Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effect Gen-Reagan/Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
*rolling eyes* Now these people think they should be celebrated for doing NOTHING? No wonder they didn't have kids. They're too damned self-centered!
Well, there's no party for those who decide not to buy a house, either.
It doesn't occur to anybody to celebrate a child-free woman in that way."
SELFISH!
bump
Every time I read about couples like this I remember the little old ladies in the nursing homes I have visited who never had any children and have to rely on that lone nephew who lives 1,500 miles away for a family connection.
Well, if you have priorities in life that would seriously conflict with having children, I would have to say that it's probably best to not have them. However, I think they are missing out on a pretty awesome experience. It's not nearly as disruptive as they think it is...unless you are a complete party animal. :)
I am thankful these folks don't have children and not just because they vote liberal. Self centered parents are not good for society.
My best friend had a baby. Now she bought a house with her husband. We're not the friends we used to be at all.
To those who are calling childless couple selfish, stop and think---isn't it more selfish to have children that you don't want? I think that's even more common and the children suffer. They can tell always when they're not wanted. It's called neglect.
May they find contentment and fulfillment.
I love the phrase "If I had known grandchildren were so much fun, I would have had them first!"
"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."
Honey, you're a whiny liberal tweedle, and I'm delighted you've decided not to reproduce. Please consider not voting, either!
As an unmarried (and consequently childless) woman, I can relate to this article. Being unmarried adds a whole other layer to the issue for me, but I must say that I get annoyed by reactions from both liberals and conservatives to my life circumstances. From liberals, I often get a knowing look of "oh, good for you to refuse to be oppressed by a man," when in fact I am a strong supporter of marriage (one man and one woman, of course) and would love to marry, have children, and be a stay-at-home mom. From conservatives, I sometimes get looks of pity or even disdain--the "you poor thing, your life means less" look. I don't want to be assumed to be a feminazi just because I'm currently single and without kids and therefore largely focused on my career, and I also don't want to be told that my value is basically on hold unless and until I have a "family of my own."
I'd guess the demographic of this group is largely democrat voting.
If they're Catholic, their marriage is non-sacramental. It's even arguable whether this is a valid natural marriage.
Because the celebration is about the baby, not about your "choices".
Why does this article remind me of the ones that celebrate obesity?
These people shouldn't be criticized, they should be applauded for not having children. It is much better that they stated their true feelings on the topic, rather than adhering to societal pressures and having kids anyway. If these were inner-city, low-income people being interviewed for the article, we would say how brave they are for breaking the cycle of welfare dependence.
I know of young couples (with children) who aren't mature enough to properly take care of themselves, much less their offspring. These kids arrived due (in part) to relentless pressure from their parents. Too bad they couldn't just say, "No!"
~ Blue Jays ~
I Me Mine bump