Is having a child a "lifestyle choice"?

[Stinky The Clown]

I have now heard this from three different source in three different conversations. The specific conversations actually don't matter to my point.

The OP title is my point. Is having a child a lifestyle choice?

[Vickers]

1. It's a choice, and it certainly *changes* your lifestyle.

Maybe not one I would've *chosen* per se...

:P

[jschurchin]

2. Nope. It's a gift.

Now will your life change? Oh yeah.

[MedicalAdmin]

42. I strongly disagree. - it is not a gift.

A gift, IMHO, implies a return policy whereas a choice implies accepting responsibility.

But to each their own.

[ehrnst]

48. A gift from the woman to the child, yes. (nt)

[bluestateguy]

3. Yes, as is not having a child (well, usually)

Obviously, a couple that tries to conceive but has fertility issues will not get the choice they wish, but you get the drift.

[Statistical]

4. Yes.

It is 100% a choice.

With combination of highly available, low cost, and effective birth control and the ability to legally give up child for adoption it is 100% a lifestyle choice.

[comtec]

71. given that she was not impregnated by rape....

that aside, yes it's 100% choice.

there is oral, anal, digital, and god-forbid-abstinence.

A child is a MAJOR lifestyle change... probably as major as there can be.

[notadmblnd]

5. I think so.

[lunatica]

6. "Lifestyle choice" doesn't have a narrow definition does it?

If you choose to have children and play the role of a parent aren't you making lifestyle choices? If you decide to be a good parent, but as a Christian parent or Jewish parent or Muslim parent you choose a more secular upbringing that's also a choice.

[lostnfound]

7. Sometimes.

Depending on your upbringing, it may be practically inevitable.

[distantearlywarning]

8. Yes, absolutely.

Not having a child is also a lifestyle choice.

The easy availability of birth control makes it so.

[uncommon]

9. Yes, of course it is. As long as the parents in question had full reproductive choice and freedom.

[glitch]

37. +best answer. nt

[uncommon]

40. :)

[GreenPartyVoter]

76. +ditto

[Missy Vixen]

10. Yes. n/t

[gratuitous]

11. It should be, but as messed up as our society is

It often is something that "just happens," because birth control and family planning have become equated with promiscuity in a lot of people's minds. Instead of empowering people, especially young women, to take control of their reproduction, we have let the conversation be driven by a combination of nitwits and manipulators who have persuaded a very vocal swath of society into thinking that being sexually responsible is immoral.

[dkf]

12. Heck yes.

And it is a choice with huge ramifications

[scheming daemons]

13. Absolutely.... one's lifestyle changes dramatically when they have kids

[Skidmore]

14. No, It is a choice to reproduce.

A very basic instinct to all species. Decorating your home is a lifestyle choice. Cuisine is a lifestyle choice. Fashion purchases are lifestyle choices. Apples----oranges.

[Lyric]

15. No. I think it's mostly a life choice, not a "lifestyle choice".

"Lifestyle choice" is a term that seems judgemental and dismissive, as if the choice in question is something that could EASILY have been an alternative, save for the self-indulgence of the person making the choice. Although there ARE alternatives, they are certainly not "easy". Birth control doesn't ALWAYS work. Abortion and adoption are most CERTAINLY not "easy" alternatives. The issue is a lot more complicated than, say, the choice to join the SCA and fight with fake swords and armor every weekend--something that's certainly a "lifestyle choice", because it doesn't seriously affect the personal identity of anyone except the person making the choice.

Choices that are enormous enough to profoundly affect your personal identity, and ALSO the identities of your family and close friends, are not merely "lifestyle choices". Choices of that magnitude are something separate from a simple indulgence of a whim or desire.

I'd prefer something like "life-changing experience".

:hi:

[JHB]

46. Bingo! I think you've hit the proper distinction...

Kids will definitely affect your lifestyle, but it's a much bigger event and the motivations about it cover a lot more ground than what's usually covered under the word "lifestyle".

[petronius]

54. Right. I was composing a reaction to the phrase as I scrolled down,

but you said it perfectly. I rarely hear "lifestyle choice" used in a non-derogatory way (except maybe in the newspapers 'Home and Style' section)...

[LWolf]

16. Yes.

It's not a mandate. It's not a biological imperative. The human race is not facing extinction even if a majority of people choose not to reproduce; there are still billions left to continue the species.

It's a choice, whether or not that choice is made because of "lifestyle." "Lifestyle" is certainly a factor in the choice.

[stray cat]

17. Why wouldn't be?

[Mimosa]

18. The phrase sounds like it originated in advertising and marketing. n/t

[GreenArrow]

38. I'm sure it did,

and it's appropriately nauseating.

[Touchdown]

68. Close. The pulpit.

and a specifically invented one.

[onehandle]

19. Yes. I know many couples who wanted the complexity of their post baby lives.

The couples never seem to actually talk to each other any more.

Meanwhile my wife I are free to travel, eat, shop, and do as we like.

That was our 'lifestyle choice.'

[krabigirl]

63. Well, since we have grandparents nearby, we can still go to dinners and such sometimes too. :)

But let me tell you, i do envy the child free at times! :)

I love my kids but it is work to keep a relationship going at times. Some people forget their spouses or partners when they have kids, and that is very sad.

[MineralMan]

20. Why do you ask? It's a choice, at least for many people.

It affects lifestyle, among many other things.

I chose not to have children, and married someone who felt the same way.

[Touchdown]

69. I'm not surprised you wouldn't get why he's asking.

:eyes:

[outerSanctum]

21. Certainly.

n/t

[Alcibiades]

22. It's not a choice as a species

There is an obligation as a species to reproduce ourselves. If you love life, you ought to ensure that there is a future generation to enjoy it, but this does not mean, necessarily, having children of your own. People make different choices--to have or not to have children, how they raise them if they do: the seriousness of these choices, and the fact that other people may choose differently, does not in any way invalidate whatever choice you make yourself. As a society, we ought to have proper social support for families with children, to make sure that the next generation is productive and capable of living life to its fullest. Quality public education, daycare, preschool, after-school programs and health care are essential.

Some folks like to focus on the costs, in terms of time and money, of having a child or children. It's expensive and time consuming, especially if you put the effort into it that you should, but it's also very rewarding. My advice to someone considering it, if they are young enough, would be to wait. Spend five years together with your partner to do the things you would like to do without a child while you're still young. Then, if you still love each other and would like to see what it would be like to make a baby together, go for it, or adopt. Either way, you don't really know who you are going to get or who they are going to turn out, but you'll love them no matter what. Or you might find out that, as a couple, you really like being DINKs, in which case you should stick with that. If one of you wants a child and the other doesn't, though, you should probably split up and find a partner who is better suited to you, without forcing someone into being a parent or childless out of a sense of obligation.

[LostinVA]

29. "There is an obligation as a species to reproduce ourselves. If you love life..."

Oh brother.


Nice insult to everyone "childfree."

[LoZoccolo]

36. I am childfree and take no offense.

I would hope that at least some people have enough children to take care of the needs of the planet while I get older.

[Renew Deal]

53. I don't think that was offensive.

I am typically more offended by the proselytizing and hostility that comes from the so called "child free."

[Alcibiades]

55. It's not an insult

As the rest of it makes pretty clear: individually, we are free to reproduce or not, but as humans, we ought to facilitate the raising of happy, healthy children, even if they are not our own. One occasionally hears, even here, attacks on things such as public education, childcare and health care for children, from people who either don't have children or whose children are grown. "Why should my property taxes pay for other people's kids to go to school?" Yet, imagine how dismal life would be, even for the childless, if it was common knowledge that we were the last human generation. Who will pay into the social security trust fund for us as we age? Too often, folks are simply asking the "What about me and my lifestyle question," without a thought for future generations. We have seen the consequences of this, especially for the environment.

As individuals, we are free to have kids, or not. But as a society, as a nation, we ought to acknowledge that someone is going to reproduce, that someone should reproduce, that the future should include a thriving human population, as part of a progressive vision of moral, social, economic and environmental responsibility. A childfree life can be the right thing to do for many people, but, if you love life, it cannot be extended to become some sort of universal Hegelian precept, as some have tried to argue.

[LostinVA]

80. Oh yes, it is -- there is no obligation

[MedicalAdmin]

44. Who, precisely, are we obligated to?

There is NO obligation and loving anything does not obligate anyone to do anything.

"this word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Alcibiades]

61. At the root, we are obligated to ourselves

I think most people would find the idea that we are the last human generation disturbing. It might cause a great deal of psychic discomfort to know that, whatever you do, it won't matter, because it will be remembered by no one, because there will be no one to remember. If we think human life is good, that we have enjoyed it, that we draw some pleasure from the idea that it will continue, then there is some obligation. This does not mean that you have to be the Duggars: it does mean that rich Republicans should not be so mean spirited and complain about how their property taxes are paying for the educations of other people's children.

[Lorien]

70. I think that only a complete narcissus would feel that way. nt

[Alcibiades]

72. Here's the thing about "ourselves": plural

Us, we, not I.

Not a distinction I'd expect everyone to be able to get.

[LostinVA]

81. +1

[Renew Deal]

52. Your post is a contradiction.

You say that people need to "reproduce" themselves and then at the same time they should wait for years have fun in the meantime. Lets say you let 5 years go by and split up. Do you suggest waiting another 5 years with the next person? That doesn't make sense. Live your life and if a child becomes a part of it then so be it.

The original question is complicated. We are an "intelligent" species. We are not cats or chickens whose sole purpose is to "reproduce" ourselves. Having a child can be a decision. So I guess having children can be a lifestyle choice, but you don't always know if you will get the lifestyle you want.

[Alcibiades]

59. That last bit was intended as a suggestion, not a moral rule

If folks absolutely know they want to have kids, I suppose they ought to go ahead, but, given everything it entails, it would probably be better if they try being childfree to see if they like it first, because, from a "lifestyle" perspective, once you have kids, it's kind of hard to go back, unless you want them to become wards of the state or you have relatives to dump them off with.

The contradiction, if it exists, is between the species life of humanity and the individual moral life of persons. As a species, we fail as organisms if no one has kids, and also, probably, if everyone has too many kids. So there's a need to strike a balance regarding population growth, which most countries have not done a good job at: most underdeveloped nations overreproduce (because of the tragic historically low survival rate of children and lack of family planning services) and most developed nations undereproduce (for many reasons, mainly because of the expense children impose). So, long term, what is needed for a sensible population level is, first and foremost, economic growth in the LDCs and a decrease in economic inequality globally, and educational and health programs that effectively subsidize stable population growth in developed nations. (Assuming that we have some goal of stable populations within nations that assumes no massive migrations, a policy implicitly favored by most states).

OF course, that's not in the OP, which presents the whole issue as a "lifestyle choice." Traditionally, liberals have held that this is a matter for individuals may exercise their moral autonomy. It's a free choice, and no sigma ought to attach to whatever decisions people make. I am married and have two children, and have pretty happy with that, but the mere existence of others, who have chosen families of different sorts, or no family, should not threaten my own confidence in the choices I have made with my wife. There are people on all sides who try to posit that their own personal choices should be universal rules: as liberals, we ought to reject this temptation.

The contradiction, or paradox, you've noticed is one of which I am aware but did not address because the jury is still out: is it possible for us to make our own choices responsibly as individuals, while still reproducing ourselves as a species, and not incurring illiberal state intervention as we have seen in China? I think it's possible, and the solution entails thinking of kids a little differently. To speak of it in economic terms, children are not simply a "private good," for the "consumption" of their parents, but also a public good that generates positive externalities, even for people who do not have children, want children, or even like children.

[Lorien]

67. 7 billion "miracles" are enough. The species has become a danger to itself

your not doing the planet or your species any good at all by reproducing. Anyone who is being honest with themselves knows this. It's simply no longer an "obligation" for anyone. What IS an obligation is for every one of us to ensure that the children that are already here HAVE a viable future on a planet that can sustain their lives. A future without war, the best education possible, nutritious food...but the possibilities for these things diminish as we lay waste to the planet that we call home-and overpopulation plays a huge roll in this. Already the toxins in our air, food and water will cause the current generation to have a shorter and less healthy life than those that came before.

[Alcibiades]

77. Those concerns are the ones I addressed

I think that raising children to be good stewards of the environment, I am leaving a better legacy for the future than if I had left the breeding to fundamentalist Christians, who don't give a damn about the environment because they expect the rapture to occur in their lifetime. Whether I, personally, have done the species any good by reproducing isn't really for me to decide, but I can say that the species wouldn't be going anywhere if no one did it, and I can bear the burden better than most.

Overpopulation does play a huge role, but resource allocation is at least as important: it's not simply that there are not enough resources, but that they are unevenly distributed. Population growth also ought to be evened out, and economic development has historically been the way to achieve this.

We should, however, as liberals, avoid the temptation to these absolutist, universal rules. "Everyone should have children." "No one should have children." "Everyone should have exactly the same number of children I have chosen to have."

[kiva]

23. I think so, but then I don't think 'lifestyle' is necessarily a shallow

description of how someone chooses to live their life, so I don't see it as a slur or referring to only casual choices.

[LostinVA]

31. I agree it shouldn't be used in a derogatory way

[uncommon]

41. Agreed - that seems to be how a lot of people take it.

[Orsino]

24. Well, it's either a choice or an accident. n/t

[Wednesdays]

25. I'm not sure why you're asking...

Are we going to look at the Murphy Brown thing again? :shrug:

[tallahasseedem]

26. Choice...

my husband and I discussed it ad nauseum before we had kids. It was definitely a choice for us.

[sinkingfeeling]

27. Sure it is. What else could you call a decision to bring a child into the world and accept the

changes to your life that take place?

[LostinVA]

28. Yes, as is NOT having a child a "lifestyle choice"

[NeedleCast]

30. Yes, no question

[Lucian]

32. If people would use Lifestyles, they wouldn't have kids.

[GliderGuider]

33. Yes, though the factors going into it have changed over time

I think the use of the word "lifestyle" is probably intended to demean the decision, but having children has always been a "lifestyle choice" in some sense.

In the earlier days of our species (and even now in some regions of the world) the desired lifestyle could have been something as basic as having enough to eat and needing more hands to produce the necessary food.

Nowadays, with the mechanization of all forms of production from food to widgets, we don't need more people to ensure our survival. As a result the decision whether to have children rests on softer foundations, and is more obviously a decision of preference than necessity. But it's always been a choice.

[madmom]

34. Yes

[LoZoccolo]

35. Yes.

I imagine that making an 18-year commitment to be responsible for the care and development of someone else will have a significant impact on one's lifestyle.

[Silent3]

39. Are you really wondering if *desire* to have a child is a choice?

Most DU members, myself among them, certainly dislike it when some talks about sexual orientation as a "choice". We accept that people are simply attracted to whomever they're attracted to, they're probably born with whatever attractions they have, and they certainly don't sit and think to themselves, "Maybe today I'm going to be gay." (Which is not to say that heterosexual people can't occasionally decide to experiment with different things, but an experiment isn't a deep change in orientation.)

I might not be as common among DU members in that I don't really CARE whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Is shouldn't matter if it's a choice. Adults should be free to do whatever they want among consenting adults, and it's nobody else's damn business. Tolerance of people's sexual activities should exist without regard to whether those activities are the result of considered choices or inborn orientation.

As for having children: Could you, or someone else, be considering the notion that having (or not having) children is no more of a choice than being gay is a choice? That there might be something inherently offensive in talking about who should or shouldn't have children?

[Withywindle]

82. Now THAT is a very interesting question.

I've long suspected that the desire, the biological/psychological drive to have children is something that is hard-wired into SOME people and not others.

I think this because I'm a 41-year-old woman who has never felt anything resembling a desire for a child. Babies produce no "instinctive" tender feelings in me and I don't find them very interesting. I think there are inanimate objects that have more of a maternal instinct than I do.

Yet, lots of women say they *do* experience strong feelings about babies; as a very intense longing, as "baby rabies," a sort of hunger. I have no reason at all to disbelieve them just because I've never experienced it.

I resent being told, or having it implied that there's something "wrong" with me, because I don't really experience it as a lack...because it's just usually not something I have much reason to think about. You can't really miss what you've never had.

I do wonder, though, if producing a certain percentage of people who are missing the baby-want "gene" for whatever reason is one of nature's clever ways of population control.

[grahamhgreen]

43. Yes. nt

[Iggo]

45. Yes, and a popular one.

[ensho]

47. yes of course!

nt

[phantom power]

49. If one has access to birth control, I would have to say "yes."

[Scout]

50. yes. n/t

[catzies]

51. When I see "lifestyle" I immediately think that was created by our consumption economy

Well said, and I think "lifestyle choice" is a consumer-focused designation anyway, which is kind of telling.

Aren't we just making new little consumers, anyway?

[potassiumnitrate]

56. Of COURSE it is

How in the hell could it not be?

[dugaresa]

57. In modern terms it is a choice

but think back about less than 40 years ago and it was more of a chance.

Birth control has made having children a choice in a lot of cases.

For it to truly be a choice, people would have to be able to supress their choice to have sex. Is having sex a choice or a drive?

[JustAnotherGen]

58. Yep

I believe it is. It also gives you a reason to leave work early and to stick it to your single childless co-workers. Not a popular opinion - but once again - I'm the single childless woman who is getting stuck being here on Friday this week and Tuesday next week -

Becuase I don't have a golden uterus that gives me the free ticket to be off.


So it's a lifestyle choice just as I have made my lifestyle choice. But I pay and pay and pay for the 'others' choice.

Sorry - feeling a bit pissed off because I'm single and I HAVE a life and things to do that are fun and exciting but I have to be here Friday so J can watch her 5 year old pick her boogers. Not cool.

[WinkyDink]

60. Most of the time, sure. What else would one call the event?

[krabigirl]

62. Speaking as a parent, yes. Nt

[beforeyoureyes]

64. Oh good grief....

[shanti]

75. that was an insightful comment

:eyes:

[Lorien]

65. It is now. If the Right Wing has their way there won't be any choice about it

women of child bearing age will be baby factories.

[Touchdown]

66. Yes.

Choice to try and get pregnant.
Choice in surprise pregnancy.
Choice in unwanted pregnancy.
Choice in schools.
Choice in Breast/bottle feeding.
Choice in keeping father around, or father wanting to stick around.
Choice between Disneyland or Sea World
Choice between saving for college or bail.
Choice of SUV or minivan.
Choice of religious indoctrination or enlightened learning.
Choice of XBox or stick and cardboard box.

[shanti]

73. absolutely

i chose to have 4 kids, and accepted the consequences.

[rug]

74. Birth is as much of a lifestyle choice as death.

[bigwillq]

78. Yes

And I choose not to. Others choose to. So, yes, it's a choice. Some don't have a choice if they are are unable to conceive but, for the most part, it's a choice.

[old mark]

79. NOT having any was a choice for both of us....I think it is different for different people.

Neither my wife nor I felt good about bringing another person into the world, and we are beyond that point now...One of my brothers and his wife adopted twins, but none of my siblings has any children of our own and none of us feels sorry about it.

I know people have different views on this, but that's what we chose to do, and given the state of our world now, I feel I made the right choice - for me.

mark

[mopinko]

83. it is something of a choice, but mr darwin's laws are yelling

in our ears. we are biologically programmed to reproduce. all this other shit we do is the elaborate rube goldberg we have produced to care for our progeny, and their precious dna.

[Evasporque]

84. Children are not....

Mini-Vans however are.

Most people that want children really want a Mini-Van. They are just having the child to justify buying one of those monstrosities. So children are really a requirement for entrance into the Mini-Van lifestyle.