Why do people want to have Children

One eyed Jack

Tony EH wrote: »

I consider it far more selfish of people to WANT children. In fact it's an entirely selfish act. Bringing another life into existence (where uncertainty is the absolute factor) because you WANT something.

I take exception to the fact that you refer to a child as "something", but it's easy to see why you hold the opinion you do, because you think of a child as 'some thing'. More people recognise the fact that a child is a human being, another person, and they don't remain a child forever, so in wanting to to bring another person into the world, their motivation is less what they want for themselves, and more what they feel they can give to another human being.

Macavity.

Cienciano wrote: »

Drop the selfish argument, because as pointed out on numerous occasions in this thread, its a ridiculous argument for both sides

Not really. By definition having a child, just because you want to, is selfish. If anything the argument should be dropped because it's so abundantly clear it's selfish that it is not worth discussing.

cabla

Tony EH wrote: »

I consider it far more selfish of people to WANT children. In fact it's an entirely selfish act. Bringing another life into existence (where uncertainty is the absolute factor) because you WANT something.

You can apply this logic to almost anything. For examply I'm sure a lot of the clothing and gadgets you "WANT" are not produced in an ethically way, perhaps with child labour, poor production methods and polution. Is this not selfish because you WANT something? Are you entirely sure that it's produced using the best methods, fair trade and as selfless as possible that noone is making a massive profits off these methods? You can't blast people for being selfish for having a child.

Also a child isn't something, like a materialistic thing, it's a person!

MonsterCookie

Tony EH wrote: »

I consider it far more selfish of people to WANT children. In fact it's an entirely selfish act. Bringing another life into existence (where uncertainty is the absolute factor) because you WANT something.

Mmm. So I'm selfish for fathering 3 children? Wow!

I love them more than anything. I would die for them. I work my arse off to give them what they need. When I get home from work exhausted, I spend time with them, put them to bed, play with them, do homework, tell them stories and so on. That's selfish???

Is it also selfish to donate to charity, give food to homeless people and so on? Far less selfish not to bother eh?

It seems to me that many posters here appear to have a low opinion of parenthood or even parents in general...sad really.

SMJSF

I choose to be childfree.
I've no interest in kids.
I don't "coo" and "aww" over a baby or a child. I don't have a maternal bone in my body.
I can't see children or planning any in my future.
I'm independent and an introvert.
I can't deal with people being dependant on me constantly. I hate it.

But the worst anyone can do, is bingo the people who choose not to have kids, if they're in their teens or 40s. it's their choice.
now a few people have come forward in the media saying that they regret having kids that they actually didn't want.

Conall Cernach

I was at my uncles funeral the other day. All of my cousins (I have over 30) except one other have children. Myself and the other guy got loads of compliments of how we hadn't aged much in the last 20 odd years. All of the ones with children (grandchildren in some cases) all looked grey, haggard and tired, like a bunch of middle aged old fogies to be honest. So I'm convinced having children ages you.

UCDVet

Macavity. wrote: »

Not really. By definition having a child, just because you want to, is selfish. If anything the argument should be dropped because it's so abundantly clear it's selfish that it is not worth discussing.

I feel like I've stumbled into a uni philosophy 101 course....or possibly a group of friends partaking in some weed.

"But dude - like WHAT IF you *want* to give money to charity. So like, when you do, you are really being SELFISH. Because like, you wanted to do it. You give money, but it's like you give the money because you wanted to. and that makes it selfish. Cause you did what you wanted!"

I'm not disagreeing with you - and it really is covered in that Phil 101 book (http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/egoism.html)

The problem is, if you adopt that attitude the word has no meaning. It's just as selfish to have a child as it is to not have a child. It's just as selfish to give money as it is to steal money.

By definition doing anything you want to do is selfish. Whether it is volunteering at a children's hospital or running into a burning building.

Macavity.

UCDVet wrote: »

I feel like I've stumbled into a uni philosophy 101 course....or possibly a group of friends partaking in some weed.


"But dude - like WHAT IF you *want* to give money to charity. So like, when you do, you are really being SELFISH. Because like, you wanted to do it. You give money, but it's like you give the money because you wanted to. and that makes it selfish. Cause you did what you wanted!"


I'm not disagreeing with you - and it really is covered in that Phil 101 book (http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/egoism.html)


The problem is, if you adopt that attitude the word has no meaning. It's just as selfish to have a child as it is to not have a child. It's just as selfish to give money as it is to steal money.

Silly comparison. Money cannot be compared to a human as the latter is a living thing subject to pain.

UCDVet

Macavity. wrote: »

Silly comparison. Money cannot be compared to a human as the latter is a living thing subject to pain.

I'm not *comparing* money to a human. Here is the definition of comparison for reference.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comparison

I'm explaining why it is meaningless to say

By definition having a child, just because you want to, is selfish

By definition X, just because you want to, is selfish

That is true for all values of X. Whatever X is. X can involve money or children or adults or animals anything at all. It's true for 'having a child' and for 'not having a child'. Even things we typical consider to be acts of kindness - helping someone in need, is selfish, if you want to do it. Donating money to charity, is selfish, if you want to do it. So, your statement, while having merit in the context of a philosophical discussion, is meaningless here.

Macavity.

UCDVet wrote: »

I'm not *comparing* money to a human. Here is the definition of comparison for reference.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comparison

When you use money in the same context, like you did, then you draw a comparison between the two.

Here is the definition on comparison for reference.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/comparison

One eyed Jack

Macavity. wrote: »

Silly comparison. Money cannot be compared to a human as the latter is a living thing subject to pain.

Genuinely though, do you honestly imagine people want to bring another human being into the world in order to inflict pain and suffering upon them?

I'm not denying that such people exist, of course they do, but such reasoning ignores the fact that people are equally capable of great love and placing other people's needs before their own. It's not all doom 'n' gloom, and people can inspire you and share with you great joy in far greater measure than those people who will inflict pain and suffering upon you.

I never got any of these arguments that said you had to choose between having children and having a life for yourself either tbh. If people think that way, then they really are better off not having children, but if people choose to have children and then blame those children for them not having a life, that opinion is equally misguided. It's simply an excuse IMO for them choosing not to live their lives. I don't care that they choose to limit themselves, but I do care when they choose to blame their children for preventing them from doing something.

Cienciano

Macavity. wrote: »

Not really. By definition having a child, just because you want to, is selfish. If anything the argument should be dropped because it's so abundantly clear it's selfish that it is not worth discussing.

Because pretty much everything you do is fecken well selfish, thats why it's pointless. Well, in the idiotic terms it's being used here anyway.
Look at what you just wrote.
"having a child, just because you want to, is selfish"
So not having a child because you don't want to is selfish.
Absolutly pointless and stupid argument because in that context pretty much every action we do can be described as selfish. Buying a laptop? Selfish. Watching a movie? Selfish. Working to improve your lifestyle? Selfish.

Joe prim

Has anybody said"I like children, but i wouldn't eat a whole one" yet? If not, consider it said.

UCDVet

Macavity. wrote: »

When you use money in the same context, like you did, then you draw a comparison between the two.

Here is the definition on comparison for reference.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/comparison

Let's be clear, I'm referring to EVERYTHING. Your statement is meaningless because it applies to EVERYTHING. Anything done voluntarily is selfish, by definition.

I gave a few concrete examples.

If you really want to insist that I'm making some comparison between money and children (I disagree, but whatever), you must acknowledge that the ONLY shared feature that I'm referencing here is that they are things that exist. Buying Frosties because you want them, is selfish. Going skiing because you want to, is selfish.

Becoming a doctor, opening a homeless shelter, stabbing a stranger, parasailing, owning a spider, cooking an omelet, quite literally EVERYTHING imaginable that anyone does or has or doesn't do or doesn't have, that is within their control, is selfish. Everything. People who own iPhones are selfish. People who don't own iPhones are selfish. People with jobs, people without jobs, people who get tattoos, people who don't get tattoos, people who own parrots, people who don't own parrots, people who adopt, people who don't adopt, literally everything imaginable.

UCDVet

Cienciano wrote: »

Because pretty much everything you do is fecken well selfish, thats why it's pointless. Well, in the idiotic terms it's being used here anyway.
Look at what you just wrote.
"having a child, just because you want to, is selfish"
So not having a child because you don't want to is selfish.
Absolutly pointless and stupid argument because in that context pretty much every action we do can be described as selfish. Buying a laptop? Selfish. Watching a movie? Selfish. Working to improve your lifestyle? Selfish.

My point exactly - only now (s)he will tell you that you can't compare a laptop to a human life.

cabla

UCDVet wrote: »

Let's be clear, I'm referring to EVERYTHING. Your statement is meaningless because it applies to EVERYTHING. Anything done voluntarily is selfish, by definition.

I gave a few concrete examples.

If you really want to insist that I'm making some comparison between money and children (I disagree, but whatever), you must acknowledge that the ONLY shared feature that I'm referencing here is that they are things that exist. Buying Frosties because you want them, is selfish. Going skiing because you want to, is selfish.

Becoming a doctor, opening a homeless shelter, stabbing a stranger, parasailing, owning a spider, cooking an omelet, quite literally EVERYTHING imaginable that anyone does or has or doesn't do or doesn't have, that is within their control, is selfish. Everything. People who own iPhones are selfish. People who don't own iPhones are selfish. People with jobs, people without jobs, people who get tattoos, people who don't get tattoos, people who own parrots, people who don't own parrots, people who adopt, people who don't adopt, literally everything imaginable.

Question on this. Are there things though that are selfless, as in doing something not because you want to but because it's right for another person/right thing to do? Or is this also selfish because by making that decision it will result in something else which someone may hold at a higher regard? Does that make sense? Example - wife wants you to give up alcohol. You don't want to but other than health benefits it's better for the relationship? Maybe she's looking to leave if you don't as you've an issue... I think I've answered myself actually!

One eyed Jack

cabla wrote: »

Question on this. Are there things though that are selfless, as in doing something not because you want to but because it's right for another person/right thing to do? Or is this also selfish because by making that decision it will result in something else which someone may hold at a higher regard? Does that make sense? Example - wife wants you to give up alcohol. You don't want to but other than health benefits it's better for the relationship? Maybe she's looking to leave if you don't as you've an issue... I think I've answered myself actually!

You may not have intended to, but you've actually given me a giggle

There you go - an unselfish act you weren't even aware you had done that made someone else smile

Tony EH

Cienciano wrote: »

Drop the selfish argument, because as pointed out on numerous occasions in this thread, its a ridiculous argument for both sides

No, it isn't.

Tony EH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I take exception to the fact that you refer to a child as something, but it's easy to see why you hold the opinion you do, because you think of a child as 'some thing'.

An unborn being is a "something". It's merely a concept that somebody has in their head until the being is born.

Tony EH

cabla wrote: »

You can apply this logic to almost anything. For examply I'm sure a lot of the clothing and gadgets you WANT

There is an incredible gulf of difference between "wanting" a new jumper and "wanting" to create a person.

One eyed Jack

Tony EH wrote: »

An unborn being is a "something". It's merely a concept that somebody has in their head until the being is born.

Yeah, we were talking about having children here, it's not as if you can put them back where they came from once you have them now, is it?

Tony EH

Conall Cernach wrote: »

I was at my uncles funeral the other day. All of my cousins (I have over 30) except one other have children. Myself and the other guy got loads of compliments of how we hadn't aged much in the last 20 odd years. All of the ones with children (grandchildren in some cases) all looked grey, haggard and tired, like a bunch of middle aged old fogies to be honest. So I'm convinced having children ages you.

Stress and worry will do that. Every parent I know looks haggard. They love their kids obviously, but they do nothing but moan about it.

Tony EH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, we were talking about having children here, it's not as if you can put them back where they came from once you have them now, is it?

But that's beside the point.

The topic is about the want of children.

What happens afterward isn't the issue.

cabla

Tony EH wrote: »

But that's beside the point.

The topic is about the want of children.

What happens afterward isn't the issue.

Maybe I'm picking you up wrong but why do you have this attitude of having children is such a bad thing?

Tony EH

cabla wrote: »

Maybe I'm picking you up wrong but why do you have this attitude of having children is such a bad thing?

I didn't say it was a "bad" thing. I said the want of children is an entirely selfish act. I consider it more selfish than your assessment that not wanting them is selfish. Most human actions are built upon a process of selfishness. That doesn't mean that there aren't altruistic actions and thoughts, of course there are. But the desire to want a child is an entirely selfish concept. The unborn child doesn't want. It's the person involved in the desire that wants and what they want is a pure concept. A fantasy, until the child is born.

Awkward Customer

I personally don't want kids as I can't imagine there's anything harder or requires as much responsibility that anyone/couple could possibly do in life as trying to raise a decent/successful human being. That and I'd rather spend my time and money on other stuff.

cabla

Tony EH wrote: »

I didn't say it was a "bad" thing. I said the want of children is an entirely selfish act. I consider it more selfish than your assessment that not wanting them is selfish. Most human actions are built upon a process of selfishness. That doesn't mean that there aren't altruistic actions and thoughts, of course there are. But the desire to want a child is an entirely selfish concept. The unborn child doesn't want. It's the person involved in the desire that wants and what they want is a pure concept. A fantasy, until the child is born.

And what's wrong with that thought? It's not as if you're creating an evil for the world or choosing to inflict harm, if anything you're choosing to add love and hope to the world and something to be joyful for. Yes it may be selfish but as the other comments above what isnt?

It's selfish of Bill Gates to set up a charity fund as he looks good and makes himself feel good - but the benefit his billions will give completely outweighs that so who cares?

Your comments are leading me to believe that it's better not to have a child because it's less selfish. Going on that I suppose I shouldn't take this promotion as it may benefit someone, my relationship, or maybe I shouldn't buy my girlfriend flowers as this is too joyful and I may just be looking for a bit of action at home for it, nothing to do with the love and the appreciation of her also?

It just feels a bit emotionless and hopless -I may be wrong.

LookingFor

People are afraid of death and are comforted by the notion of 'a part of them' living on and having an impact on the world beyond them.

I'm pretty sure that's part of the motivation. Not entirely of course.

I do not believe it's a purely altruistic, unselfish deed, at least in 99% of cases. And that's fine.

mikom

An elderly neighbor of ours died there in hospital the other day.
An hour or so before he died he asked for a picture of his one and only grandson (approx 6 months) to be brought to him.
The reports are he smiled at it through his last moments.

I'd like to think I will be able to do the same, as I sure as hell won't be praying.

Tony EH

cabla wrote: »

And what's wrong with that thought? It's not as if you're creating an evil for the world or choosing to inflict harm, if anything you're choosing to add love and hope to the world and something to be joyful for. Yes it may be selfish but as the other comments above what isnt?

Where did I say it was "wrong". You'll note that I have used neither of the words "bad" or "wrong". I've merely said, contrary to your statement that not having a kid is selfish, that the want of a child is a selfish act and I consider it more selfish than putting off having a child or forgoing it altogether because one may consider it unfeasible for whatever reason, most likely due to financial or career/work constraints in whatever form they may manifest themselves.

One eyed Jack

Tony EH wrote: »

Where did I say it was "wrong". You'll note that I have used neither of the words "bad" or "wrong". I've merely said, contrary to your statement that not having a kid is selfish, that the want of a child is a selfish act and I consider it more selfish than putting off having a child or forgoing it altogether because one may consider it unfeasible for whatever reason, most likely due to financial or career/work constraints in whatever form they may manifest themselves.

But why do you have to add in all those reasons for not having a child as if to justify reasons for not having a child? That's what I genuinely don't get?

The want of a child is a desire, it's not an act until you act upon that desire, so why is that desire in and of itself, selfish? Surely the only thing you can describe as selfish is actually how they go about having a child, if they choose to impose their will on another person for example.

(I'm reminded of a girl I knew only a week when I realised that she was more interested in my genes, as opposed to my jeans! She called me selfish then too! :pac:)

Hans Bricks

The thought of having a child with life long inhibiting mental illness like severe autism or Downs etc. seriously puts me off the thought of children. There's no way I'd have the patience or consideration to care for a man-child well into their adult years.

Then again I do feel an obligation to create offspring (especially a son), but I don't think I'm selfless enough.

Tony EH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But why do you have to add in all those reasons for not having a child as if to justify reasons for not having a child? That's what I genuinely don't get?

I'm sorry. I can't make it any simpler.

anncoates

Sometimes it sucks to be human. At least most other species don't have the means to allow their most self absorbed or dimwitted numbers to endlessly question the basic reproduction of their species. It's definitely true that a surfeit of self awareness actually often makes a species more stupid or least more pointlessly solipsistic.

bnt

MonsterCookie wrote: »

Mmm. So I'm selfish for fathering 3 children? Wow!

I love them more than anything. I would die for them. I work my arse off to give them what they need. When I get home from work exhausted, I spend time with them, put them to bed, play with them, do homework, tell them stories and so on. That's selfish???

Is it also selfish to donate to charity, give food to homeless people and so on? Far less selfish not to bother eh?

It seems to me that many posters here appear to have a low opinion of parenthood or even parents in general...sad really.

As already pointed out by me and others, the selfish argument has got to go. But I must point out that the way parents feel today has little bearing on the decision you (hopefully) made years ago - the decision whether or not to have kids.

Of course all good parents love their kids, once they have them. I'm sure I would if I had kids. However, I have decided not to have kids, and am living with that decision. Loving your kids is the natural thing to do - so you should not try to use that as a post-facto justification for having kids in the first place.

MonsterCookie

bnt wrote: »

As already pointed out by me and others, the selfish argument has got to go. But I must point out that the way parents feel today has little bearing on the decision you (hopefully) made years ago - the decision whether or not to have kids.

Of course all good parents love their kids, once they have them. I'm sure I would if I had kids. However, I have decided not to have kids, and am living with that decision. Loving your kids is the natural thing to do - so you should not try to use that as a post-facto justification for having kids in the first place.

Ok, but my point was in direct response to a poster who said having children was more selfish than not having children. The act of having kids, knowing the bond that that will creat, is hardly selfish etc etc.

I didn't feel I needed to justify having kids:)

Addle

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." Oscar Wilde

Tearin It Up

I'm at an age where I should be thinking of having children if I want them, I'm early thirties and especially if I want a flock of kids now is the time.

But I have no desire to have kids, never did, and I don't see it happening any time soon.

I'm so, 'couldn't give a fcuk if it happens or not'.

I'm happy without them, I don't think I'll ever be happy with them. I like my space.

I really don't fancy following my mothers footsteps and minding men into their thirties. Her whole life revolved around her boys. If that's what having kids do to you, I'm not going there.

I'm an animal person and they will always be my babies. Animals allow you more freedom, you don't have to educate them and put them through primary and secondary school and college. You can go on holidays and put them into kennels, when can you put kids into kennels for two weeks?

Kwiecien

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I think 90% of people who have kids have them out of social conditioning and the other 10% are accidents.

I'm 33 never wanted them, still don't want them and my GF of 30 is the same. Parents can tell me till their blue in the face that once they smile it makes it all worthwhile etc but frankly the only people they're kidding are themselves. Childfree life = wonderful. If I want unconditional love I'll get a dog.

I'm 40 and still don't want them!

OldNotWIse

Tearin It Up wrote: »

I'm at an age where I should be thinking of having children if I want them, I'm early thirties and especially if I want a flock of kids now is the time.

But I have no desire to have kids, never did, and I don't see it happening any time soon.

I'm so, 'couldn't give a fcuk if it happens or not'.

I'm happy without them, I don't think I'll ever be happy with them. I like my space.

I really don't fancy following my mothers footsteps and minding men into their thirties. Her whole life revolved around her boys. If that's what having kids do to you, I'm not going there.

I'm an animal person and they will always be my babies. Animals allow you more freedom, you don't have to educate them and put them through primary and secondary school and college. You can go on holidays and put them into kennels, when can you put kids into kennels for two weeks?

Once all their shots are up to date I can't wait to have kids, and at 31....am starting to panic that it might not happen for me, but sometimes before we go out and I can simply take herself for peepees and the number 2, leave down a bowl of water and some dried food and tuck her into (albeit our) bed with lyric on before we go to the pub....I think, you would never get away with doing that to a child!

5star02707

dynamited wrote: »

Obviously the baby making process is fun but seriously who actually wants to have children?

They want to pass their genes and continue their bloodline :pac:

Mr. teddywinkles

Tearin It Up wrote: »

I'm at an age where I should be thinking of having children if I want them, I'm early thirties and especially if I want a flock of kids now is the time.

But I have no desire to have kids, never did, and I don't see it happening any time soon.

I'm so, 'couldn't give a fcuk if it happens or not'.

I'm happy without them, I don't think I'll ever be happy with them. I like my space.

I really don't fancy following my mothers footsteps and minding men into their thirties. Her whole life revolved around her boys. If that's what having kids do to you, I'm not going there.

I'm an animal person and they will always be my babies. Animals allow you more freedom, you don't have to educate them and put them through primary and secondary school and college. You can go on holidays and put them into kennels, when can you put kids into kennels for two weeks?

Cant understand that you know you don't want your own kids. Looking at someone else's kids is very different.
Yea people whinge why did I have them but there are ups too.
The point is you wont know till you have your own.
The selfish argument is stupid.
The time you sacrifice out of your own time to rare your kids proves this.

OldNotWIse

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Cant understand that you know you don't want your own kids. Looking at someone else's kids is very different.
Yea people whinge why did I have them but there are ups too.
The point is you wont know till you have your own.
The selfish argument is stupid.
The time you sacrifice out of your own time to rare your kids proves this.

That is very condescending.

And I prefer my kids medium-rare.

Dravokivich

Tearin It Up wrote: »

I'm at an age where I should be thinking of having children if I want them, I'm early thirties and especially if I want a flock of kids now is the time.

But I have no desire to have kids, never did, and I don't see it happening any time soon.

I'm so, 'couldn't give a fcuk if it happens or not'.

Fair enough, I consider that to be reasonable.

but the rest of the post is a bit crazy...

Tearin It Up wrote: »

I'm happy without them, I don't think I'll ever be happy with them. I like my space.

Kids are very happy in their own space. My son is always going around doing his own thing at 14 months. All he needs from me is to clean him and feed him.

Tearin It Up wrote: »

I really don't fancy following my mothers footsteps and minding men into their thirties. Her whole life revolved around her boys. If that's what having kids do to you, I'm not going there.

That says more about your brothers I reckon. Not all blokes grow up like that. I don't even know any who have.

Tearin It Up wrote: »

I'm an animal person and they will always be my babies. Animals allow you more freedom, you don't have to educate them and put them through primary and secondary school and college. You can go on holidays and put them into kennels, when can you put kids into kennels for two weeks?

Kids and animals are two completely different things. But sure if you want to send a kid off for a bit of time, I find there's always grand parents who'd be more than happy to mind'em for a while. You seem to be anticipating more problems than there are with raising kids. Keeping pets I find, has the potential to be harder as it takes up much more time.

Supergurrier

Think about it this way.

You are the result of evolution from your line since the beginning of life itself. Think of all the hardships and struggles for survival.

But now millions of years later with all of todays modern luxuries your evolutionary line dies because you cant be arsed.

Thats arrogance

Dravokivich

Supergurrier wrote: »

Think about it this way.

You are the result of evolution from your line since the beginning of life itself. Think of all the hardships and struggles for survival.

But now millions of years later with all of todays modern luxuries your evolutionary line dies because you cant be arsed.

Thats arrogance

No, arrogance would be expecting everyone to reproduce, like how the folks here in work expect me to wear pants.

Whether or not someone wants to do it is up to them and it's only a problem if someone they are in a relationship with has an opposing opinion on the subject.

OldNotWIse

Supergurrier wrote: »

Think about it this way.

You are the result of evolution from your line since the beginning of life itself. Think of all the hardships and struggles for survival.

But now millions of years later with all of todays modern luxuries your evolutionary line dies because you cant be arsed.

Thats arrogance

I'm sure my parents will be devastated to find out that adopting my brother was a completely pointless exercise since he cannot "carry on the evolutionary line". Off with his head and all that.

Mr. teddywinkles

OldNotWIse wrote: »

That is very condescending.

And I prefer my kids medium-rare.

How is it condescending. Its like anything in life. Problem is if you don't want them when you have them there's no return to sender

cabla

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm sure my parents will be devastated to find out that adopting my brother was a completely pointless exercise since he cannot "carry on the evolutionary line". Off with his head and all that.

I'm pretty sure being adopted doesn't make you infertile...

eviltwin

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

How is it condescending. Its like anything in life. Problem is if you don't want them when you have them there's no return to sender

It is condesending. Its implying people who don't want children would change their minds if they had a child. That is would somehow suddenly make sense to them and they would see the error of their ways. Not so. I'm sure for some people it is true but not for all.