remained on good terms.
I've remarried and am now married to my current wife for 14 years.
It's all a two-way street. Having met some men who have refused any responsibility for their children after a divorce, I guess I'm just not all that sympathetic. One guy I know went so far as to leave the country to avoid paying child support for his own children.
It works both ways.
Not really. They could room with each other, like the Golden Girls.
If you want to take it all the way back, we could go to Adam and Eve...but the family thing came more noticable this time around after WWI....
I am in complete agreement with you.
With greater prosperity people do not feel the need propagate the world with progeny because they will be able to save enough for themselves to pay people to take care of them in times of infirmary (or depend on the government).
Thus, in the US, Old Europe, Australia and Japan the birthrate has decreased to the point of receding population unless immigrants from poor countries are allowed in.
I do not believe this to be a difference between Baby Boomers and Gen X/Y. It is the perils of prosperity.
Being 40 with kids under 10, I would encourage couples to have kids in their 20s. They can wear me out!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.