Posted on 01/03/2005 8:31:56 AM PST by qam1
Nita and Ken Eaton hit the stores last month, as they do every Christmas, to find just the right gifts for the youngsters on their shopping list.
The carefully chosen presents weren't for their youngsters but for their nieces and nephews.
The Eatons are part of a small but growing segment of American couples who have chosen not to have children.
"We spend a lot of time thinking about what we're going to get our nieces and nephews for Christmas. We want to get them something meaningful," said Nita Eaton, 38.
The Eatons, married for five years, never had the desire to become parents.
"People used to always say: 'Your clock is ticking. You'll change your mind. It's different when they're your own,' " Nita said. "When I worked in a law firm, we were all in the age group to have kids, and I'd go to baby shower after baby shower, and I'd have to say honestly that it never hit me."
Many childless couples say they find themselves drifting away from friends once children are added to the mix.
"We started feeling sort of socially isolated," said Andrea Wenker, 33, of Colorado Springs. "Our friends started having babies and their lives changed. It revolves around the kids, and for good reason. The kind of things you used to do with your friends aren't an option anytime.
"They're talking about childbirth and diapers. It's important to their lives, but you start feeling, 'I'm still here, I'm still a person.' You start to feel kind of invisible."
She and Peter, her husband of 13 years, are childless by choice, and she is the coordinator of Denver Metro NO KIDDING!, one of 101 chapters of an international social group of more than 10,000 couples and singles without children. The Colorado group has about 200 members, 10 to 20 of whom typically attend the monthly get-togethers.
Jerry Steinberg, of Vancouver, British Columbia, calls himself the founding non-father of NO KIDDING! He started the group in 1983, he said via e-mail, because he was losing friends as they started to have children.
"They were no longer available for phone conversations, getting together for coffee or lunch, going to see movies, or much else," he said.
"Most people who have children seem to understand why I felt the need for a social club for child-free people, since people usually like to socialize with others who share at least some of their interests and have a similar lifestyle. After all, most, if not all, of (parents') friends were made through their kids' activities - the soccer moms get together, the softball dads meet, the school parents become friends, etc."
The number of childless-by-choice couples can't easily be determined, but anecdotal evidence indicates that their ranks are growing.
The Census Bureau doesn't ask whether couples are childless by choice, but the bureau projects that the percentage of families with children under 18 will decline from 47.7 percent in 1995 to 41.3 percent by 2010.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 6.6 percent of American women said they were voluntarily childless in 1995, the last time researchers asked the question. The number was up from 4.9 percent in 1982 and 6.2 percent in 1988.
The State of Our Unions, a 2003 report by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, reported Census Bureau projections that families with children will make up only 28 percent of U.S. households by 2010, the lowest number in at least a century.
"The underlying reason that there are fewer children is basically that women have other things to do," said David Popenoe, sociology professor at Rutgers and co-director of the National Marriage Project.
"Child-rearing in modern times is expensive and can be onerous, especially after you've been living as a single person or a couple without children for a while."
The decision to choose children, however, ultimately is very rewarding, he said.
"Over the long term, it's people who have children who are the happiest," said Popenoe.
Childless couples are used to hearing that their choice is either selfish or motivated by a dislike of children.
"I think it's being honest about what your priorities are and how you use them," said Wenker. "It doesn't mean everything's about you all the time. People don't decide to be parents because they're being philanthropic; it's because they want kids."
Nita Eaton works with children as a school psychologist.
"I like kids a lot and work with them in school," she said. "I see kids out there who don't have parents. That really played into my decision. If I decided to have kids, I'd go adopt one."
Population issues drive some decisions about whether to bear children.
"Whether or not I want to have kids is not the only consideration," said Wenker. "I believe there's a problem with population, serious issues with the environment, and I believe I have to be part of the solution."
Would-be parents should carefully consider their choice, said Ken Eaton, 42.
"It's a big decision that needs to be well-thought-out. There are a lot of unwanted kids out there. People didn't take the time to think about whether they would take the time to raise them."
Couples without children say they have more time to spend with their spouses and for volunteering.
The Eatons have three greyhounds and are board members of Rocky Mountain Greyhound Adoption, which they doubt they could do if they had children.
"They take a lot of time, energy and motivation. One has various autoimmune issues, one had a leg amputated, the other had a viral infection and has pretty bad arthritis," said Ken Eaton.
Having siblings who have children, say childless couples, tends to turn down the heat on family expectations to produce grandchildren.
Nita Eaton has three brothers with children, and all three of Ken's siblings have children.
"If I were an only child, I think, the pressure would be pretty great," Nita said. "I've always been pretty outspoken. My mom's pretty much backed off."
In a culture where parenthood is the norm, those who choose to bypass the baby boom often have their decisions questioned.
"Nobody's deliberately nasty," said Wenker. "From men, I get an odd reaction. The reaction (Peter) gets is, they get this look in their eyes that he's lucky. They like to get me to admit it's possible I'll change my mind. What I have to say to that is 'It doesn't seem likely' and 'It's just not an option.'
"I like my life. My husband and I have a very close relationship. We value the time between the two of us and can't imagine that interrupted. I've never regretted it."
Nita Eaton said she felt like an outsider when they moved into a neighborhood filled with young children.
"The woman who sold us our house said the neighbors had been asking how many kids we have," she said.
There is no cultural celebratory template for women who decide not to have children.
"I've thrown baby showers for girlfriends, and it's kind of this rite of passage," said Wenker. "We're going to buy you presents to get you started and treat you like Queen for a Day. It doesn't occur to anybody to celebrate a child-free woman in that way."
Ignore the self-righteous crowd. Most of them can't see beyond their limited world-view. It's your life and you don't have to justify to anyone how you choose to live it.
God's commands based in natural law (like the Ten Commandments) are eternal and eternally binding. Pastoral commands were provisional, as pastoral commands are provisional today.
I agree the Moral Law (part of which is "Do not murder", for instance) is eternal. I'm not sure what you mean by pastoral commands. Are those things taught by church leaders that are not taken from the Bible?
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished...."
Excellent Scripture selection, but I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, Jesus has fulfilled the Law, in every meaning of the word, because He was and is the only perfect person to have walked this earth.
Again, because of Christ, we do not live under the Old Testament law anymore:
In the same way, after the supper [Jesus] took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."- Luke 22:20
Kind of. The same principle would apply to both Catholics and Protestants, but I'll give you an example from Catholicism. At one point in time the Church instructed Catholics to abstain from meat on Fridays as a form of mortification in order to bring to mind, in honor of, and in unifying ourselves with Christ's sacrifice on the Cross on Good Friday. But since for some cultures meat is a rarity, abstaining from meat on Fridays did not represent a sacrifice. So the Church changed the discipline, instructing Catholics to choose their form of mortification.
In other words, pastoral commands are provisional and contingent upon temporal exigencies. We can see in the Old Testament a clear distinction between divine commands related to the eternal, natural law, and divine commands that were provisional and pastoral. Perhaps the most famous example of the latter would be kosher dietary requirements.
Excellent Scripture selection, but I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, Jesus has fulfilled the Law, in every meaning of the word, because He was and is the only perfect person to have walked this earth.
Again, because of Christ, we do not live under the Old Testament law anymore:
In the same way, after the supper [Jesus] took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
- Luke 22:20
We certainly do, except that Christ's demands for us are now greater. Not only are we prohibitted from doing bad things (the Decalogue), but we are obligated to do good things. "Love your neighbor as yourself." "You will know a tree by its fruit." We will be judged by what we do.
Matthew 25:31-46“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Grandchildren are your way to get even with your kids. You can spoil the hack out the the grandkids, then give them back to their parents, and let them deal with the problems!
Even better, you can give them gifts like chemistry sets (that includes instructions on making "stink bombs") and drum sets!
Mark
Someone gave me a drum set when I was a kid. They must have hated my parents. Anyway, even I didn't like the noise that I made, and it fell quickly into disuse, and then mysteriously disappeared.
I just read through the rest of your post and think we will just have to disagree that only people who want children should get married.
And I don't want to offend you, because I like you and think you've very well-intentioned, but such a view is a Catholic viewpoint. I'm fairly sure most Protestants do not share that belief. And we read our Bibles too.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Catholics allowed to use the rhythm method of birth control? Why is that? It's still birth control, and it still means they would be trying to not have a baby.
And I remember what Dr. Keyes said in his argument against homosexual marriage. Here's a snippet:
"KEYES: No, you don't understand the difference between incident and essence. Homosexuals are essentially incapable of procreation. They cannot mate. They are not made to do so. Therefore the idea of marriage for two such individuals is an absurdity."
I thought it was interesting that throughout the interview he made sure to emphasize the *capability* of procreation rather than the actual execution of it.
To my knowledge, Keyes has never made any public statements directly addressing the issue of birth control, which I find interesting since he has taken such bold, righteous stands against abortion and homosexual marriage. He's obviously not spoken about birth control on purpose, and the only reason that seems to make any sense is that his beliefs on the subject are somehow different from yours.
Argh. I was trying to preview my reply to your #683 when the webpage timed out and my entire reply disappeared into nothingness. I'll try to retype it later this weekend.
LutherPlease correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Catholics allowed to use the rhythm method of birth control? Why is that? It's still birth control, and it still means they would be trying to not have a baby."[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."
John Calvin
"The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."
John Wesley
"Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)
Lambeth Conference (1930)
Anglican bishops formally declare that couples are free to decide for themselves which methods of contraception they wish to use for purposes of family planning. They also condemned the use of contraceptives for "motives of selfishness, luxury or mere convenience."
Lambeth on ContraceptivesBy Charles Gore, D.D., D.C.L., LL. D.
Bishop of Oxford (1930)The Conference, while declining to lay down rules which will meet the needs of every abnormal case, regards with grave concern the spread in modern society of theories and practices hostile to the family. We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers—physical, moral, and religious—thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists—namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control. We desire solemnly to commend what we have said to Christian people and to all who will hear.
Here we have a refusal to go into detail about abnormal 'hard cases,' but a quite general condemnation of contraceptive methods. The recent Conference, on the contrary, has given a restricted approval of them. To be quite fair we will analyse the Resolutions 13—18...
That's a tougher question. The pope criticizes using natural methods of birth control if done with "a contraceptive mentality." My understanding of this phrase is that he opposes the use of natural means of contraception if done for convenience.
However, there is a real difference between natural and artificial means of birth control. God designed periods of fertility and infertility into a woman's cycle. Naturally, not every act of intercourse will result in pregnancy. Intercourse during infertile periods serves only one of the two ends of intercourse, the unity of the couple.
The natural purpose of intercourse is two-fold: procreation and the unity of the couple. If the possibility of a pregnancy threatens the unity of the couple and the marriage itself (i.e., grave medical dangers or grave financial hardship), the couple may make use of infertile periods to prevent pregnancy, but the couple must at the same time be open to the possibility of pregnancy.
An interesting and informative intra-Catholic dialogue on the subject.
To my knowledge, Keyes has never made any public statements directly addressing the issue of birth control, which I find interesting since he has taken such bold, righteous stands against abortion and homosexual marriage.
I read the speech he gave in Faneuil Hall about a year ago regarding homosexual marriage, and he traced the root of the problem to birth control, the separating of the marital act from procreation.
He's obviously not spoken about birth control on purpose, and the only reason that seems to make any sense is that his beliefs on the subject are somehow different from yours.
He may not want to bring it up in Catholic/Protestant audiences for prudential reasons, but his speech at Fanueil Hall was to a general audience.
The issue came up in this interview with Sean Hannity.
Sorry for the late post. My original one was probably worded better, but I'll try to sum up here briefly.
Thank you for your explanation of pastoral commands. I'm familiar with the concept of provisional law--I've also heard it called ceremonial law.
Reading the Bible, it's clear that God set down all of the laws, which would include the Moral Law, ceremonial law and civil law.
When I said "We do not live under the Old Testament law (note the small 'l') anymore", I was referring to the ceremonial law, which Jesus as High Priest has made obsolete.
Also, I do not believe the commands God gave to specific people to be fruitful and multiply are any part of the Moral, ceremonial or civil law. They are not laws. They are separate covenants God made with those specific people at those specific times.
There are even more people in those homes who have children and grandchildren that don't visit than there are those who do. I would think that's a far more depressing feeling.
And having children with the assumption they will care for you when you are old is selfish. Some people do choose not to have kids because they are aware they are selfish people...but not all childfree people are. Everybody has their reasons as to why they do or don't want kids. Children are a never-ending responsibilty and even the best of parents have moments where they resent their kids.
Well said, Spacey!! And you are so right about folks in homes that have children/grandchildren who don't get visits, or at least very minimal.
I have to say ... reading this post make me very sad. I have been married for 15 years, we have been trying to have children for the past 7 years to no avail. We are now at the age where it looks like we are destined not to have children. We do not want to go the scientific route, and in some ways, whether I am projecting onto myself or not, I feel extreme sadness and trepidation about a future without children. Somehow the path of life seems less certain. Anyway ... I am saddened by how many people responding to article would see me as some sort of freak. =( Saddened is not the correct word, “hurt” is more appropriate.
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.