Why? Is this a dupe? Please explain downvotes.

*giggles*

Worth it for the comments alone!

I'm down with this. As soon as I can afford a vasectomy, I'm getting one.

I would go get my tubes tied if I could.

LOL, everyone always said I would be next, I was gonna end up the unmarried mother. To quote a buddy, "I had priorities... I take one every morning!"

Hasn't happened yet, and probably never will. Possible PCOS after cervical cancer has rendered me partially infertile, but we always use condoms anyways. Mid 40's, and not in any hurry to ruin what little life we have left. We do want to have offspring, but...

If you're gonna have kids, have them early, because they require a LOT of energy. Money, not so much, and when you're young you can live without a LOT of the "finer things"....

Of all the people I know around my age (40 - 50 age range), only one gal has a kid, who is now a teen. People my age here in LA just aren't having kids....

I always remember the Dear Abby letter "Pity the poor childless couple..." That classic made more of an impression on me than puberty!

You do realize that if you don't have kids you have absolutely NO influence on the future.

Honestly speaking, I have never wanted kids. Granted, I am still very young, but I do not think that I will be changing my mind on this subject.

I want to have a long and steady career. I want to travel the world. I want to have time for myself. All of this would be very hard to do if I had children. And, although, to some people, this probably seems incredibly selfish, this is how I want to live my life.

It's not selfish. Having children should be a CHOICE, not a societal expectation. Those who don't want them, should not. Those who do, should.

It's pretty simple.

Influence on the future? Please. Having children as a 'legacy' is absurd. Mark Twain has more influence now than he did in his own era, and most people couldn't even tell you if he HAD children. No one remembers Madam Curie because she was a great mother. Julia Childs changed the way Americans cook and she never had children.

Having a kid has many drawbacks, financially, emotionally, and physically, and if it wasn't by far the best thing that ever happened to me, it wouldn't be worth it at all.

Bwahahaha! Man, I can't tell if you're serious or not; but I'll assume you're being sarcastic because that logic is seriously flawed.

Only parents have influence on the future? Not teachers, not politicians, not musicians, not artists, not random homeless guys who offer bits of wisdom after they get paid to buy beers for the underage kids? Come on, damn near everyone has influence on the future; for better or worse.


Likely the image of a pot smoking baby offended someone.

Yay, for those of you who don't want kids, I'll make up for you by having another. *grin*

Kids aren't expensive - at least mine isn't.

Whatever floats your boat. I like kids, I think they are adorably little midgets.

It's your call, and that is fine. Just some input into your decision, my career is based on world travel (I work in humanitarian aid) I have 5 kids and they travel with me. They love it.

As for those who doubt that parents influence the future over non-parents. The most influential people in the world...were influenced by their parents. Teachers have some influence into children true...but parents have 18 stinkin' years. Think back to many decisions you have made and even if your parents were rotten people, they influenced how you chose to live your life.

So orphanages have the most influence of all, then?

I get what you're trying to say, but to say that if you don't have kids you have no influence on the future... well that's stupid. What if you never have kids but invent something that revolutionizes the world? Participate in a social movement? Act as a spiritual/political leader?

Ok, I concede that I over-exaggerated, a bit. However I still believe that parents have the biggest influence. An orphanage is not the same (I am not really fond of orphanages...although they are necessary and the company I work with has 3 or 4) because there are different dynamics in play.

Whoever raises a child, carer, family member, parent has a great amount of influence on a child.

The influence that parents have on their children however isn't always positive, think drug addicts, alcoholics, racists, homophobes, those who instil false knowledge in their children, those who's focus isn't on their children but their career or partying.

Being a parent doesn't automatically imbibe one with the ability to have a positive influence on the future.

Also too many parents indoctrinate their children with their own ideology in the hope that their kids will go on to carry that into further generations. So this influence on the future is by no means guaranteed to be a positive one.

I'm sure the planet would love it if people just stopped reproducing for a few years... there's kind of way too many of us :P

I didn't say either positive or negative did I? No...I just said influence.

This

and

Led me to the belief that we were talking positive influence.

Positive or negative my point still stands