Having It All Without Having Children

The American birthrate is at a record low. What happens when having it all means not having children?

This piece was originally posted at the Times

One evening when she was 14 years old, laura scott was washing dishes in the kitchen with her mother when she decided she didn’t want to have a child. “You might change your mind,” said her mother, whom Scott describes as “bone tired” from a life in which she “didn’t have any time for herself.” Scott’s mom worked as a samplemaker for an upholstery company; after making dinner for Scott and her brother, she’d park them in front of the television and go down to the basement to spend her evening cutting and sewing. That life was what “doing it all” meant to Scott. “I learned you could—but did you want to?” she says. At 26, Scott got married and waited for her mind to change. “I thought I would be struck by a biological lightning bolt,” she recalls. “It never happened. And I realized I was going to be fine.” As she says from her Tampa office, where she works as a professional coach, writer and documentary filmmaker, “My main motive not to have kids was that I loved my life the way it was.”

Now 50, Scott is more than fine: she’s fulfilled. And she’s not alone. The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest in recorded American history, which includes the fertility crash of the Great Depression. From 2007 to 2011, the most recent year for which there’s data, the fertility rate declined 9%. A 2010 Pew Research report showed that childlessness has risen across all racial and ethnic groups, adding up to about 1 in 5 American women who end their childbearing years maternity-free, compared with 1 in 10 in the 1970s. Even before the recession hit, in 2008, the proportion of women ages 40 to 44 who had never given birth had grown by 80%, from 10% to 18%, since 1976, when a new vanguard began to question the reproductive imperative. These statistics may not have the heft of childlessness in some European ­countries—like Italy, where nearly one-­quarter of women never give birth—but the rise is both dramatic and, in the scope of our history, quite sudden.

The decision to have a child or not is a private one, but it takes place, in America at least, in a culture that often equates womanhood with motherhood. The birthrate may have fallen, but the baby-­product industry is at a record high, an estimated $49 billion for 2013. Any national discussion about the struggle to reconcile womanhood with modernity tends to begin and end with one subject: parenting. Even Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In, a book focused on encouraging women’s professional development, devotes a large chunk of its take-home advice to balancing work and family, presuming that, like its author, ambitious women will have both. It’s great that we’re in the midst of a ­cultural conversation about the individual choices and structural ­barriers that shape our lives. But if you’re a woman who’s not in the mommy trenches, more often than not you’re excluded from the discussion.

Being sidelined doesn’t exempt childless women from being scolded. In a December column in the New York Times headlined more ­babies, please, Ross Douthat argued that the “retreat from child rearing is, at some level, a symptom of late-modern exhaustion”—­an indicator of “decadence,” revealing “a spirit that privileges the present over the future.” The Weekly Standard’s Jonathan V. Last has made the case in his controversial book What to Expect When No One’s Expecting that the selfishness of the childless American is responsible for no less than the possible destruction of our economic future by reducing the number of consumers and taxpayers.

With fertility treatment widely available, not to mention adoption, even clinically infertile women have more options than ever to become mothers, which increases the possibility that any woman who doesn’t will be judged for her choice. “There’s more pressure on women to be mothers, to fulfill that obligation, than I’ve ever seen,” says Amy Richards, author of Opting In: Having a Child Without Losing Yourself. “In the past we assumed it was out of a woman’s control” whether or not she had a child. “Now we think it’s her choice, so we can blame her.”


And it is chiefly her. Statisticians measure a woman’s childbearing years as spanning from ages 15 to 44—a bracket that might change as fertility protocols advance but that for now means it’s far easier to label a woman of a certain age childless than a man, who might become a first-time father at 65. Both culturally and academically, “childlessness defaults to women, in all scholarship in the social sciences,” says Pamela Smock, of the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan. That applies whether a woman’s married or single, straight or gay. “Lesbian motherhood used to be an oxymoron, but it’s a whole different ball game now,” says Nancy Mezey, author of New Choices, New Families: How Lesbians Decide About Motherhood. “Now there’s that pressure of the American cultural mind-set, that motherhood mandate.”

Even so, women who choose not to become mothers are finding new paths of acceptance. As their ranks rise—and as the community of adults without kids diversifies in terms of race, education levels and political affiliations—­so do positive attitudes about being able to lead a fulfilling, childless life. Along the way, these women are inventing a new female archetype, one for whom having it all doesn’t mean having a baby.

Why Don’t You Have Kids?

The burden of justification tends to rest on ­childless women. We rarely ask, “Why do you have kids?” Instead it’s “Why don’t you?” One response I’ve heard repeated in dozens of interviews is “I keep waiting for the biological clock to tick.” Another trait ­childless women articulate in common is a girlhood lack of interest in dolls or playing family pretend games with friends. Some can’t stand the noise of kids. But many of these women have chosen to work with kids as teachers or ­counselors—­mothering the world, so to speak—or have close relationships with friends’ and siblings’ ­children, sometimes housing them for vacations or starting up their college funds. “I love children. I just don’t need to own one” is a common refrain.

The designation for women who feel at a young age that they aren’t mother material and then abide by that self-­knowledge is early adopters. If there is a biological explanation for this impulse, or lack of one, it has yet to be discovered. Some studies of maternal instinct have shown that it clicks in once a woman gives birth, but whether our nature leads us to conceive is another matter entirely. One researcher has controversially suggested that childless women are just smarter. At the London School of Economics, Satoshi Kanazawa has begun to present scholarship asserting that the more intelligent women are, the less likely they are to become mothers. Many peers in the field have not embraced his findings: Kanazawa analyzed the U.K.’s National Child Development Study, which followed a set of people for 50 years, and found that high intelligence correlated with early—and lifelong—­adoption of childlessness. He found that among girls in the study, an increase of 15 IQ points decreased the odds of their becoming a mother by 25%. When he added controls for economics and education, the results were the same: childhood intelligence ­predicted childlessness.

Of course, higher IQ often leads to higher education and higher opportunity costs. It’s women in that subset who are most often the ones who opt out of parenthood and who prefer to call themselves child free. “Childlessness is for someone who wants a child but doesn’t have one. It’s a lack. I’m not lacking anything,” says Laura Carroll, author of The Baby Matrix. Laura Kipnis, a cultural critic at Northwestern University, likewise rejects defining women without kids as “-less”—as if, she says, “your life isn’t going to be fulfilled without it, like there’s a natural absence that once you fill it with a child, the world makes sense.”

While highly educated white women continue to lead the childless numbers, the 2010 Pew study reports that other groups are catching up. Esmeralda Xochitl Flores, 34, who has written and performed a stage play on Chicano childlessness, says that in her family, motherhood is never “seen as an option. It’s more of a given.” Flores was born in California to a Mexican mother and a Honduran father. Her inherited cultures, she tells me, mandate that “family is your pride, your success.” In fact, she notes, the whole point of the risk and upheaval of immigration is for “the generations that continue.” To declare that motherhood is not for you, as Flores has, can feel like committing treason, she says—a tragedy to family members and friends, some of whom she says she doesn’t see anymore. Flores, despite her adamantly child-free identity, happily cohabits with a man and his 15-year-old daughter. She says the arrangement works because of how he protects her choices; having a ­daughter in the house “shouldn’t be a reason for you to be held back from things that matter to you,” he tells her, like late nights at the nonprofit where she works in operations. “I still struggle with it because I don’t want to be seen as a mom,” Flores admits. Still, she says, it was a victory to fall in love with a Latino man who could tolerate her position on childlessness—rare even in a college community like Pomona, Calif.

A frustrated single life is how the 30% increase in childless black women from 1994 to 2008 is explained by some academics. “One potential theory is that they’re refusing to fall into a stereotype” of the unmarried black mother, says Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, a sociologist at the University of Massachusetts at ­Amherst who studies race and gender, adding that in her extensive studies on fertility and family formation, it’s a common refrain to hear high-­achieving black women mourn what they say is a dearth of similarly educated black men.

But Jena Starkes, a Web designer, says, “This doesn’t have a damn thing to do with me looking for a ‘good black man.’” Starkes, who shares a Manhattan apartment with her mother and a few cats, says she couldn’t get through the eHarmony dating filter until she lied on her questionnaire about desiring kids. She says these days she can’t really talk to her old friends, whose priorities have all shifted to the “glamorous martyrdom” of child­ rearing, as she calls it. Ironically, Starkes develops mommy e-commerce for a living. Motherhood, she says, is now a massive consumer base: from organic onesies and Veggie Booty to ad-heavy blogs on every aspect of maternal striving. “Before there was a mommy industry, before there was product to move, you’d never hear how it was the hardest job in the world,” she says. “If it’s the hardest job in the world, I’m damn happy I don’t have to do it. You’re not supposed to say that, but it’s true.”

For those who don’t hold the job, there are advantages. “I get to do all sorts of things: buy an unnecessary beautiful object, plan trips with our aging parents, sleep in, spend a day without speaking to a single person, send care packages to nieces and nephews, enroll in language classes, go out for drinks with a friend on the spur of the moment,” says a happily partnered woman named Jenna Johnson, a Virginian who lives in New York. “I know all of this would be possible with kids, but it would certainly be more complicated. My plans—professionally, daily, long-term, even just for ­vacation—are free from all the contingencies that come with children.”

Great Expectations

Few women spend their girlhoods aspiring to an unencumbered life. Daydreams often take the form of permanent attachments: monogamous passion yielding beatific motherhood. Yet as we get older, we change along with our economic, professional, social and romantic realities. Philip Morgan, director of the Carolina Population Center, has said in numerous interviews over the years that no one wants fewer than two children. He’s referring to a raft of surveys that measure women’s fertility intentions, in which young women are asked simply how many children they’d like to have. (It’s not a question typically asked of young men.) Of course, they’re not asked about professional opportunity costs or lasting romantic love.

But those factors contribute to postponed ­childbearing, which Morgan says is “the real story of fertility in the past 20 years. Women put off motherhood because of work, education or the lack of a desired partner, he says, and meanwhile “they develop lifestyles they enjoy.” As Joyce Abma, a social scientist at the National Center for Health Statistics, says, “The decision to have children is not an on-off switch but more like a continuum.” One woman told me about reading a magazine article when she was 40 on “the four stages of adulthood”: college, career, house, kids. “I thought, My God, I’m stuck forever at No. 3,” she said. She waited for panic to set in, but it never did.

The opportunity costs for an American woman who gets off the career track could average as high as $1 million in lost salary, lost promotions and so on, economist Bryan Caplan says. (Caplan, the author of the book Selfish Reasons to Have More Children, argues that she should go for it anyway.) Such concerns are nothing to dismiss, especially in a down economy, whether women articulate that sacrifice or not. But Kathleen Gerson, a professor of sociology at New York University whose research focuses on work, gender and family life, says postponement is far more complex than a résumé facing off against a biological clock: “It’s what gives women time to build up their lives and think about how they want to live. Other commitments take the place of what motherhood might have meant.” Gerson says women are living in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” social context in a country that she believes emphasizes self-sufficiency equally alongside a deep commitment to motherhood. The mix breeds impossible conflict. Without independence, we’re failures. With it, we’re selfish.

The rise of attachment parenting, with its immersive demands, and the sheer economic cost of raising a child—for a child born in 2011, an average of $234,900 until age 18, according to the USDA, and $390,000 if your household earns over $100,000—has made motherhood a formidable prospect for some women. Sociologist Julia McQuillen sees a clear relationship between the messages we hear about motherhood and an increasing desire to opt out of it. “At a cultural level there’s the constant advice given to women that you need to invest more in your kids,” she says. “If we make motherhood unrealistic, why would we want to do that job?”

Leah Clouse understands the amped-up demands of modern American parenting firsthand, as a nanny and a kids’ art teacher. “It takes all of you, and I don’t know that I want to give it all,” the 27-year-old says. She and her husband Paul, who live in Knoxville, Tenn., married four years ago and are not planning to raise a family. Leah commits her time to working on her own creative projects and starting up a bakery; Paul, 29, ­devotes ­himself to writing a blog and holds a day job in customer service at a credit-card-processing company. They play a game each week in which they look at their schedule and try to imagine how they could fit a child into it, with their work and their involvement in their church. “It’s insane already,” Leah says. “I don’t feel we can do what we do and be great parents—and for me, the emphasis would be on being great parents.”

Motherhood’s Ambient Roar

For 15 years at four different universities, demographer Stephanie Bohon has asked students if they intend to have children. “They all raise their hands,” she says, “and then I ask why—and no one has an answer for me. That’s what a social imperative does.” The cultural noise about motherhood has become such a constant din that many of us don’t even notice it. But ask any woman in her 30s or 40s who hasn’t given birth and she’ll likely tell you the ambient roar is oppressive. Products from cleaning solutions to cars are targeted at mothers. Magazines regularly offer features on the trials of parenting—Time’s own are you mom enough? cover contributed to the viral tide—and genuflect at gilded icons of celebrity motherhood, a sorority of which the Duchess of Cambridge is just the latest member. (I counted 36 images of Hollywood mothers and babies in a recent issue of Life & Style; tabloids have made a staple out of baby-bump watches.)

Patricia O’Laughlin, a therapist in Los Angeles who specializes in counseling women who are ambivalent about their choice, says the identity that childless women developed as little girls around the expectation of ­motherhood is the most painful stumbling block. Even the decisive ones aren’t immune: Leah and Paul Clouse keep a baby box in the closet with a pink tutu she once bought for an imaginary infant girl and an article on raising nerdy children that he says spoke to him. “It’s indulgent of a life I have to grieve,” Leah says. “If we decided to have children, we’d have to grieve the life we currently have.”

Even if you are in the minority of women who don’t grow up internalizing the idea that you are predestined for parenthood, the mommy drone doesn’t quiet. “I resent that the entire culture of this country is obsessed with kids,” Rachel Agee told me the day after her 40th birthday. “And social media is only an outlet to post pictures of your children. I’ve got nothing to put on Facebook. At 40, that’s hard.” (She has not yet bought the buzzed-about Facebook baby-blocker app to censor progeny pics, but she says she’s tempted.) Agee graduated from a Southern Bible college where she was taught that to be a godly woman, one must procreate for the kingdom. “I just knew I couldn’t trade my freedom for it,” she says. She moved to Nashville as a hopeful performer and stopped going to church because it was so “oppressively family-centric.” Nearly 30% of married households in the Nashville metropolitan area are childless, but even in the secular, artier corners of Music City, Agee wasn’t greeted by a culture that supported a life without dependents. It used to be that one’s urban starter kit would include a leather jacket, a guitar and a pack of cigarettes. Today that’s been traded out for Lululemon maternity pants, a stroller and a pack of diapers.

“I’ve always felt there was a cultural ­imperative—now there’s a subcultural imperative,” says Kate O’Neill. She and her partner moved from ­California to Nashville; she went there to write songs—though she’s now one of the city’s top entrepreneurs—and he went there to paint. Despite the high rate of childlessness, O’Neill says, it was hard to find her way into a social world where “lately, motherhood has been so absorbed into every possible aesthetic.” I heard similar observations from women I interviewed in Boston, Austin and San Francisco.

Eleanore Wells, a market researcher in New York City, says that even in her mid-50s, she finds judgment at every turn. “So many women take my choice personally,” she says. Recently, she told me, a woman on the subway inquired if she had children and then asked, aghast, “Who is going to take care of you when you’re old?” Wells wanted to reply that nursing homes are filled with parents, but she says she just smiled, went home and packed her bags for an annual trip to Martha’s Vineyard with friends. “When I was younger I found it more exhausting,” she says. “Now I don’t give a s— what anyone thinks. It gets easier.”

Navigating the Choice

Laura scott runs the childless by choice documentary project, which gathers stories of people who opt out of parenthood. “To make this choice, you really have to be able to manage and navigate all assumptions that are going to be made about you,” she says. “You have to be able to challenge the status quo.”

“It’s toughest in your late 30s and early 40s,” Going Solo author Eric Klinenberg says. That’s when social isolation tends to peak among people without kids. “What people report everywhere is this experience of watching friends just peel off into their small domestic worlds. That’s the real stress point,” he says, not aging and dying alone, as people fear—and ­strangers and ­family members alike tend to ­admonish—but the loneliness between when friends have babies and when they become empty nesters. It has hit the Clouses earlier than Klinenberg suggests, since their Southern Christian circle seems to have already disappeared into parenthood. They say their lives have become lonelier and narrower over the past few years. “You build strong relationships, and then they change. It’s great for them, but it sucks for you,” Clouse says. But they recently had their first “date”—roller derby—with a childless couple at their church. They say it felt like a massive relief.

As the childless numbers creep up, so do opportunities to make a full, connected life with other non­parents. The community networking site Meetup.com alone has about 20,000 members of child-free groups in about 90 metropolitan areas—one for women in suburban New Jersey, one for singles and couples in Chicago and so on. In a suburban Nashville mall one Friday evening, a child-free group gathers around a long table at Buffalo Wild Wings. Most of the 24 people here live in developments nearby, and none of them have kids. Recent activities have included zip-lining, canoeing and the monthly dinner the foodie couple in the group organizes. “We can do anything we want, so why wouldn’t we?” Andrea Reynolds says, cueing a round of clinking beer glasses. The one thing they don’t do much of, her husband says, is talk about “the no-kids thing” when they’re together. “It’s kind of the only place where we don’t have to answer those questions,” he says.

Photo Credit: Time Magazine

Facebook Twitter Email

Tags: , , , ,

  • Nulligravida

    Parenthood is a choice in the modern Western world. Of course there are financial costs associated with parenthood but the implication by some seems to be that the childfree are somehow unfairly better off by this quantum. No. I am no more 1 million dollars wealthier by eschewing parenthood any more than I am not 1 billion dollars wealthier by choosing not to buy an aircraft carrier.

  • Bobbi Fleckman

    Most of the “child-free” women in my circle of 30-something or 40-something friends haven’t written off the idea completely. Most of these women grew up in the era where divorce was no longer a big social taboo, and single-parent homes were on the rise for the very first time. We “latch-key kids” were one of the first generations to realize that the idea “til death do you part” was not mandatory. Young women growing up in this time were no longer groomed to become wives and mothers after high school, they were encouraged to be independent, go to college, have a career of their own, because the “happily ever after” fairy tale was over … women needed to learn how to depend on themselves because men could no longer be depended on. As a 41 year old woman, I personally witnessed the rise of dead beat dads with new words such as “baby-mamma” added to our social lexicon. So, while it may be just an economic choice for some, or a lack of biological maternal instincts for others, the main reason most of the women in my circle of 40ish women is due to a lack of good men who can commit to a family unit. It’s not children we are avoiding… it’s going through the journey alone as a single mother that we wish to avoid. This article discusses many factors as to why so many women have opted out of parenthood, but fails to mention that just not finding the right guy might be the biggest reason of all. That’s MY reason. I would love a child, but I want one within the context of a long term family unit, and so far, every man I’ve dated has a problem with commitment, fear of settling down, or they have other kids with numerous other baby-mammas that they didn’t sick around for, and can’t afford any more child support payments to support another family he’ll likely just leave behind.

  • Big Balls

    I’m glad liberal women aren’t having kids. Let the conservative women pass down their values so their children will design the future of American politics.

    • lupe sanchez

      your an idiot if you think only parents influence there kids.stay in the bubble.thats where you belong.

    • Lily

      That’s a pretty asinine thing to say. Plenty of Conservatives don’t have kids, and being a Conservative and having kids doesn’t mean those kids will be Conservative. Pretty stupid statement—which means you yourself must definitely be Conservative. The article does state the smarter women don’t have children, after all.

      • SamMcCall


      • thabe331

        probably hard right social conservative. The kind that demands the women stay in the home and leave only to go to the store

    • SamMcCall

      You can indoctrinate your kids all you want, but in the end, they choose for themselves. They aren’t mini versions of you. They are their own people. My parents raised us four kids to be free thinkers. My dad is a conservative and I lean on the side of liberal. We’ve gotten into some major knock down, drag out arguments over the years, but he’s often told me he’s proud he and my mom raised kids who can THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

    • Misogynist much? I bet you’re pro-life and consider women who have abortions all whores.

    • word_garden

      Take a look in the mirror and ponder this: There is no lifeguard at the gene pool.

  • IntheKnow

    I am a married woman in my sixties and never had kids. And, I’ve never regretted it for a second,. So all those people who tell you younger folks who’ve decided not to have kids that one day you’ll have regrets, well, smile sweetly and say, “Thanks for your concern but my life is my own to do with what I choose, so let me worry about the regrets – or lack thereof.”
    Our culture is indeed obsessed with having children, and that future taxpayer issue that was mentioned in the article comes into play. Fewer children obviously means fewer future taxpayers, something the government itself certainly doesn’t want to occur. It would seem that, according to everything in our culture: Television, books, magazines, advertising, movies, etc., kids are the one thing above all else that will make you gloriously happy and content. To be honest, I did not think that my own parents were gloriously happy or content (far from it), and they had two. Often times my mother seemed to feel unfulfilled and my father just seemed tense and like he wanted to be someplace else, as opposed to with the me and my sibling. Sure, they raised us and we all got through the process but I KNOW my parents were restless and unfulfilled, and my mother expressed that she would have possibly made a different decision had she considered the issue more than she apparently did. This is obviously not something you should verbalize to your children, but I know she meant every word.
    Kids are wonderful if you and your spouse desperately want them. However, no woman (or man) should be shamed, bullied, or all but forced into having them if that is not their carefully considered choice. In life, one size does NOT fit all, and not EVERYONE on the planet is champing at the bit to procreate. In days gone by, this was a private matter between a husband and wife, but for some reason these days, everyone seems to feel that it is their duty and their right to make sure other people live exactly like THEY do and they don’t hesitate for a moment to stick their nose into the private business of others. I always wish those people hadn’t had any kids, because those kids will undoubtedly grow up and be just like their nosy, obnoxious parents, and go around sticking THIER noses into the business of others. Seems many people really don’t have lives. Or they have control issues. Or both.

    • Blue

      Thank you so very much for this!

      It’s great to hear positive stories from women older than me who made the choice to be childfree!

      • SamMcCall

        I agree. I know I won’t regret my choice because as much as I love my nieces, just spending the day with a demanding 7 year old and a fussy 2 month old reinforces my desire to NOT have kids. I’m glad I can see them when I want. I can be the “cool” aunt. But my cats and my husband are enough for me and I have three siblings close by. I’ve got all the family I need.

        • Blue

          I’m the same. I have a 13 year old godson and I get to be the fun “aunt” to my other friends’ kids. We have a great time together, but I love coming home to peace and quiet and my ferrets.

          • Rosy

            love yo photo

        • Rosy

          even me just watching my nephew for one day , makes me so annoyed….it’s better i stay with a cat…a fat brown cat……

        • Monica

          My boyfriend’s mother assures me it’s different when you have your own. I had to bite my tongue not to say, “What if it’s not? What if I resent them and don’t want them? Can I drop them off with you for 18 years?” I like her and want to keep a good relationship with her and in three years, this was the only conversation we had about it.

    • Denise

      Find a happy, funny way to deflect people’s questions. Two jokes I use are the following (that I found in my research): “I know I have a biological clock, but it came without batteries.” 😛 Another one: “Do you have kids?” “Yes I have one. A boy. He’s 60 years old and he LOVES cartoons. He’s my husband.” ;P I usually use these with people I suspect are intolerant. They are great deflection questions (Add your own!). But don’t even bother wasting your breath you suspect are intolerant. The people I feel are open to the question and ask their questions with respect or genuine curiousity, I just say in a jokey, helpful, confidential manner: “Be careful, that question can be interpreted as being rude by a lot of childless people. A lot of them get offended by such a question. [Here they usually go red in the face.] But since you asked me in a spirit of genuine curiousity (if they actually did), my reason is that my heart wasn’t in it, and that I want to dedicate my life to doing other things.” It’s also important to emphasize that you didn’t want to be a “mother” and take on the responsibilites. When you say this instead of saying “I don’t want kids”. People subconsiously think youre attacking kids. But if you keep bringing the topic back to it being about You not being a Mother, it get’s easier. For especially dogged people you don’t want to talk to, just say, “It’s deeply personal (imply that they don’t know you well enough to ask that)”. It’s important to not let them turn into a bitter, bad-energy cynical person. Keep your energy light, helpful, humorous — I know this helps me.

    • Marie

      Thank you for the supportive message. We’ve not decided whether or not to have kids. I just turned 36 and the pressure has been on for the past couple of years from others. We love our lifestyle and are happy without kids. We also love kids and thought we would have them until I was sick for three years. I couldn’t have kids during that time and we became better than okay with it. We take several trips a year, are able to get our pets the best medical care, and are REALLY happy. Many people with kids DO NOT understand it and I am tired of trying to help them understand quite honestly.

    • Rosy

      I love your view , m 32 and never want any kids. I think it’s better i have 2 cats instead of 2 kids.

  • Abirdinthehand

    I find the term “baby bump” revolting and totally juvenile. It’s not cute or clever or with-it, it makes pregnancy seem like some sort of fun little game where you go “bumpin’ it around town.” That last line I saw on some Website and I thought it was the most asinine thing I had EVER read! Shows you how consumed the media and the public at large is with kids. And they’ve turned them into “bumps” no less! I also find those celebrities and others who post “selfies” of their “baby bumps” on Facebook and other social media equally revolting and consumed with their own perceived important. They apparently feel that everyone on the planet is anxious to see their unborn progeny in the form of their bulging tummies. I thought we got over this after the Vanity Fair cover a couple of decades ago featuring publicity hungry Demi Moore and her swollen belly. So glad her marriage to the child’s father worked out so well. Oh wait, it didn’t!
    Well, we still have Kate Middleton and Prince George to coo about, and we all know that by media standards, she’s the Mum everyone looks up to. Deliver me! Pun intended!!!!

    • SamMcCall

      I hate that too! It’s like for me I think, “Wow. How cool is that huge baby belly.” That’s what I thought too when my sister was pregnant with her second kid. But once that kid is born, it is non-stop craziness. And now that’s what I think of when I see the “baby bump” pics. Let’s celebrate the famous women who choose not to have kids too. One thing working in the field of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Infertility treatments has taught me though, is that everyone has that one thing that eats at them. For one of my patients, it’s that no matter how many treatments she and her husband went through, they weren’t getting pregnant. To me I was thinking, “Who wants a kid that bad?” I didn’t get it but I understood that to this patient, it was her “thing”, if that makes sense. She finally did have a baby and she and her man are blissfully happy. It’s just not for me. And never has been.

    • I hate that too. It makes it sound like pregnancy is a fashion accessory. Very tasteless.

    • word_garden

      Lets face it, even intelligent women are slaves to fashion (or victims of media), so when we are bombarded with “baby bump” images and the fairytale story of a princess with a baby, who knows how that might play on the psyche. I saw this in my workplace when the media was flush with stories of Princess Di’s first baby. Within a few months we had a rash of pregnancies in our workplace. Now is that a sound way to make a decision about parenthood? Give your heads a shake.

  • Melissa Waters Brewer

    If one reflects on their life and decides they do not want children then I believe it is a very responsible and mature decision. There are so many women who just have children due to societal pressure. Do what makes you happy, it’s your life. I don’t like the idea of women having kids that are not wanted. That is not fair to a child by any means.

  • kathiemarshall

    To the woman in this article who “dodged a bullet” by having a miscarriage even though she’d planned on keeping the “kid” and that blah blah would’ve happened if she’d “sealed the reproductive deal….” ICK. You definitely should not be a mom. What repulsive statements regarding your own child.

    • shalita

      boy you sure got that right! Poor child would have been miserable.

    • Are you kidding me??? Do you think ALL mothers love their kids??? If so, why are there so many abused, neglected kids in the foster system? Becoming pregnant doesn’t automatically make you have an overwhelming feeling of love. Kathy, based on everything you have posted here, you really should look into yourself and your own life and see if you’re truly happy and fulfilled. You have done nothing but pass judgment and condescend with your “beliefs”. You may believe in god, but that doesn’t make you god. You’re not all-knowing. Don’t pretend for a second just because you’re devout, you know what god wants. Only he does (if he exists). Also, you have children, right? Why don’t you be a good mother and get off the Internet and tend to your kids??? LOL.

      • kathiemarshall

        oh yes. I’m miserable and my kids are here running amok. ha ha!
        Also, the ones who are abused were often born to people who chose to have them. They were not born to people who had kids because a religious person pressured them to.
        So are you the only Goddess or could others, like my God, coexist with you? Just wonderin’

        • You ARE miserable and you’ve proven it by judging us for not having kids. You’ve proven you think you’re better than everyone because you mentioned religion. Why are you on here commenting on an article that is about being child free? Have nothing else better to do? I swear you moms have such an elitist attitude. Just because you produced a mini version of yourself, you think are so important and better than everyone else. You guys are so self-important and insufferable.

          • kathiemarshall

            wait, we are elitist and self-important? Who is the one calling herself a Goddess?

          • I don’t have to explain myself to anyone, let alone a breeder.

          • kathiemarshall

            I thought you said that I was the hateful one and you or someone else here said that it is all the mothers who are doing the name calling. Guess that isn’t the case and I certainly never asked for you to explain yourself. Just find it funny that someone who calls herself a Goddess then calls others elitist and self-important. Maybe it’s a joke but then you ought to be able to apply that sense of humor and leniency to others, don’t you think?
            I know you all want to frame me as a hater and judgmental, but it just really seems that it is totally the opposite. Good night!!

          • kathiemarshall

            And by using the term “breeder” you show that you have more than just a lack of desire for kids; you actually have hostility toward people who have children. Why? Guess your own mom was a breeder too then?

          • There’s a huge difference between someone who is a parent and someone who is a breeder. The former raises their children properly and teaches them family hierarchy and respect for others. The latter is someone who is ego driven and won’t ever say “no” to their kids and lets them behave how ever they want and disrespect others. Keep making personal attacks at me. Each time you do, we all see how you truly are.

          • You are a hater. You use religion as a platform to judge us child free people. You said in another thread it was god’s wish to have kids. Do you realize how damn presumptuous that is? You have no idea what god wants (if he exists). People like you love to brow beat others and try to make them feel bad for not having kids. Why are you so unhappy? Truly happy people live and let live. We’re not harming anyone. Leave us alone. This is an article about child free people, so why are you on here? I’m sorry you allowed yourself to become brainwashed by society and religion and now regret your decisions. That’s YOUR problem. Now leave us alone.

          • kathiemarshall

            Well, “ChineseGoddess” I just go on my Christian website mostly for uplifting articles and things of interest and the guy who does the site linked to this. It is one thing to decide not to have kids and yet another to say you “dodged a bullet” by not having kids. The woman in the article was a terrible representative for otherwise loving people who feel they can contribute and live life in other ways besides having kids. I couldn’t believe they used HER comments to try to make a case for living a full life without kids.
            You can paint me as an indulgent, clueless parent if it makes you feel better. You can call me an unhappy hater and a browbeater if that props up your belief that anyone who believes in God and dares to say He likes to create souls out of love must be a jerk.
            How do I know what God believes? God has revealed Himself through His creation and through Jesus Christ and through Scripture. Well, time to move on. As usual, the “tolerant” ones cannot stand to hear any other viewpoint besides their own. It infuriates them.

          • Jesus was the bastard son of Mary and was nothing but a mere mortal. Go take your meds. I am done with you. Time to for me to converse with someone who has proper cognitive function.

          • SamMcCall

            If you go on a Catholic website, such as Lifesite News, you would be horrified at their take on contraception. I know they’re anti-choice but anti-contraception too? I was called a wh–e on their by a dude because I said that though I was happily married, I didn’t want kids. I’ve since been banned from making comments on that site. And I’M THE ONE who was called wh–e and harlot! Crazy. Was the troglodyte who called me these names banned? Nope. Hypocrites.

          • Organized religion is a cult and a clique. They have to cast other people down so they can feel better about themselves and have pseudo power. They are indeed hypocrites in its truest form.

        • I want to add this: Do you realize how crazy you sound when you say, “my god”? Your god? Really? This isn’t the NFL, OK? So your god is better than everyone else’s, like a football team??? So to hell with what everyone else believes in, right? Good fucking lord woman, get a grip. You’re are nothing but an elitist and for no reason at that.

          • kathiemarshall

            Uh, I said “my God” because you all keep saying, “your god” whenever I mention God. So, what would you like? “my God” or “God” since either one seems to tick you off. Why would you let some stranger (me) posting on a public forum get you so mad? wow. Now that is something to reflect on.

          • I never once said “my god” because I’m an atheist. Go reread everything I wrote in this thread. The only mad one is you passing hate and judgment onto others.

          • kathiemarshall

            I truly do not get what you mean by hate. The only one I showed disgust for was the woman quoted in the article because of the way she talked about her miscarriage – about “dodging a bullet” and referring to the baby as the “kid” and how grateful she was that she miscarried. Her words were repulsive in that she was talking about her own flesh and blood.
            No, you did not say “my God.” Whenever I talk about God, others (maybe it wasn’t you – I have been getting many replies and just answering back and not keeping careful track of who)… others say “what ‘your’ God says doesn’t matter” etc. So, I began saying “my God” versus just saying “God” despite the fact that I only believe there is One, True God so we wouldn’t have to continue to have the discussion of God versus my God. See? I may annoy you, but I dont’ make things up!!

  • yvonne

    Why should a woman have kids if she really doesn’t want them? The children are the ones who are going to suffer just so that woman doesn’t have to feel the stigma of never having kids. There are so many irresponsible people having kids today and do horrible things to their kids its is heartbreaking. Women who don’t want children and take the steps to ensure that they don’t have them, are responsible.

    • Be glad you don’t live in my area or you would be pissed off daily. Women around here use child support as income and abuse and neglect their kids. I live I a small, southern town where they cater to women so there’s no way they would ever reward the father custody.

  • Jessica

    Bravo bravo!!!! Every word just glorious!!!!! Finally!!!! I hope cf people start coming out of the closet soon because 35 single and no kids moving to a new tiny town alone is horribly lonely! Isolating. I am judged at every turn bc I am not desperate to breed. This is a great publication of a serious article that I’m sure will no doubt be shat all over by people who are jealous of the choices we have made! Love love love!!!!

    • Blue

      I’m 35 and CF too. It seems like your 30s are even harder than your 20s when it comes to this…Like people feel the need to put pressure on you or something.

      • SamMcCall

        I am 39 and definitely feel left out when around my older sis and her kids. Just this weekend, it was my sister with her daughters, my cousin with her daughter and my mom and my cousin’s mom. I was the only child-free adult there. I felt so left out. Truly I did. I don’t regret my choice. I just wish more people understood it and respected it. My sister’s FIL keeps telling me “Never say never.” when I tell him my husband and I don’t want kids. I tell him, “I’m saying NEVER. It’s literally NEVER going to happen.” But on and on he goes. Why do people do that? Confounding.

      • SamMcCall

        One more thing. It makes it easier that my married younger sister doesn’t want kids either. And my brother, who’s not married, is on the fence about having them. I’m sure if the woman he marries wants kids, he’ll have a couple. But for now, he’s not sure. My parents had four kids and currently only have two grandkids. Oh well. They’ve never pressured any of us to “give them” grandchildren. And my husband is an only child and his parents don’t care that we don’t want kids. They’re fine with it. Not that we need others to validate our choice. It’s just nice to not have to deal with parents or in-laws who pester you for grandkids.

  • lupe sanchez

    im 35 yr old man w 4 kids of my own n do not know a woman without kids.that being said I don’t see a problem w anyone not wanted to have kids,for whatever reason.its a personal choice, period.i see so many people that have kids and don’t want them, its so cruel to that child,plus I believe [in most cases] that a kid that feels unwanted is more likely to fall into the pitfalls of life.better not to have a child u don’t want, than to have a child you don’t care for.

  • Lea

    I am happy and content with my child free life. I started a new career and having children would get in the way. I have my dog and he fulfills the mommy role. I like spending time with my niece and nephew. I myself have never cared much for kids overall. I have been told I’m not really a woman because I chose a child free life. Why should I have kids if I don’t want them? Is that really fair to them.

    • kathiemarshall

      Why? Because God created them male and female and said to “Go forth and multiply.” The only thing we can “take” with us when we leave this earth is our souls and the souls of kids we unselfishly bore. It’s just not all about this life. God loves to create and He chooses to do it through the love of spouses.

      • Lily

        The “God” argument only works for those who believe in the same God you believe in. Having kids is actually very selfish. There is no unselfish reason to have kids. Also, marriage predates Christianity. And you don’t have to be in love or married to have children.

        • kathiemarshall

          I agree it only “works” for people who believe in my God. However, objectively speaking there is a God. The unselfishness is in understanding that marriage is ordered for the procreation and raising of kids and the sanctification of the spouses. Yes, all peoples have a right, indeed a desire, to unite with another person and have a monogamous relationship and usually children. This innate desire to have a union with another is placed there by God in Whose Image we are made. You certainly don’t have to be in love or married to have kids. But you ought to be – that is the best and safest place for them (yes, generally speaking).

          • SamMcCall

            You MUST be Catholic. I am happily married and we have ZERO desire for kids. I love my nieces more than my own life, but after a day of babysitting them, I’m so happy to come home to my fur babies and the peace and quiet. My man and I have a great life. We travel, we do things we could never do if we had kids. And I’ve never had a biological clock. I am a Christian but non-denominational and I don’t believe in organized religion. Why would you want people to force themselves to do something they clearly don’t want to do?

          • kathiemarshall

            (: Haha, funny you say that. I AM Catholic but I didn’t know that I said anything specifically Catholic there. I said things I thought were things all Christians would say. I guess that Christianity compels us to do things against our nature all the time, like against gluttony, sloth, selfishness, vanity, etc. Children are a good and the Bible says that clearly they are a blessing from the Lord. It always speaks in terms of “blessing” with children. Also, clearly it gives God joy to create souls that will live with Him forever and He uniquely created the human race such that He needs our cooperation for this. That should be ennobling. He could’ve created in any way He wanted. Marriage is thus ordered for children and God created the act that creates to just happen to be the same act that bonds a man to his wife. God chose to create this act as doing 2 things in 1: the uniting of the spouses and the creation of children. … I don’t understand not believing in organized religion. The beginnings of organized religion is right there in Acts. God Bless!

          • SamMcCall

            I truly have no biological clock. I help others through my work in the medical field. I work for an OB/Gyn and help people every day. I love my job. I also rescue animals and have worked in a domestic violence shelter helping survivors. I’ve worked as an advocate for rape survivors.These are my callings. I don’t feel the need to have kids. I don’t have the desire. As I said, I love my nieces dearly and would give my life for them. But spending the entire day or weekend babysitting them is good birth control. It’s not necessary to have kids to have a good marriage or to “prove” your love to God. I know my man and I would make great parents. I have the BEST parents in the world to model myself after. But for some of us, it’s just not in the cards.And I don’t believe in organized religion because there are too many hooligans out there pretending to be ministers but they are really nothing but charlatans. I’m looking at you, Joel Osteen. I have my own private relationship with God. And that’s fine. I will add this. The Catholic Church, though I disagree with certain things it stands for, such as no sex outside of marriage, no birth control, etc, DID in fact help me through one of the worst times in my life. So I have nothing against Catholics. And I even like the new pope. That’s my other issue. He’s just a man and I feel that Catholics treat him as though he is God. But nevertheless, this guy seems unflappable and real. Sorry for the novel. Just understand that kids aren’t for all of us. Thank you. Have a great day.

          • kathiemarshall

            I am not saying that your life and work is not good or charitable or important or even life-giving in its importance. And in the end, I am talking about a Catholic issue now because non-Catholic Christians are fine with marrying and never intending to have children. The CC has just always believed that God ordered marriage for spouses and sanctification. Also, don’t get me wrong that that means that the “conjugal act” if you will is only for kids. It is totally also for love and pleasure but it just (in Catholicism) must also remain open to the possibility of the transmission of life. There is theology behind that but I would take too long. It made much sense when I finally understood it. So, as a non-Catholic Christian, no one would think twice about the choice to not have kids. Regarding organized religion, there are many false preachers (how about “Reverend Jesse Jackson”). The pope is just a man, but we believe Jesus chose to leave someone that would ensure that the church would be steered until He returns. That is how we would interpret “I give you the keys to the Kingdom” etc. and “what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” among others. He’s not personally infallible, just protected by a special charism from allowing error to be officially preached. It’s a limited thing.

          • Jessica

            When God creates people who can’t have children what then? Are they doomed to be sinners or could perhaps volunteer their time, take care of others, be part of the village, and love their spouse and spread that love throughout the world. Or does that not sound like the God you know?

          • kathiemarshall

            When God creates people who can’t have children, are they doomed to be sinners?

            You need to acquaint yourself better with Catholic teaching, doctrine and thought. I acknowledge that not everyone is called to parenting and if you have a physical reason why you cannot have kids, do we call them sinners? Of course. Many can adopt or offer their talents to the world in other ways. In my faith, marriage is the setting that is ordered to having children. I am right now sharing a belief, not calling people sinners who don’t believe this and/or don’t understand my way and my Church’s way of thinking. If I share a belief, please don’t extrapolate that out to calling everyone a sinner.

            I have said repeatedly that what turned me off most about this article was the way in which the woman shared her love of being childless including saying she had “dodged a bullet” by miscarrying. Do you like how she characterized that? Don’t you find that tactless and untasteful? How am I the only one that thinks that she is a terrible poster child for people who are making a case for staying childless?

          • Pissed off

            Perhaps YOU should look at the cost of adoption and fertility treatments. You are on a high, high horse. Screw you for calling me a sinner.

          • kathiemarshall

            You have picked an appropriate name for yourself. You have not even addressed one thing I have said.

            I never called anyone on this thread a “sinner.” Why make things up to be mad about. Isn’t life frustrating enough?

          • In response

            I did address what you said without explanation of what I was referring to. I don’t like to fill spaces with words like you seem to be doing. So let me explain:
            You said: I acknowledge that not everyone is called to parenting and if you have a physical reason why you cannot have kids, do we call them sinners? Of course. Many can adopt or offer their talents to the world in other ways.

            Newsflash, I am Catholic and married Catholic. No church will ever tell you that you are only getting married to procreate. Read the vows. You promise to support in sickness and health. I have a sickness. My husband promised to be there in my sickness. We have NO allowable up front funds to come up with to have children. You don’t understand how bad you make people feel. I am fortunate to have good insurance because it’s the most affordable way to go about having children. Once outside of natural, do the homework yourself. Look at those costs. I would never call one of my own a sinner. That’s passing judgment and that’s not your job.

          • kathiemarshall

            oops, I’m sorry. I meant to type ‘of course not’ and you can see that by reading the next line.

            It shouldn’t have made sense to you that I would say “of course” after reading the following line. I type fast and make mistakes. That was a mistake (big one – ended up saying the exact opposite of what I meant!)
            So, apologize for that but it was a mistake. So, your anger was for naught.
            Catholic Church does not say we are only getting married to procreate – that’s, I guess, an oversimplification. But it DOES say that marriage is ordered for the procreation and education of children. It does not fault anyone who is sick or infertile, of course, and understands that for some, the inability to have children is a great sorrow. For others (Catholics) who get married and just plan to never have kids, the Catholic Church does not actually recognize that as a valid (or is the word licit) — maybe sacramental? — marriage (need to get my terms straight). One of the conditions for a valid, sacramental marriage if you are Catholic is to be open to children and also to have a mindset of permanence and to be giving free consent of the will to the marriage (no duress).

            The other good of marriage is the love between the spouses and the sanctification of the spouses since in marriage we’re called to give of ourselves completely, this is an action or lifestyle, if you will, that teaches us to be selfless as we treat our spouse as our own flesh.

            So, anyway, sorry about that mistake. I was thinking and typing too fast!

          • Pissed off

            God also says that children are a reward to good people. I’m sure you see the news or read the paper… how many bad people are ‘blessed’ with children and continue to be bad people?

          • kathiemarshall

            Which Bible verse says that?
            The Bible says that children are a blessing from the Lord. I don’t recall the verse which says they are a reward to good people.
            There were plenty of crummy people in the Bible with children.

          • Haha

            If children are a blessing from the Lord, then the abortion I helped my girlfriend get last year was a metaphor for spitting in the Lord’s face. I love making religious people sad.

          • kathie


          • > I said things I thought were things all Christians would say. … the Bible says … children … “blessing”

            Kathie, not all Christians agree. Those fruitfulness blessings (and quiver of sons) from Old Testament were interpreted spiritually (not biologically) by church in early centuries (e.g. fruit of spirit, virtues), and St Augustine praised intentionally childfree marriages (achieved through abstinence). Look at:

          • Blue

            “Objectively speaking there is a God.” Actually, “objectively” speaking, there is no proof of a god. Belief in a deity is subjective.

          • kathiemarshall

            Belief that there is no God is just as unproveable. There is a God and that God exists whether any of us like it or not. If you are the creature, hoping or “rationalizing” or intellectualizing him away (if that’s actually intellectual!) doesn’t make Him go away. If you look at the world and the order that exists and the improbability of this much order that is necessary for life to exist just happening by chance then it becomes quite unreasonable to disbelieve in a Creator. But, of course, you may believe as you wish!

          • Blue

            I was actually clarifying the correct use of ‘objectively’ vs ‘subjectively’. LOL

          • kathiemarshall

            I understand the use of subjective and objective. And God is an objective reality, whether you believe that is subjective opinion or not.

          • Blue

            Clearly you do not understand what “objectively” and “subjectively” mean, because you continue to confuse them.

          • kathiemarshall

            Clearly, I do know what they mean. For example, it is objective truth that I have trees on my property. It is subjective opinion that I believe they are attractive to look at. If God does exist, His existence is an objective reality. I believe He does exist. The existence of a thing is not objective or subjective. It either is or isn’t.

          • Spike

            Please go away.

          • kathiemarshall

            oh hi spike, just realized I mis-spoke myself on the post you replied to. The existence of a thing IS only objective and not subjective — what I meant to say. (;
            Why should I go away? You all are having such fun throwing barbs and insults at me. Why stop all the fun?

          • Monkeylicious

            “If” God does exist? I thought you were convinced?

            And your argument about existence of a thing is not objective or subjective is not a valid point. Unless of course you’re talking religion where double talk unfortunately seems to be met with open arms as a way to hold together your faith.

            I’d love to hear what “you” think, but only if you can do it without religion as support for your argument. If you can’t, just reply with “see the bible” and I’ll know what you mean.

          • kathiemarshall

            What I think about what?

            I linked to this site what seems like months ago now. I read an article and responded to it with my opinion. (You know, kind of like people do all the time when they read USA Today or Washington Post online.) I am still getting trickling in annoyed emails. Am I really the only one who comes on this site/blog with opposing views?

            I dont’ even remember the point I was making. But the existence of a think IS objective; it is not subjective. But what point I was making, I do not remember. Please remind me

          • Rosy

            love your view , we can’t even catch God in Face book

          • Jessica

            And you certainly don’t have to have kids to be married or in love.

          • kathiemarshall

            That’s your opinion. But marriage and commitment between one man and one woman permanently is best for kids. no question.

          • Pissed off

            My dad is/was an asshole. My parents divorcing was the best thing for them and for us children. You are crazy.

          • kathiemarshall

            I repeat that children in a relationship with a committed Mom and Dad is best. So, if your dad was a creep, then how does he fit this role?
            I’m sorry he was not a good dad. But a marriage with a mom and dad, committed to each other, is best.

          • Rosy

            stop the kid crap….having kid is a waste of precious time and money….nowadays money is a basic necessity like food and water……….nowadays the kids grow uo and illtreat their own parents ……….there are soooo many Aged care facilities…..children don’t give a damn to their parents……….

          • kathiemarshall

            That is definitely an out on the fringe opinion. Pretty sad one, also.

          • kathiemarshall

            That is definitely an out on the fringe opinion. Pretty sad one, also.

          • Rosy

            My sis has 2 kids and she says m right

          • Pissed off

            so…I shouldn’t be married because I cannot procreate. Seriously, messed up.

          • kathiemarshall

            “Pissed off” – who are you talking to? Who ever told you that you shouldn’t be married because you cannot procreate?
            Are you talking to me? Because you seem to be addressing someone else’s posts.

          • In response

            You said this yourself.
            The unselfishness is in understanding that marriage is ordered for the procreation and raising of kids and the sanctification of the spouses.

            In my faith, marriage is the setting that is ordered to having children.

            Like the bible, your words are open to interpretation and this is how your words interpret to me.

          • kathiemarshall

            Yes, I said that. It has to be said though that if you come from my worldview, we are taught the inestimable value of souls and that, Biblically, God exhorted couples to go forth and multiply and never told them to restrict the number of kids they have. So my Catholic faith therefore teaches that couples should be “generous” in the transmission of life.

            That is the church teaching, not my words. However, to then say that everyone who doesn’t see it that way is “selfish” is to act like everyone should understand and assent to the worldview of the Catholic Church. I don’t expect that but I would still like to be able to share my faith belief.

            I can’t judge how people view having children and the reasons that they don’t have kids. But I can share the worldview according to the Catholic Church and say that they (Catholic Church) teach us to be generous in transmitting life because the ancient understanding is that children are always a blessing and always a good and that therefore God desires us to be open to letting him create with us.

            I don’t judge everyone who doesn’t see it this way as selfish though.

          • > God exhorted couples to go forth and multiply

            Kathie: That was said to Adam and Eve in an empty world, and to Noah and co. after other people killed by flood, and then to Israelites when they acquired (supposedly) empty land from Canaanites. Much more in chapter 4:

          • LaughingAtYourIgnorance

            It’s going to be a real wake up call when you die and realize there is no Christian God.

          • kathiemarshall

            Easy for you to say now. (;

          • jb1907

            so you only have sex to procreate? I mean, isn’t that what the bible says? not everyone believes there is a god.

          • kathiemarshall

            No, although that is a classic misunderstanding and mischaracterization of Christian sex within marriage. I can’t speak for Protestant Christians, because Catholic and Protestants have different views of sex and purpose of marriage.

            Catholics believe that sex is for pleasure and for the bonding of the couple in marriage AS WELL AS the act which brings forth life. The Catholic Church teaches that we cannot separate these two purposes being rolled up into one act purposely by God. Since marriage should be a gift of self to the other, sex is the physical act which embodies that TOTAL SELF-GIVING. Sex should be to give all of ourselves in a total gift of self to the others in total trust and abandonment.

            So, we can seek out sex with our spouse as much as we want for pleasure and love. We are just not allowed to seek it for ONLY pleasure but reject the fruit of sex which is, for at least one week a month, sometimes children.

            The lovemaking and the babymaking are both good but we are not to separate them as God clearly made them one act on purpose.

      • Blue

        I don’t believe in your god, so what you believe your god said is irrelevant.

        • kathiemarshall

          Unless it just so happens that “my” God is the One, True God. Then your belief that He is not real is actually what’s irrelevant.

          • Blue

            Yes – what I believe is irrelevant to you. And what you believe is irrelevant to me. Therefore, what you believe your god says about procreation is also irrelevant to me.

            I don’t care what anyone believes. No one is going to make me have children I do not want and can not afford.

          • kathiemarshall

            No one is trying to make you have children. ?

          • Blue

            Oh no? Then why are people like you here, telling us (ie the childfree) we’re wrong?
            How often are you asked WHY you had children? Or have condescendingly been told you’ll regret your choice, or that you’ll change your mind about having those kids?
            How often have you been told you’re selfish, immature, that you must be a child-hater or a child abuser, based on one personal decision? I’d be willing to bet never.

            So, no, no one may be physically forcing me to have kids (although it does happen to some women), society and people like you constantly put pressure on women to have children, even when they know they don’t want them.

            And honestly, I don’t care what your opinion is. But the problem I have is that people like you feel like you’re right and we’re wrong, and you can’t seem to comprehend that even though we made different choices, you made the right choice for you, and I made the right choice for me. Why can’t you just respect that?

          • kathiemarshall

            Well, I guess, because I come from a Christian perspective and that colors my views just as your religion or lack of it colors yours. We all try to convince everyone else that our choice is correct.
            By the way, I have had people weigh in on our choices at times. I have 12 kids. I am a Catholic. That should be enough for you to know I’ve been criticized and/or questioned. But we’re all willing to deal with that when we feel our views are correct.
            As much scorn as it generates, I feel like people will regret their decision when/if we get to the other side and see the value in a human soul. I get that you dont’ agree, but if I really feel like it is true that we WILL see the value of a human soul and that you will see that also, then in my (warped in your opinion) view, I feel like I am giving some words of truth to people.
            However, you’re also allowed to reject it. (:

          • Blue

            I agree that our beliefs (or lack thereof) color our views.

            However, I am not trying to convince everyone else that MY choice is the correct choice for everyone else.
            I want people to accept that MY choice is right for ME, and that as a grown woman, I fully understand what that decision means.

            Yes, I imagine with 12 children you would have been rudely judged and questioned by some, so perhaps you may understand a bit. Still, society prefers women who have children, so it’s not the same.

            And, by the way, I have no problem with women who have children, even by the dozen! Although I’ve made a different choice, I still respect the choice you made because it was right for YOU.

            I understand where you’re coming from, but even if people do regret their choices, what can you really do about it? Fear of regret isn’t always a good reason to do something, and many times people regret things that they did, not what they didn’t do.

            While people like me make choose not to have their own children, it doesn’t mean they completely miss out on parenthood. I have an amazing 13 year old godson, and I was there when the pee stick said “+” and all during labor and his birth (I cut the cord) and still am there for him and his mom, as we’ve been best friends since we were 12. His father has barely been in the picture (his loss), so it’s been Mom and Auntie there every step of the way, through the good and bad.
            My other close & best friends have children as well, most of them under 5, and I have a blast with them. They’re adorable and quirky, and make me laugh. I love to visit with them, share hugs, and spoil them when I can.
            I have plenty of great children in my life. I just don’t want my own.

            Why do you think we have to wait until we die to see the value in a human soul? I appreciate those souls in my past, those wonderful ones around me now, those wise ones whom I learn so much from – and you can learn something from everyone you meet if you choose – as I am learning things from and about you in our conversations.

          • kathiemarshall

            Hi Blue, I think what has been most misunderstood is that I do not judge people (unless they talk like the woman quoted in this article) about not having kids. When I see childless people, I understand there are many factors, from infertility to making choices that I can’t understand because I am not in their shoes.

            What we do in discussions with others, admitting they we are not in their shoes, is say why we think it’s good to have kids. I don’t think that can be compared to looking down on and judging people – anymore than my saying “everyone really ought to visit France once in their life.” Yes, kids are more important than France, but if I step and say why I think having kids is a good choice, can that automatically be deemed judging? How can I “judge” when I haven’t walked in your shoes? In a discussion, we offer viewpoints, maybe strongly to the degree we feel strongly. You also offer your view on why childlessness is better for you. I don’t understand why offering and injecting opinion (because often comments follow articles with personal opinions) is the same as judging and condemning?

            In Catholicism, we see 3 possible vocations: married with children, religious vocation or single. We acknowledge that there are people who are not called to having children because they offer themselves in other ways. We just usually don’t consider these people to be also married because marriage we see as the setting appropriate for children. I know that’s Catholic and that’s our view.

            But, believe it or not, I may come off strong when I see the type of comments made by the woman in this article (I saw what a “bullet I dodged” by miscarrying…) because her comments were in such poor taste. But regarding different walks, different religions, etc. I may consider mine “best” or else I’d be something different. But I actually do respect that I am not in anyone else’s shoes but mine. I can choose to hopefully nicely share my views (like sharing a treasure) but I actually don’t judge others. I just get annoyed by comments in such poor taste as proclaiming that you are glad you miscarried. There was a flesh and blood child there after all.

            No, we do not wait till we die to see the value of a soul. The value is always there. Um, I don’t think I can say too much more because Catholics have such a different view of the marriage and I understand that. So, please do not take anything too harshly. I don’t think I’m great or anointed. I just share my view but it is only my limited view. take care!

          • Pissed off

            You judged when you put those writings from the bible out there, trying to show what you know to be the “right” way and that these people are going against it. If you didn’t, you would never have said anything.

          • kathiemarshall

            “Pissed Off” To repeat words from the Bible is NOT to judge.

            To say what I believe is right and what I believe is wrong, or rather, to just state my thoughts, is not to judge.

            Judging is looking at someone’s actions and believing we can understand someone’s motives and reasons or the state of their soul with God. For example, to call someone “lost” or “damned” would be to judge.

            To simply make a statement which recognizes objectively good and bad behavior doesn’t judge anything except actions. It is okay to judge what sin is and what sin is not. It is not okay to judge a person’s culpability or understanding of right and wrong.

            The world has a completely wrong understanding of what it means to “judge” a person.

            I am not sure why you are so angry. I’m just a stranger on a thread. We all make judgements about what is right and wrong. You do as well, or you would not be saying, “screw you.” How is it okay for you to judge my actions as bad but I cannot judge anyone else’s actions (or actually just share the reasons why I think it’s better to be open to children.)

            Why are you so mad anyway?

          • In response

            To say what I believe is right and what I believe is wrong, or rather, to just state my thoughts, is not to judge.

            Judging is looking at someone’s actions and believing we can understand someone’s motives and reasons or the state of their soul with God.

            I’m sorry, what happens to sinners? That deals with the soul and God, right? You called people sinners, right? Hmmm
            Why I am so angry: First, the magazine did poor research. Second, in no way should this have turned into a religious discussion. Social, probably. Religious, no. You put things out there that you think are black and white, but really are so open to interpretation and you can’t understand why people react the way they do. You pushed your beliefs out there, of course you would get rebuttal. Things you have said make me and maybe others feel horrible in their faith, but God knows we do what we do how we can do with our best efforts. You say my purpose of marriage is to procreate. I can’t. I have tried for over 3 years now. Surgery, miscarriages, etc. Do you not think that those things haven’t shaken my faith, heart, marriage, pride? YOU and these things that you put out there from the bible and your (our) faith are what angers me because every day I am coping. I am healing and these statements have set me back and as I respond, I am in tears. YOU make me feel like a failure.

            Not once did you bother to ask how hard it is for those that don’t have children. We hear our families, co-workers, strangers, etc complain every day about the struggles of parenthood. Do you ever think that people choose to not parent out of complete selflessness? Yes, you have probably been reading everyone’s perks of not having kids but maybe there’s more behind it…for the purpose of helping others, for the financial? Those people have it hard too.

          • kathiemarshall

            Guest — wait a minute!
            You are absolutely confusing everything I have to say. I said that I made an honest typo and you can see that by the next line that I typed. I said “of course not” — we do NOT call people sinners who cannot have kids.
            So, getting past the typing mistake… are you still misinterpreting what I am saying? My convictions come from my belief in God and this is a public forum and people of faith normally try to spread their faith. People are free to reject. But no one should be mad because someone injected religion into a discussion about having kids. That is bound to come up.
            You have definitely misunderstood everything I had to say. I do not judge people’s motives, hearts, reasons or status with God. I judge their actions (not their hearts) as being either in line with what I have been taught or not in line with what I have been taught in my Catholic Faith. You are all free to reject it and I am free to share it. Most people who hate my message will walk away or ignore my posts.
            And you say the article was poorly researched. I have said repeatedly that I was disgusted with the woman in the article and I never assumed that every person without kids thinks like her. But no one wants to criticize her tasteless comments except me. I am very sorry about your infertility – that struggle is actually close to my heart. And her comments should be all the more disgusting because of your personal struggle with infertility.

          • YoureKidding

            Wrong again, Kathie–not everyone tries “to convince everyone else that our choice is correct.” I know full well that my choice to live childfree is the best one for me. For those who truly want kids and choose to have them/adopt, good for them. I certainly don’t engage in Monday morning quarterbacking (“wow, maybe you shouldn’t have given birth, eh?” does not seem like a helpful or respectful conversation). What you call “giving some words of truth to people” is actually being preachy, nosy, and judgmental, and I’d be very surprised if you change anyone’s mind with your approach.

          • kathiemarshall

            what is my “approach”? I was repulsed by the comments of the lady in the article as she practically celebrated her miscarriage and her comments were in very bad taste. I’ve said that a many times.

            Additionally, I made that statement in the context of my Christianity. When we enter a discussion, but not every time I interact with humanity (because I frankly don’t go around ‘Monday morning quarterbacking’ as you call it — who does??).. our mindset on birth, or death, or taxes will show up and mine is colored by my Christianity. Therefore I will let people know why I think it is better to be open to children, but I don’t use that as my opener when I meet new people. I actually dont’ spend a lot of time wondering why various people are childless, but in a conversation relevant to children (such as the ones this article spawned), I will say why I think it is better to be open to children. I cannot fathom how commenting on the reasons why being open to children is a positive can be construed as “nosy.”

          • YoureKidding

            Yes, you’ve discussed your revulsion for the “dodged a bullet” woman–got it. Let’s not pretend that’s all you’ve had to say. And I think I described your approach (as I see it) clearly. If you don’t see what you’ve done in some of these exchanges as Monday morning quarterbacking or questioning someone’s intent or judgment, perhaps you should add the term to your list of things to research. And please stop pretending you don’t “get” some of our responses–I’m not sure if you’re lonely and trying to keep the conversation going, or if there’s another reason, but it’s insulting and a waste of time. And on that note, I’ll sign off, with a request: The next time you feel compelled to advise someone to “be open to children,” stop and ask yourself if the pain you may very well cause is worth it to spread god’s word. And be truthful with yourself–separate your need to preach (because that’s truly what it sounds like) with the emotional state of the person you wish to address.

          • kathiemarshall

            I’m sorry you’re such a miserably angry person that you have to shout at some stranger on a stupid blog. Seven billion people on the planet, lots of different worldviews and mindsets. You would like to be insulated apparently to only those that reflect yours but maybe you need to get over it. Grow up.

          • “They” talk very condescendingly to us because they are secretly jealous and envious of us. They are mad because we had the strength to think for ourselves and not succumb to what society tried to brainwash. I believe if people are truly happy, they leave others alone. If they were so happy raising their kids, then why be such busy bodies with our lives? I’m sorry, but breeders prove time and time again they are miserable and their condescending talk is just a recruitment method so they can enlist others into their misery.

          • Rosy


          • Seleni

            haha, how convenient that “your” god happens to be “the One” Everyone says that, so either everyone is right or you’re all wrong.

            But back on the subject, no one should have kids if they don’t want to. Period. End of story. No fairy tale book should change that either.

          • kathiemarshall

            I agree. No one should have kids if they don’t want to. We Christians who do open our hearts and homes do it joyfully. It may be a struggle at times, but we know it is worth it.
            Of course everyone thinks their God is the right one. Just like you are sure that the absence of God is the Truth. Are you saying that you don’t also claim that your (not proveable) Truth is not also the ultimate Truth? Dont’ we all claim that what we believe personally is the ultimate Truth? Why else believe in something. Would you expect me to say that I believe in my God but I’m sure there are many other good Gods and maybe some bad ones and that it is probably also true that there isn’t a God. Would that keep everyone happy?

          • jb1907

            I guess every Christian should adopt every kid in the world?

          • kathiemarshall

            What? Not following….

        • Rosy

          I AGREE really if there was a God , why doesn’t he talk to us or send us a text or something?

      • chantelle

        a soul belongs to itself. you do not take your childs soul with you. thats creepy as fuck.

        • kathiemarshall

          Nice language Chantelle: what I meant by that is that you cannot take your job, your car, your house, your recreational activities, etc. with you when you leave earth. What I meant is that a soul is the only thing that is eternal. When I die, I am not packing my kids’ souls in suitcases and taking them if that’s what you mean by creepy as whatever. Wow. But they are eternal and everything else we work for on earth is temporal.

          • Yea. No. Sorry.

            I think you’ve said enough. Please stop speaking. You’re seriously sounding like a fucking creeper. Go drink the koolaid and give the rest of us a break.

          • Jessica

            You can also take from this world the fact that you loved and had tolerence. In the end that is what matters. Procreation is not the key to a spiritual or Christian life. Expand your definition of love Kathie.

          • kathiemarshall

            ? I guess you didn’t read all my posts. Don’t take what I say and run with it. I never said there is only one way to love.

          • Peace

            As far as we know, Jesus was never married, nor had any children. Look at how he is venerated, and what he accomplished.

            Childfreedom allows a person to do what they want to do in life, whether that is for the improvement of society or for oneself. You don’t believe me? Look no further than Jesus as the perfect example, for all you religious fundamentalists out there.

            And, keep your judgements, insults, scorn and derision against the CF to yourself. I don’t judge you because of what you choose to believe or breed, have enough respect for others to do likewise.

          • kathiemarshall

            Well, as a Catholic, we absolutely hold up the good of the kind of life Jesus lived. They are called religious and clergy. The Bible also speaks about the good of remaining “as I am” (Paul) in remaining a eunuch for the kingdom (celibate single). So, you will not find any disagreement from me on that point. Being like Jesus is good!

            However, not everyone (again as Paul says) can stay single. So, marriage is also a good. So, for the married, they have chosen a vocation that is ordered to the procreation and upbringing of children, although it has other fruits as well.

            I am not a “religious fundamentalist.” I’m a Catholic. And I don’t judge anyone here and I do not even know what you mean by CF. ?

          • Rosy

            love your view, will use the Jesus philosophy when people bug me next time

          • Darshak Patel

            Rosy..u r the smart gal..hehe..

        • Rosy


      • anon

        There have been many God’s throughout human history. I find it strange that people attach to one, dismiss the others and then act like their choice was the one and only right choice, while everyone else is wrong.

        • kathiemarshall

          If it’s such a shame we “are the ones having our future children” why not produce some of your own and teach them YOUR value system rather than complain about who’s deciding the future.

          How is the “no God” position so much more logical and rational and intellectual because being that it is as unproveable as you believe the “God” position to be.

          Your position is no less irrational than you believe ours to be. It is just one of many options – no different than choosing “which” God.

          • anon

            I’m not talking about values. People should teach there are many gods and religions.. and let them choose which they like best. Forcing one upon them and not giving them the chance to explore others is only limiting their knowledge. If you would like to teach them the values from one specific one, that is great, but don’t purposely blind them and leave them ignorant on the rest of the knowledge. It’s not that I disagree with the values, it’s that I disagree with the people who contort and twist the purpose of the values. They falsely lead our youth into believing the can only accept the values if they accept and believe in the one god. Which in turn causes them to stop exploring and learning.

            It just leaves people blissfully ignorant. A 1977 pinto is the best car in the world to someone who has never seen any other car.

          • kathiemarshall

            Hi Anon! Thank you for writing a civil response!

            If you do not believe in God, then you can’t quite understand the convictions of a person who does. Choosing a God (especially from the perspective of one who doesn’t even believe that one exists) may seem as free a choice as choosing a car or a house or a college or even a spouse. But it can’t even be compared to any other life choice. We may screw up on these kinds of things but there is no moral absolute in these choices. They are in the truest sense of the word, free choices.

            When it comes to God, no one assents to belief without being totally convicted of the truth of that decision. Why would they? I suppose there might actually be a few who claim to convert because of marriage, but are never convicted. That’s different.

            So, for those of us who’ve wrestled with and settled our minds on the matter of God, it is not an option we want to offer our kids because it is not an arbitrary choice like other things. By the way, I have lots of kids and they are raised to believe in my God, but they are normal and thinking enough to understand they have choices as adults. Everyone understands that. They get that they were raised with the understanding of One God and that they were NOT raised with an understanding of other Gods being available choices as kids. They know they can compare and contrast but if I as a parent view something as the Truth, I am not going to take a relativist attitude and offer my kids to pick the Truth or a non-truth. Why would I? I’m going to incline them toward the Truth and give them the advantage. No one is raised “blind” to the fact that there are other options for faith and deities to believe in.

            I also get that you don’t believe it’s the truth so to non-believers it seems abusive. But we feel the same way about kids being kept from the Truth. We hold the same position as you do on feeding our kids our own version of truth. I don’t know if you have kids, but if you are an atheist are you really going to encourage your kids to honestly and openly explore all options … or are you going to incline them toward your own belief?

            It’s not honest to say you will not incline them toward your version of the truth. We all do that. Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, New Agers…. all of us.

          • Blue

            I’m an atheist (shocking, I know!), mostly because of my scientific education, although I did study world religions in the past.

            A scientist knows that the burden of proof falls on the person making the claims; a scientifically unfalsifiable claim isn’t true because there isn’t evidence to the contrary or because someone believes it to be true – it’s the “celestial teapot.”

            Now, while I may think religious people have batshit crazy beliefs, religious people likely think I’m batshit crazy for not having any. Regardless, I don’t prevent people from practicing their religion, nor do I impose my beliefs on others (but yes, I do discuss religion as well as my lack of it). If you pray to a specific god, Thor, the tooth fairy, Ba’al, or your cat – all the power to you. I don’t care what your beliefs are, as long as they don’t affect me.

            I do take issue with people forcing their beliefs on me (or others) because it makes them feel better, or because it’s what they believe is “right.”
            I refuse to allow any religion to make decisions for me about what I do, how I dress, what and when I eat, when/if I marry, who I will/will not have sex with, contraception, abortion, what medical treatments I can receive, what I do with my time, what I’m allowed to say, where I can go… I’m sure you get the picture. 😉

          • kathiemarshall

            No, I’m not shocked by an atheist. We are not that timid and fragile!

            The problem with religion is that once you’re convicted, you begin to see the world In the light of a spiritual reality of good and evil. We see souls as precious and valuable to God and designed for Him. Though you may think it’s batshit crazy, we cannot help, because we’re convicted, trying to turn others on to what we see spiritually. Thus comes the opposition to abortion and other things we see contrary to the laws of God. I guess I would say (and don’t take this the wrong way) it would be much easier to live and let live if you thought there was no God and morality didn’t matter in an eternal way. We are in the thankless position of knowing it matters and knowing that if we stand around and don’t try to make a difference, then we have not lived our Christian faith properly and (at least for Catholics) that jeopardizes our salvation. yeah, I guess it kind of stinks, because we are supposed to love others enough to share the truth and know we will be hated for it.

            I understand the whole burden of proof, I guess. I have just believed in God for so long that I dont’ get into those debates but from what I understand, if the world were not created out of nothing, it would be violating certain laws of thermodynamics. But I am not terribly well-versed and don’t have the time to get well-versed. I believe in God for many personal and subjective reasons (even though I think God is an objective reality) — my confirmation has certainly come through subjective experience.

          • Notawoman

            Religion is the sigh of the oppressed
            creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless
            conditions. It is the opium of the people.” – Karl Marx

            “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

            Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

            Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

            Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

            – Epicurus

            It’s time we started working for the good of Humanity as a whole. I really don’t care what religion you are since it is your own personal choice. What I do care about is how you lead by example and how you try to better manking – not by waving your “my-god-is-better-than-your-god” sword, but by putting it aside and not crediting it with the good deeds you do towards others.

            Let’s feed, clothe, and teach the world so that we can better ourselves as a species and not fall into the sinkhole hell of jihads and genocides that ALL organized religion is responsible for.

          • kathiemarshall

            Karl Marx’s comments are just opinion. I have my opinion of Karl Marx, too.
            Epicuras attempts an actual proof that God does not exist or I guess, at a minimum, that he is an evil God. But the proof does not work because he starts with a false premise. He starts with the premise that God owes us total happiness on this side of eternity and that suffering is worthless. Since these are both false premises, this proof doesn’t work.

            Christian people are constantly doing good works, feeding, clothing and even dying for others. Please read, for one, about the Solidarity movement in Poland and Father Jerzy. Just one of countless examples. We can both feed and clothe the world AND talk about our God. It’s not one or the other.

            Also, please do not attribute the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin and their ilk to religion. “Religion” has done more to nurse, teach, feed, clothe and fight for the rights of people than anyone else.

            And please do not include abortion as a right. We think rights are things that do no harm.

            I am saying they have fought for human rights down through history and many who led these movements in oppressive regimes have died.

          • word_garden

            Bravo for putting a face to this issue. I’m 57 and am child free. When
            asked about it I say that I have a 10 year old–he has fur. He gets me
            outside everyday to see what 7 billion people have done to the planet.
            I was once accused of being selfish. Hmmm, so, creating your own self
            image is not selfish, being fashionably pregnant is not selfish, having a
            kid so they can achieve what you were too lazy to do is not selfish, my
            doubling my workload while you enjoy our tax and employer
            maternity-leave dollars is not selfish? And don’t give me that ‘who’s
            going to provide funds/taxes for the next generation’? I believe that
            racism is at the heart of that argument. There are lots of overcrowded
            and suffering people who would love to be giving a chance to thrive in
            an underpopulated country. And God–if that’s your belief–would be
            thrilled to see us be less selfish by taking better care of them and the

          • kathiemarshall

            “having a kid so they can achieve what you were too lazy to” ?? Talk about being judgmental.

      • Bartmann_van_Ghent

        This is interesting because in a strange way, a very small part of me could use this argument not to have children:

        I have had an OK life on this planet. I don’t want children, grandchildren, or future generations to influence my Soul’s decision where to incarnate. I don’t want to incarnate onto the planet earth again. My hope is, because no one knows for sure, that if I don’t bear offspring, my soul will not see the need to visit this planet again. In the same way I can walk through the woods and not leave a mark, I’m OK not leaving children behind.

        To reiterate, this is a very, very small, theoretical reason why I don’t want kids. The main reason is that I don’t have the temperament to successfully raise children and I don’t have the financial resources to properly care and educate a child.

      • Pissed off

        Oh, so because I can’t have kids, I’m selfish? That’s messed up.

        • kathiemarshall

          What? Who are you responding to?

      • Hortense

        Kathie, were you aware the bible also contains this?

        For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ -Luke 23:29

        How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. -Luke 21:23

        But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun. -Ecclesiastes 4:3

        I would also ask you this, Kathie. If god asked you to fill a coffee cup, would you just keep pouring and pouring, long after the cup was full, and you were making a mess all over the counter?

        • kathiemarshall

          Hortense: Thank you for thoughtful response.
          I know those verses are there – but we need to balance them with all the other verses. Scripture says to go forth and multiply and never gives a qualifier or a caveat to that. Proverbs also talks about the wife being a fruitful vine (hope I phrased that properly – or is it the marriage or husband or their love?) In any case, it is a reference to having many children and Proverbs also says, “Blessed the man whose quiver is full.” (Many children)
          So, I think we need to balance scripture verses. A barren woman is not the same as a woman who chooses not to have children.
          To state that it will be hard for pregnant and nursing mothers is not the same as saying we should just not have children or not many because we might be living in those times.
          In Ecclesiastes, I would certainly take that to be poetic hyperbole regarding the evil that exists on Earth.
          Each child is made in the image and likeness of God.
          And I would emphasize once again, that the woman in this article certainly was far from reflecting any of these thoughts of yours, even if I disagree with the interpretation. She was tasteless and seemed to celebrate her miscarriage. Not one person has agreed that she was tacky. I criticized her and never criticized anyone else.
          I am here to offer the view that being open to children in marriage is a better way. I realize it is my view, but since we all think our own views are correct, I will offer it as a better way.
          By filling the coffee cup to overflowing, I’m not quite sure what you mean. I think maybe you mean that we should discern that there are already enough people and some of us should make choices to not have kids or to have fewer kids lest we overdo our blessing?
          That is not a view I can agree with since I see no biblical mandate for that anywhere.
          But thanks once again for a thoughtful response.

          • Hortense

            The coffee cup analogy was referring to overpopulation. Back when the bible was written, there were far fewer people in the world than there are today. Now, there are too many people (7 billion and counting) and not enough resources to sustain them. Times have changed.

            As far as the bible verses are concerned, I was just illustrating that it is just as easy to cherry pick verses that encourage procreation as it is to cherry pick verses that characterize it as a negative.

          • kathiemarshall

            Hello again,
            I was not cherry picking verses. The Bible tells us to go forth and multiply and never tells us to “plan” or to reduce or to limit. None of the verses you indicate tell us to limit our children. That’s why I explained each of them.

            Overpopulation is a myth. I admit I do not know the optimal number of people that the planet can hold but I do know that the earth can easily sustain the amount it now has – the problem is not resources (though environmentalists would love you to think so) – the problem we have is with despot and oppressive regimes. In developed countries, we have more than our share. In oppressive regimes, there are many things in the way of people getting the food that would feed them and the clothes that would clothe them. People come here from Mexico not because Mexico cannot take care of them; it’s because of opportunity and problems with government.

            I’m well acquainted with the idea of cherry picking verses. But this is not what I’m doing. Every Christians saw being open to children the same way Catholics do today, but in 1930, the Anglicans opened the door a crack and all other denominations except Catholic followed suit. Every Christian denomination without exception saw closing the conjugal act off (artificial birth control of various kinds) intrinsically evil, then changed to say it was not.

            So, now we are venturing into deeper theological discussion which will further annoy many people here. But if you are coming at this from a faith perspective, you should know that the Catholic Church is the only one still holding to this historic view.

            If you are a person of faith, I don’t know how something can be an intrinsic evil one day, and just fine the next. That doesn’t make sense.

          • Hortense

            As an environmentalist, I find it impossible to take you seriously if you think overpopulation is a myth. And it is developed countries that are contributing to the problem the most. We are the ones leaving the larger carbon footprint, by a large order of magnitude.

          • kathiemarshall

            Hortense, I have to ask, are you also a believer in the God of the Bible or not?

            That will certainly color who you (or I) choose to believe. Yes, “environmentalism” is certainly called for within reason: recycling, conservation, planting trees and many initiatives that seek to keep our planet clean and in good shape. And reduce the carbon footprint, as you say.

            The type of environmentalism that gets shrill and alarmist is the kind that says we cannot sustain the population we now have. I have seen the other studies and data – there is always a different side. But in our day and in our culture, more left-leaning views have seized the day and certainly have the lion’s share of mainstream media.

          • Hortense

            I’m not sure why my faith or lack thereof is relevant, but since you ask I was raised Catholic but no longer participate. I think all religions are fascinating from a scholarly perspective, but I think they can be dangerous as well as positive. I think Jesus Christ of Nazareth was a revolutionary liberal with a great message that gets misinterpreted by a lot of his followers. I would consider myself a spiritual person of a variety that doesn’t fit into any particular box, and I certainly consider myself a moral person. I’m not sure if that answers your question.

            I’m saddened that you would think the alarming truths about overpopulation are “shrill” and therefore should be discarded. It is that attitude, that “stick your head in the sand” and pretend it isn’t happening because it’s too unpleasant approach that has landed us in this mess to begin with.

          • kathiemarshall

            Well, I say the views are shrill because I think they are unfounded. Not because I’m happy to ignore a real problem and hope it goes away.

            The reason that faith is important is that if you believe that God creates every person (even those conceived in wrong circumstances such as rape) in His image and likeness and if you believe in the Bible being the Word of God and that He says we are blessed by children, period (no qualifier or disclaimer attached), then this belief leads me to reason that He would not allow a situation wherein He creates so much, it results in peril to his other creatures.

            So, (starting from faith) I believe that it doesn’t make sense for God to exhort us to multiply, but know that multiplying will lead to great peril.

            So, now (moving on to data), I have read where the earth is completely able to sustain our population; but it is the problem of the greed of governments and dictators and the consequences of civil war and other strife (read sin), that causes so much human suffering including starvation. Many governments hinder getting food to their own populations.

            So, combining what I reason from my faith, and reading data that others have put together, I conclude that it is not a procreation problem but a sin problem and the result of humans themselves which hinder caring for everyone. I conclude that God has not created a situation that He will create too much and we will therefore self-destruct or have to encourage abortion or actively worry about limiting population.

            Your views on Jesus are much more tolerant than others, but I wouldn’t call him anything good if He claims to be God. He would have to be a nut, don’t you think? I’m sure many people think Obama is a revolutionary liberal, but if he came out and said he was also God, I think (I hope) that people would conclude he is no more than a nut. Or he would have to deliver some pretty convincing proof!

          • Hortense

            I’m curious about what your “data sources” are?

            You’re also contradicting yourself. Your bible does say that there will be a time when bearing a child will be a dreadful thing to do, and the barren will be blessed, and going forth and multiplying will no longer be a good idea, as noted in the verses I quoted above. If you do indeed believe the bible is the word of god, how can you disregard those statements?

            You also can’t deny that there are so many people that other species suffer and are imperiled. There are countless examples but I’ll give you one you’ve surely heard of since it was well covered in the media – the Gulf oil spill. Due to the first world’s dependence on oil and need for energy to sustain our way of life, many animals suffered and died in the Gulf. You’ll note this has nothing to do with people starving in developing countries, I’d actually view that as a lesser problem related to overpopulation. Although I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you think human-induced climate change is a myth, too, so it’s probably not worth mentioning to you.

          • kathiemarshall

            Well, I have to go back and look. I think it is the Population Research Council. I have just read it in various places and didn’t write down the source after I read it. I can look it up.

            I am not contradicting myself. I gave reasonable explanations for those verses. The Bible in no place gives any instructions for being “responsible” as many say in procreating. It just isn’t there. Those verses have other connotations.

            I believe we should do all we can to avoid disaster, to clean up, to conserve, but it doesn’t translate to me to limiting numbers of humans. I’m sorry that that wildlife died but it doesn’t mean I’ll say that we need to try to reduce the population. It means we take as many measures as possible to avoid that.

            I question “climate change” which used to be “global warming.” The term was changed to climate change because … why? Because, I believe, there are cycles of warming and cooling that happen naturally and using the term “climate change” covers those who sound the overpopulation alarm in the event of either warming or cooling.

          • Hortense

            The Population Research Institute “is a non-profit research group whose goals are to expose the myth of overpopulation” and its president is a “practicing, pro-life Roman Catholic”. There’s an agenda there. I wouldn’t take anything they say seriously.

            Cleaning up and conserving absolutely DOES translate into lowering our numbers. That is the number one most effective thing we can do to achieve that end.

            I knew you would think/say exactly that about climate change. It is so very predictable. Most scientists agree that what we are experiencing now is not part of a natural cycle, and is human-made, but I knew you would say the “natural cycle” thing.

          • kathiemarshall

            How is it that a Roman Catholic cannot have a legitimate view and legitimate data simply because of his religious affiliation. We do not lose our right to research because of our views. And if he, like I, does not believe there is an overpopulation crisis, he should be allowed to do legitimate studies regarding that. He doesn’t get to be automatically marginalized simply because he’s Catholic.

            If so, then I should just dismiss all of those who claim there IS an overpopulation problem as liberals who do not believe in God and respect Mother Earth and animals more than humans. We tend to lean toward thinking “agenda” when we see your numbers and your data as well. I guess it would be reasonable for you to be good with me dismissing all of your data out of hand because you are not a practicing Christian.

            This is where it is hard to separate worldview and foregone conclusions from reality. But it’s the way it has to be since we do not trust each other’s data because at the core we disagree with each others’s religious philosophy and the purpose of life.

            If you dismiss my data because the guy’s a Roman Catholic than I am just as justified in dismissing yours for similar reasons.

            I guess I need to know who “most scientists” are.

            In the end, I still believe we need to be good stewards and I judge as nefarious the goal of reducing the population. Wrapped up in that is liberal abortion laws, liberal euthanasia, forced sterilizations, etc. These things are not of God. Of that I’m sure.

            If solutions included how to grow and transfer food more effectively, come up with fuel alternatives and the like, I’m good with that. The other stuff is downright scary. Someday you might be the subject of a death panel who thinks your contributions to the earth are not worth keeping you alive. Slippery slope I say!

          • Hortense

            Death panels? Sheesh.

            You were just complaining about the “liberal media bias”, I don’t see how you can take seriously an organization that has such a clear bias as that one. It states “We also pursue the agenda common to all truly pro-life organizations: against abortion, against euthanasia, in favor of traditional marriage, against artificial contraception, and in favor of family-friendly societies and economies, all of which are essential to maintaining healthy populations.” It is pushing a pro-natalist agenda. The president of the organization has 9 children. The fact that he is Catholic is relevant because, as you state, Catholics believe god has mandated you to “go forth and multiply”. There is no way a logical, thinking person can take anything on that website as “fact”. It’s based on pure agenda, not science.

          • kathiemarshall

            You are apparently not aware that Obamacare has provided for death panels.
            By the same token then, anyone who is a left of center liberal and does not believe in God and thinks preservation of animals supercedes preservation of humans obviously also has an agenda and their websites can be considered propaganda and not fact. See, we each choose who we think has integrity based on our worldview.

            So, it goes both ways. A liberal with “facts” is as questionable to me as a practicing Catholic with “facts” is to you.

          • Hortense

            I take issue with your refutation of overpopulation. Why you are bringing Obamacare and death panels into it is beyond my comprehension. I’m not sure where to go from here. I’ve tried very hard to be respectful, but I don’t know what else to do but shake my head. It’s really not about liberal vs. conservative (I do hold some conservative views, personally), it’s about fact vs. fiction.

          • kathiemarshall

            Well, I generally try to stay on topic in any discussion. But when you said a “pro-natalist” agenda, that is pejorative for pro-life. I have never even heard such a term and if it indicates a pro-life and not anti-life agenda, it is bizarre to speak of it in pejorative terms.

            Why did I bring up Obamacare? Because when I mentioned death panels you said, “sheesh.” Why did I bring up death panels? Because they are just another aspect of the anti-life agenda. It is relevant. Environmentalism is often connected with a the anti-life agenda (abortion, contraception, sterilization and euthanasia). Some of these things are voluntary for now. Some are now being pushed coercively and will be more so as time goes on.

            Who is pushing this anti-life agenda primarily? Environmentalists, feminists – basically movements that are left leaning.

            I’m not sure why you think that a Catholic cannot have a legitimate opinion and why you believe it must be fiction. To the contrary, I find the anti-life agenda very scary and the pro-life “agenda” life affirming, hopeful and seeing a brighter future ahead.

            Of course it is and always has been an issue of fact vs. fiction. Why are you so inclined to buy the views of the anti-life crowd? Just because they own the media, Hollywood and the Universities does not mean they peddle the truth. These are the people who want to wrangle about terms and monikers for the unborn to justify abortion. The truth is actually quite simple: life begins at conception.

            If they are so wrong about this simple truth, why do you buy the others?

          • Hortense

            A Catholic can have a legitimate opinion, but when you put that man’s Catholicism together in context with the mission statement and FAQ’s of the site, it is clear that there is a one-sided agenda and is not to be taken seriously as scientific as factual. I did in fact spend some time reading that site (why did you assume I didn’t?) and all I saw was a bunch of dangerously uninformed propoganda.

            The topic of overpopulation still has nothing to do with Obamacare, death panels, now I see you’re bringing feminism and abortion into it, etc. As for pro-natalism, I would encourage you to learn more about what that term actually means. It infiltrates so many aspects of our lives: sociallly, economically, politically, societally, etc. Pro-natalism is what causes people make rude comments to us who are childfree, for example. It’s a way of thinking that causes people to tell us we’re selfish for our choices (when we’re anything but), it’s what causes people to tell us we’ll change our minds as if they know our minds better than we do, it’s what causes governments to discriminate against us in the tax code, it’s what causes employers to discriminate against us when it comes to leave policies, on so on. I really hope you will take some time to learn what pro-natalism really is, because you don’t seem to understand what it means.

            I also think you’re a little paranoid about who owns the media. That’s more propoganda that’s being fed to you. But since you assume for some reason that I am buying some prepackaged liberal view (despite the fact that earlier I mentioned I embrace some conservative viewpoints), I base my opinions on what I do for my career, as an environmental scientist. I also read books, I read studies. I read, I think. I don’t just swallow what someone shoves down my throat.

            P.S. I am sterilized, and I am insulted that you would refer to that as having “mutilated” myself. That is an exceedingly impolite thing to say.

          • kathiemarshall

            Hortense, I thank you once again for staying civil. I am not used to have a very civil debate. Usually names and accusations of lying are thrown out much sooner when I discuss with people with very different views.

            Regarding Stephen Mosher and PRI: The goals are certainly not indicative of any aim except reducing human rights abuses which fall under the guise of “family planning” “reproductive rights,” “population stabilization” and so on. Many of these will ultimately fall under the umbrella of the overpopulation claims.

            No, I do not see this institute on being only a scientific research council although that is absolutely necessary for the work at hand. I acknowledge that this institute exists to halt human rights abuses that are resulting from the population control advocates. If you think that human rights abuses are not happening, you haven’t read the headlines out of China, for one. I am grateful that there exists an effort to halt the abuses of infanticide and forced abortion and sterilization that flows from the overpopulation scare (and yes, I do consider it a scare).

            I noted that he was a pro-choice atheist when he resided in China and saw the abuses there.

            You cannot look at those aims (to halt human rights abuses) and thus consider that it is all propaganda and agenda. It should instead alert you to the fact that hand-in-hand with population fears is a move to coercively and abusively reduce the population. Let me ask you — how do you propose we reduce or stabilize the population?

            Being a believer, I do not believe that our God puts us in a place where it is necessary to abuse one another to “save the planet.” I believe that we can be at peace because He’s in charge; He’s coming back sometime anyway – maybe it will be before this cataclysm that population control people see. I just trust and do not believe we need to worry. And I see people like Stephen Mosher and his work and feel even better. Sorry if you think that is ignorant and naïve.

            Thankfully, there are people to tell us that there are ways to support our population and it is not to coercively abort. I also have to comment that you noted the “suffering of species” as the result of an oil spill? Have you any idea of the suffering of the women who have been forcibly aborted and sterilized? How about the suffering of the unborn baby as it’s life is taken? Are you okay with population stabilization methods which coerce and harm? I can’t believe you are.

            As a believer, I see nothing but evil flowing from the move to “stabilize the population.”

            I’m sorry to use the term “mutilated” but we in Catholicism (who abide in the actual teachings of the church) are taught to have a respect for our fertility and we celebrate it and do not look at it as something to be beat back. I am sorry that I offended you by saying that. It’s a result of how extreme a move I feel sterilization is.

            Regarding “pro-natal” — I have learned something. I guess we ALL feel discriminated against. unless you have 2.3 kids, I guess there is always room for feeling marginalized. However, the propagation of the human species relies on procreation (reproduction if you prefer). So, I would not be surprised that the costs and efforts associated with raising kids would be supported somewhat by society as having kids is considered a good and being able to educate and raise them well is a good for society. So, people without kids should not begrudge incentives for raising kids and raising them well. I am not aware of discrimination toward people without kids in society. We as religious people will always be “prenatal” because we see God’s hand in it. But I just don’t see people sneering at childless people. Apparently I am just unaware of it.

          • Hortense

            I would not consider forced sterilizations and abortions humane. On that we agree. I don’t think that’s the answer as it’s a human rights violation. While I fear we’ve already gone too far where overpopulation is concerned, and it’s too late to go back to a sustainable population without something drastic happening (by force or by nature), the best I can come up with is education and governmental financial incentives for people to have fewer or no children.

            As far as PRI, their goals are certainly more than reducing human rights abuses, as you say. The very first line of their mission statement is “Debunk the myth of overpopulation”. Also included, “Promote pro-natal and pro-family attitudes, laws, and policies worldwide.” There’s the pro-natalism we’ve been discussing, right there in the mission statement.

            I’m glad you are open to learning more about the discrimination faced by childfree people. There is the institutional discrimination mentioned, that occurs with the government and the workplace. As far as that is concerned, those of us that know overpopulation is a real and scary problem do not see procreation as a “good” that should be funded with our tax dollars, and that we should be treated as unequals by our governments and our employers based on our lifestyle choices. And then there is all the harassment, disrespect, and even sometimes hatred that we suffer from our friends, families, and colleagues. It is a very rare childfree person that has not experienced this.

          • kathiemarshall

            I forgot to add, regarding the media, that you have to agree it is mostly left. You have to admit they helped Obama into office greatly. So often, they will not report on his gaffes or give him a pass with policies they nailed Bush to the wall for. I just don’t think there is any dispute left that the media is left. Some, like talk shows and Fox, to some degree are center or right. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and most large newspapers are left.

            I’m not paranoid. It’s just a reality that I acknowledge.

            I think you can only go so far in philosophical debates when one person believes in God and the other (as far as I can tell from what you write) does not. (not sure, I don’t think you said one way or the other, but sounds like you don’t).

            If I believe in Jesus Christ and I believe he started a Church, the only candidate for ONE Church is Catholic. No one else has any historicity on their side. So, if I’m going to believe in Him and want to abide by the parameters He gave us, I’ll be a Catholic. The Catholic Church has disseminated all of public revelation and has distilled it to its proper interpretation (I know that sounds arrogant… but when it comes to religious beliefs, we just can’t all be right).

            If there is a God and if He manifested Himself as Jesus Christ and if His Church is the Catholic Church, I cannot call legitimate or good or understandable, any effort that seeks to encourage people not to have kids – whether by coercion or by an incentive or bribe or what have you (because of what the Church teaches in this area).

            I’m very glad that you do not agree with inhumane efforts. And if it is true that population can’t be sustained (which I don’t agree with – I just agree that greed, hunger for power, civil strife, etc. prevents prosperity) … then perhaps a natural thing like a famine or disease or whatever will wipe out the population and bring us back to sustainable. But anyone at all should at a minimum want to fight against the abuses women and others are going through in the name of overpopulation.

            Stephen Mosher is specifically talking about coercive measures in population control efforts that include sterilization and abortion. Even if they are only “encouraged” they can rise to the level of coercion quite quickly. I tend to believe that a person disturbed by human rights abuses and seeking to end them might possess more integrity than others pushing these population control measures.

            There was a letter written by an African woman to Melinda Gates after she announced wanting to send I don’t know how many millions worth of contraceptives to women there. It was posted and on the radio but only conservative type places. She basically said “please do not send us contraceptives. Our children are our joy and our hope for the future. If you care, send us drinking water and food…” I believe it is the height of arrogance to seek to reduce the population.

            Isn’t most of Europe below replacement level?

            Anyway, you sound like a reasonable person, but I know we just won’t see eye to eye as long as I see the world from a perspective of a God who is in control.

            I don’t know what you believe now.. but I would respectfully encourage you to consider your Catholic roots. Once a baptized Catholic, always a baptized Catholic, we like to say. In God there is no fear, no fear of a cataclysm except through the suffering that evil governments and people wreak on others. In God, we can always celebrate life. We can respect others’ rights to procreate as they would like. Everyone has a right to marry and to have children. When we feel we need to impinge on that right, you ought to feel like there is some of the diabolical involved. In the case of “overpopulation” there certainly is.

          • Hortense

            A second thing I can agree with you on, Kathie, is that we will never see eye to eye on this topic. So I don’t suppose there’s much more to say. Except that there is ZERO chance that I will ever return to the Catholic church. Please respect that and my choice to NOT procreate as I would like. Cheers.

          • kathiemarshall

            Hortense: cheers to you as well. By the way, my husband’s brother and his wife chose not to have kids. She has a career as a surgeon and she is content although I’m pretty sure if she wanted kids, he would have been good with that, too. Anyway, the most discrimination they receive from extended family is that we wondered (privately) for a bit why he would not want kids – they bring a lot of joy especially once they are adults and you can be with them on holidays, etc. But we don’t really discuss it anymore, he doesn’t get hassled and that’s about it. It’s understood he has a different perspective on what God would like. But I don’t consider myself “better” than him. Just seeing things differently and I would add, more truthfully on my end. But I never judge a person’s goodness or heart.

            Anyway, never say never! Scores of Catholics who said, “never” at one time, are now driving to the local Catholic Church on Sunday. (Scary thought, I bet!) I hope you won’t mind if I pray for you. Thanks for the nice discussion and for keeping it respectful!

          • Blue

            I’ve never heard of an “anti-life agenda.” That’s just ridiculous. I’m obviously a very liberal pro-choice woman, but that doesn’t mean I’m anti-life by any means – quite the opposite, actually.

            To say someone is anti-life because they use or support the choice to use abortion, contraception or sterilization is wrong. Many women who use these have children, or will have children in the future. Many women need abortions for medical reasons to save their lives when the fetus is no longer viable. Case in point: Savita Halappanavar. Letting a woman die when you can save her life, especially when the baby is dead is not pro-life, and it’s unethical. THAT is something I will never accept. I can understand and respect why people are antiabortion, but not to the point where they will sacrifice a woman’s life when the fetus is non-viable. If that woman has other children, you’re taking their mother away from them – something you have no right to do.

            I don’t agree with euthanasia either, but I do agree with physician-assisted suicide. The reason I don’t agree with one and not the other is because of bodily autonomy and legal complications.

          • kathiemarshall

            This will always be the perennial debate as long as people view the purpose of life fundamentally differently. My belief in God affirms all human life, including unborn, including the mother. My belief in God informs me that some strife, hardship and difficulty in this life are nothing compared with living a joyful life in eternity.

            John Paul II used the term “culture of death” for our generation. With an increasing acceptance of abortion, including coerced in areas of the world, the push for physician assisted suicide, the abuses of euthanasia, the fears of overpopulation and the push to take aggressive measures to reduce and stabilize can certainly be called anti-life. Any abortion is the purposeful taking of a unique and unrepeatable human life. It is therefore wrong. I understand that “anti-life” is quite clearer to people like me who affirm and celebrate big families, do not fear “overpopulation,” do not believe in abortion, see a dignified death as one in which suffering is minimized but death is not hurried along, etc.

            We have fundamentally different worldviews.

            I cannot speak about Savita as I later read conflicting things about her situation, whether they specifically asked for an abortion – I don’t remember. But it cast doubt on how cut and dried the situation was for being a mom dying to uphold the philosophy of pro-life. That story was widely and quickly circulated by “pro-choice” people as an example of how oppressive pro-life people really are. But just a month or two before that, a woman died at a Planned Parenthood in Chicago out of total negligence and it had a total media blackout. And so this makes me question the goals of the pro-choice movement as well as it seems Savita’s life had so much more value than the Chicago woman to them.

            In any case, you should know that my Church, the Catholic Church, DOES allow to save the life of the mother already. There are vanishingly few cases where this is ever really the case though. The ethics there are that measures can be taken to save the mother’s life and if the baby dies in the process of saving the mother’s life, as long as the death of the baby is not directly intended, but is a side effect of saving the mom’s life, it is a licit act.

            I do not agree with physician assisted suicide. If physician assisted suicide were legal everywhere, it would eventually come with the sense of duty to use it, just as I see that once artificial birth control and sterilization have been accepted, there is a societal pressure to use them.

          • Anti troll

            This Kathy is a parrot and has opinions fully formed by the “facts” she hand picks. You can not rationalize with this. This whole thread was poisoned by her and you all opened the door for her to indulge in her self righteous and self affirming arguments which is only self serving. God wouldn’t like this self absorbent drivel Kathy…find a better way to give back to your fellow man than to cyber troll.

          • kathiemarshall

            It is apparent that no one here can tolerate an opinion that is not exactly like their own. Do you realize how infantile you sound? Does “troll” really have a meaning in the context of an open forum?

          • kathiemarshall

            And also, Hortense, why don’t you examine the stats and data that Population Research Council has put together? I suppose that might take some time and be hard to do. But it would be far more convincing to hear a real challenge to data rather than dismissing out of hand because the man is Catholic. Practicing Catholics tend to honor truthfulness as well.

          • Blue

            What exactly are these “death panels” you speak of? The only “death panels” in America are the ones created by those who would rather people die than see everyone have universal health care.

          • kathiemarshall

            The above is just one article.

            No one would rather see anyone die. People opposed to Obamacare dislike the government stepping in to take over this industry rather than work toward privatized solutions.

            We also don’t care for the values of Obama et al, in their approval of abortion and contraceptives and forcing people with conscience objections to these things to provide them to employers (HHS mandate).

          • kathiemarshall

            By the way, I’ve never heard of a “pro-natalist” agenda which I presume means in favor of having babies (pre-natal…). That puts a negative tone on the desire to simply remain open to having children – not aggressively reproducing for the sake of reproducing.

            I guess I could call the opposite agenda a pro-animalia or pro-vegetative agenda?

            By the way, I myself have 12 kids. So, does this mean I have a hidden agenda to ruin the earth and help along the demise of animals and trees because I am not open to mutilating myself with sterilization, not open to taking the life of unborn children and not open to profaning sexual intercourse, which is a sacred thing, by putting a fertility barrier between me and my husband?

            Seems to be all in the way you characterize a thing.

          • > I’ve never heard of a “pro-natalist” agenda … That puts a negative tone on the desire to simply remain open to having children

            True for the individual, it’s variable. But collectively across a set of couples not using family planning (not even NFP?) the statistical result is predictable: an average (modal) of 6, 7, or 8 – though it depends a lot on the average age when they begin reproducing.

          • kathiemarshall

            Hi John,
            Being a “natalist” I have many children and don’t have time to properly look at your link and respond right now. I will though. I did briefly look at the section on St. Augustine and have some thoughts on that already.

            Yes, very possibly Psalms and not proverbs. As a catholic, I have a pretty good idea what’s in scripture, but don’t ask me to quote chapter and verse! (:

            By the way, are you Anglican or is the University of Liverpool an Anglican university or secular? Thank you.

          • Hi Kathie,
            (: having many children doesn’t make someone a natalist – that might just be a personal choice. Natalism is the belief that other people ought to have more children. A natalist might advocate that for a church or a nation (there are religious and secular versions) or universally.

            Any comments on chapter much appreciated (my email address is on first page of PDF – Thanks.

          • kathiemarshall

            Hi John,
            I read the section on St. Augustine. I did not realize at first that it was a doctorate thesis written by you. I would like to read it all, but just don’t have time at the moment.
            First, it seems that “natalism” would be a term used by non-Christians. It could be an objective term, but something about it has a negative ring to me. I think it is perhaps because true “natalism” would seem to be just the idea that people should have more children for purely utilitarian reasons. But when people advocate having children for religious reasons, it could seem to imply that there is no good reason behind it. Just “have children!”
            In reading about St. Augustine, you made many references to different works and different timeframes. There were not an awful lot of direct quotes though, so it would take a lot of time for me to go find actual quotes.
            My sense in reading it though, was that, although Augustine may have a somewhat different idea of married chastity than we do now (and I dont’ know that for sure), his debates centered on the good of celibacy vs. marriage, not so much how many children to have, if any.
            It seemed to me that you were using his discussion on the good of celibacy to try to indicate something he was not indicating: whether to always be open to life in marriage. These are two different discussions.
            Once a decision for married life is made, then the different discussion of remaining open to life begins. I did not see him ever validate birth control or the conscious limiting of family size.
            I noticed the reference to continence in marriage. I am not sure that was ever pushed or valued in our church history. I am still not quite sure in reading quickly whether he was making a passing mention of it or affirming it.
            Famously, the parents of St. Therese of Lisieux wanted to remain continent and their priest counseled them against that and they ended up having 9 children, one a great saint.
            Finally, St. Augustine is a saint in the Catholic Church because he showed heroic virtue. There are saints in history who did not get everything exactly right theologically, but because of personal virtue became a saint. Augustine contributed so much to theology, but he did not make doctrine. The doctrine that is timeless that I am to abide in is the final decisions make by the magisterium who have that authority.
            The story on artificial birth control was that it was considered an intrinsic evil by all Christian denominations until 1930 when the Anglicans began to crack open the door. Pope Paul VI would not cave and every pope since has affirmed the age old teaching of the intrinsic evil of artificial birth control.

            So, how can something be an intrinsic evil one day and okay the next?

            ALso, the Catholic Church certainly does not teach, like Augustine seemed to imply, that sexual intercourse in marriage is only for reproduction. Hardly. It is encouraged for love and pleasure and all of that. It just cannot be closed off to the possibility of the natural outcome of the act, though it doesn’t have result in a child every time to be a good of marriage. It just has to be open to the possibility.

          • Hi Kathie,
            Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You are right: someone could be against artificial contraceptives for many reasons that are NOT natalist – I make that distinction in chapter 1. Incidentally, Natural Family Planning (NFP) seems to involve a conscious limiting of family size, which the 20th century magisterium allowed. As for Augustine, yes he praised continence in marriage (if mutually agreed) but, as you say, that is not commended today. Augustine would disapprove of NFP. As an historian I observe differences between times: for example Pope Siricius (4th century) and various other Popes were closer to Ambrose and Augustine on these particular matters than the modern papacy.

          • kathiemarshall

            Hi John,
            I guess the bottom line in the Catholic Faith is that artificial contraception is not allowed. So, perhaps there is discussion over continence in marriage at times (though not so much today), there was never any approval of artificial contraception. Regarding NFP, some people talk about it like it is Catholic birth control (I’m talking about Catholics, too, and others who may misunderstand why it is used), but it is not supposed to be used to limit family size for any reason. The catechism states that it should only be used to limit family size “for grave reasons.” In other words, the default value for having children should be OPEN and only in grave circumstances (as determined by the couple according to their consciences which should be guided by the Church in what is grave) should NFP be employed to avoid children. So, that is an important distinction when couples do seek to limit family size. It is not supposed to be done with the notion that they can limit family size for any and every reason. The bottom line is, it seems to me, not so much focused on having children or how many children or being “natalist” but rather that the conjugal act cannot be profaned by using artificial birth control as it is the covenantal act of marriage and has a sacred meaning. So, yes, children are a good of marriage and the natural outcome of this is that one will probably end up having a big family, but it is not solely focused on natalism, as some call it, but rather the aspect of being careful not to profane the marital act, a separate concern in itself. It’s kind of both things: the good of children and the sacredness of the marital act, which the Catholic Church teaches is profaned by artificial birth control. An outsider may look and only see that there is a prohibition on birth control and believe this to mean that the church mandates large families, but it is more nuanced than that. I may not be getting the idea across well.

            So, one must also be careful not to use NFP improperly. In the church today, I think there is debate, at times heated, as there always is with something, about how to use NFP properly.

            Do you come from an Anglican view?

          • YoureKidding

            “…He would not allow a situation wherein He creates so much, it results in peril to his other creatures.” That is a RIDICULOUS statement–if you believe in a god and are paying the slightest bit of attention, you would realize that every day, that god allows plenty of horrible things to happen due to a lack of resources: starvation, disease, etc. But according to you, you blame all that on so-called sinners…lady, your views are astoundingly without merit or proof. Can you point to a review of studies showing more than a handful back up your assertions? You cannot–science is not on your side.

          • > Proverbs also talks about the wife being a fruitful vine … Proverbs also says, “Blessed the man whose quiver is full.”

            Surely both are in Psalms (127 and 128 in my Bible, though numbering varies) rather than Proverbs?

        • jb1907

          The bible also contains verses about slavery and stoning people. Do we still do that?

        • Valerie Pittman

          Hi Hortense,
          Yes, she would, she would empty the entire pitcher & make more until the entire canister was bone dry! Then she would run from house to house telling all her neighbors they needed to contribute to do their part.
          She would pester everyone she could whether she was in her home town or not, & last but not least she would get on the Internet on a non-coffee drinkers site to shame & dog them all for not being freaken coffee drinkers!

      • Valerie Pittman

        This entire article is in support of women or couples that choose to be childfree in all financial walks of life, including every culture.
        It is not an open article to disagree as you have so ignorantly claimed.Or to share your view (based on false pretenses) of why you think they should have children, as it states nothing of the kind.
        Additionally, there is no place provided for people to cast a percentile vote for who agrees or disagrees.
        Moreover, throughout its entirety, Lauren Sandler the writer of this article continuously comments on those that disagree in the very negative sense.
        This site is exclusively reserved for people that have chose to be childfree and those in support and respect of their choice.
        Obviously, it is a spot given totally to them and intended to be an un-bias site where they can come together with likeminded couples to enable them to share their personal reasons for making
        their choice.
        Having said that, your claim that its open to all bloggers for discussion to state why or why not they do or don’t agree, is at its best absolutely absurd!
        Quite the contrary, the writer plainly states in paragraph 3, “The decision to have a child or not is a private one.”
        Consequently, you have displayed yourself quite a spectacle on this site, the prime example of the type of people the writer so elaborately complained about.
        Throughout your entire unwelcomed blogging, as you acted as such an intellect, you mercilessly hacked away at the poor lady that said she dodged a bullet, as though you could not comprehend the simple phrase.
        Just as you continuously pretended not to understand what people were saying to you.
        You understood the phrase just fine, it was a pathetically poor excuse to get on here with your over bearing drama!
        After all, it wasn’t the bullet woman (as you called her) that you first replied to on this site. It was Lea, a lady who simply said she didn’t want to have children!
        Yet the so-called bullet woman told her story on this very site but oddly enough you said nothing to her while claiming all the while she was the one you had a problem with.
        Yes we all read your hair-brained story. From the way you made it sound, you had been blogging back and forth with her quite a bit on another site, and yet you just can’t remember what her name was?
        If that were the case you would have stayed right there hammering away at the keyboard as your pipe so to speak to continuously run that bucket mouth of yours!
        She said she did not get an abortion in the first place. That speaks volumes to me. She did not believe in abortion obviously! What does the phrase mean?
        For pity sakes, you mean to tell me you have 12 children (I doubt) and you’ve never heard the expression you can’t dodge a bullet?
        Its used to express many different situations regarding responsibility.
        In this lady’s case her pregnancy was like a bullet she could not dodge, there was no way around it as abortion was not an option for her.
        This is what people call biting the bullet, which simply means you have to take the responsibility. You cannot dodge responsibility just as you cannot dodge a bullet. Just as some parents tell their grown child who wants to move back home, “You’ve made your bed (the marriage bed, they got married) now sleep in it. Don’t bring your marriage troubles home to me. You are grown now, take responsibility and work it out.
        However, for this lady the unexpected happened, she had a miscarriage and so in her case it was as though she had dodged a bullet.
        Someone opinionated like you cannot possible understand how she must have felt! Obviously, she had felt an obligation to her unborn child and was ready to take on the maternal responsibility of raising, caring for and loving her child. She had to have love in her heart for the child in order to have respect and regard for his or her life.
        All women go through post-partum from their pregnancies, full term or not but with a miscarriage they suffer a loss. Just because she didn’t care to reveal every detail, it by no means expresses that she was heartless!
        Likewise, just because she may be recovering from it and decided to take it with grace by accepting the fact that it must not have been meant, that gives you no right to decide what kind of person she is! For all you know her blog could have been a way to help her with her healing process by reaching out to others who feel as she did before she became pregnant.
        If telling herself it must have happened for a reason because she didn’t want to be a mother in the first place helps her get through it, who are you to tell her differently? Or how could she blog on a site filled with people like you and have any hope of being understood?
        She blogged on a site she knew would understand and their you were to cast your big ugly stones!
        Moreover, you want to talk about tactless distastefulness as you spew sarcasm like an open sewer and simultaneously claim to be a Christian. Accusing people of having too much fun replying to your remarks for you to get off, when it was clear they just wanted you off the site.
        You obviously believe that your sheer hypocrisy is very tactful and downright tasty! Well its not, it stinks like dung and you are loaded with it!!!

        • kathiemarshall

          Good grief. I keep getting these annoyed comments in my email.

          This article was posted to a Catholic website that I frequent. I don’t happen by this website, never heard of it, and could care less to hunt it down. I clicked on the link, read the article and responded and then simply responded back to each and every comment sent my way which appeared in my email inbox.

          I am desperately sorry if I have upset the peace. I had no idea a different viewpoint could ruffle so many feathers. It’s a good thing you are at such peace in your convictions. I can really see that by your responses.

          I will refrain from responding to any more of your emails. Please leave me alone as well.

          • Valerie Pittman

            You have a lot to say for someone who supposedly is asking to be left alone.
            I was just on an entirely different site concerning Paula Dean when I was alerted that you have a message for me?
            I don’t have the slightest idea what your e-mail address is. Yet, you made it sound as though I e-mailed you.
            If my post went to your e-mail, it is only because you set it up that way. Which then makes it absolutely ridiculous to complain about it sense you obviously wanted it that way.
            I am 50 years old & in all my years of experience on the Internet, never have I ever witnessed anyone complain from getting unwanted replies from self setup, automatic e-mails.
            Correction, I have heard of it one time. It was several months ago but what vividly stands out in my recollection is that even so, it was reported to be a very young teenage girl, & I OF COARSE was referring to adults.
            On the other hand, concerning you, I actually find my mentioning the young girl quite fitting.
            I mean, after all your complaint was actually so similar to hers. In all actuality, one could say with certainty it identifies you as sharing common ground with her.
            Unfortunately for you, it just so happens that this common ground that I am referring to is immaturity!
            The basic story is about a young teenage girl that went on a friendly parenting site about tips for mothers with young children.
            Posing as a mother herself who was in absolute opposition, she sent several rude posts to the commenters who had found the article helpful.
            However, when a frustrated mother posted a reply, she asked them, ” Why are all of you people sending me mean e-mails? I’m just a kid, I’m only 15 years old, & I don’t even know you!”
            Now, considering that every commenter on the site joined this lady’s view in making similar comments of their own regarding it as a serious lack on the teenagers part.
            Comments such as, I understand she is just 15 & would have a problem with unfriendly e-mails from people like if someone else gave out her e-mail address.
            What I don’t get though is how she could act upset when she was the one that selected it.
            Here’s what one commenter had to say, Oh definitely,that’s an offered feature that you don’t just get automatically. It takes some doing. You have to go into the setup of it and then select it in order for replies to your posts to come to your e-mail.
            Here’s another comment, I don’t get it either, how she could expect to send hateful posts and then act surprised that she actually got one back.
            Another commenter said, After all, this is not a small child were dealing with here. Who maybe happened to run over to their parent’s computer only long enough to type a short sentence. Like, while their mom was out of the room momentarily to get something out of the refrigerator.”
            Another said, Oh I agree,this is a teen who obviously has spent a lot of time on the Internet because she knows how to use a computer too well to be just viewing sites for school.
            Another said, Of coarse, she’s probably on it a lot while her parents are gone to work.
            Last comment, Well yeah, she’s obviously learned how to set up a private e-mail address for herself. Reading articles not for school but as if she’s grown, and posting her own comments.
            Understand Kathie, this is unheard of even from a teen.
            People are astounded, so where do you think that leaves peoples impression of you?
            You’ve disgracefully used God along with claiming to be a Christian as a right of way to plaster your controversial views to various bloggers on a private site.
            Then you had the audacity to act with such hair-brained disbelief that you could possibly receive objecting replies.
            That is a contradiction in itself & without hesitation I don’t mind rebuking you just as the great Apostle Paul rebuked Peter, because he was to be blamed!
            Galatians 2:11
            You see, unlike you I am very well versed & never do I use the Scriptures without quoting the book,chapter & verse.
            Also, someone (an apposing fellow catholic) posted this site onto a catholic site you frequent?
            So you acknowledged the realization of it being an entirely different site. Yet then self contradictorily described it as though it was a minor mishap that you simply clicked on the link, read their private blogs to one another and then carried on at them, beating them down in the name of God and Christianity.
            You threw around unauthorized authority of The Word of God.
            Although you admitted that you are neither anointed nor well versed in the Scriptures, in other words the subject you claimed to know so much about.
            My husband and I were called years ago into the ministry.
            I watched in horror as a couple of these precious souls that you were offending & confusing went from saying they think they believe in God to saying they were atheists!
            Additionally, two woman who said it wasn’t like they believe in abortion they just were not planning to have children, ended up saying they wouldn’t hesitate in getting an abortion.
            You used a ridiculously, sin- filled
            sarcastic apology to me that’s utterly swimming in hypocrisy. As if it granted you an open door to heap yet more false accusations you so relish to fling at people on this site!
            So I ask you, 11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Also, read the rest of this chapter.
            It describes the way your behaving as not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. James 3:11-18
            You have no idea what kind of convictions I have but was angry because I rebuked you, which is what the Word of God tells me to do. 1 Timothy 5:20 2 Timothy 4:2
            Not only are you not well versed but your poorly equipped in the knowledge of history as well.
            You mentioned Hitler and Stalin as though Catholicism had nothing to do with it.
            I was not trying to offend you when I said what I did about dung. I thought that you would understand what I meant when I said you are loaded with it. I meant false doctrine, its in the Word of God.
            Anyway, I don’t have a problem with receiving posts from you. I just desperately wanted you to get off of those people.

          • kathiemarshall

            Valerie, I don’t care about your annoyance with me. I thought I would have things sent to my email if there was interesting discussion. People are claiming I am seeking out these discussions when I am realty just checking my email!

            Maybe you ought to move on! I have.

          • Valerie Pittman

            Hi Kathie,
            You said, “I don’t care about your annoyance with me.”
            Funny you say that, I don’t think that is what I implied.
            You said, “I thought I would have things sent to my email if there was interesting discussion.”
            To begin with, I sent only 1 post, a long post in which I said everything I had to say but left it open to response.
            I made a lot of interesting (but more importantly truthful) points that could have generated a very positive thankful response from you had you chose to look at it the right way.
            Points in which the two of us could have ended up having a very civil, even nice discussion over. Or you could have chose to not respond, the choice was yours.
            I understand I came over very strongly. Therefore, you should have considered that I am just as concerned with your soul as the people I so defended.
            Instead you complained of getting annoyed emails as though that were the purpose of my post and only you can post your views.
            Realizing this, I posted a second one in which I not only elaborated on the first post to convey my meaning but explained my intentions by stressing my concerns.
            I also gave you Scriptures concerning rebuke so that you would clearly understand it was not out of a self motive but duty from an obedient servitude to God as I also told you we are ministers. I stressed concern for you personally as I referenced your post about Hitler and Stalin.
            Then you posted, “I don’t care about your annoyance with me.”
            Having a shepherds heart to the point that you’ll rebuke someone because you care enough to tell them their wrong does not describe an annoyance.
            Read what Jesus did Matthew 21:12-13 Mark 11:15-17.
            Ministers especially are to strive to be Christ like, it is a Commandment for us to rebuke when its in order.
            Please understand, disputing and strife is wrong in the first place.
            What happened when you began disputing? First people began to have strife toward you. They began bating you with questions & luring you in to a trap so they could be hateful.
            16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. James 3:16
            You don’t think it bothered me that some were sending you posts that were filled with strife, confusion and evil at every turn.
            Better to receive a harsh but godly rebuke from a Christian for your own good,(As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Revelation 3:19) than to be meat for the sharks.
            That it will shut the mouths of your accusers because I did not know who else would visit this site.
            14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
            15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, Philippians 2: 14-15
            You thought I was defending the Godless God haters with filth in their mouths?
            Kathie no, there were well mannered pleasant people, including an infertile fellow Catholic that you were offending terribly.
            10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2:10
            In His Word God also gives many warnings of woes concerning offending others. If you would like me to send you some Scripture on that please let me know.
            People that were not capable of having children started feeling that you were using God to put them down and call them all sinners. It went on to the point that I too began looking at it that way.
            However, after thoughtful consideration, I don’t think that at all. I think that you were so focused on the life of the little babies that it was completely unintentional but that is what had everyone on here saying something to you.
            It was, “If you have a physical medical reason why you cannot have kids, do we call them sinners? Of coarse. Many can adopt or offer their services in some other way.”
            I know, I know, you repeatedly explained it wasn’t what you were saying and you couldn’t figure out why it was made such an issue.
            The answer is that, you had elaborated on so many posts about not only the CC teaching on procreation being the sole reason for marriage but also you quite adamantly conveyed you agree.
            You said only those that were physically unable, in other words the CC took pity on, it was a sad sorrow. It was like you were saying the CC turns down there nose to them though in pity sense marriage was for procreation and sense they are unable to procreate, the CC neither recognizes nor blesses their marriage.
            I understand what you were saying though, they see that as the only excuse.
            But if you really look at that in light of truth then actually the CC doesn’t recognize their marriage as sacramental or licit, sense they believe the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate, through the having of children is what makes them see it as sacramental.
            I’m just trying to help you see it like it came across to others, how they saw it.
            So if that is the only excuse recognized by the CC, where does that leave the ones who absolutely don’t have the money to have a baby? In their opinion they were being called sinners whether you actually said you are all sinners or not because you said that’s what the CC teaches and you agree with this teaching.
            So although you plainly said it was a typo mistake & you meant to say of coarse not, you went on to say in other posts, that you agree with this teaching.
            Actually, you kind of went back & forth on it saying on some posts its not what you believe, its only what your faith teaches. It was on one of those that you mentioned your brother in-law & his wife I believe it was, how they did not plan to have children and you said that you are fine with it.
            However, on other posts you seemed to adamantly agree with your religion on this teaching.
            How much more confusing do you think it was for some of these nice people on this site to basically be told that your religion condemns them for not having children no matter how badly they may want them?
            I guess I was hoping you would apologize, just to the nice ones of coarse, to give them a little closure.
            I’m not the kind of woman who would want to be in a public place with toilet paper hanging out of my clothing and not be told.
            I understand that everyone doesn’t feel the same though.
            So where does that leave some of the rest of these people who’s reason is other than a physical medical inability? What about a financial inability?
            As you know Kathie, we are living in a terrible recession.
            Many of our jobs have been shipped off to other country’s. Entire warehouse business’s with multiple buildings each belonging to one single business.
            Plants that allowed hands on training were ripped away from the American people who it historically belonged to and handed over to foreigners.
            While other business’s from big to small have closed down for financial reasons.
            For some, it was the only job experience they had & they are unable to afford a college scholarship.
            This is the story of a bright young man in his 20’s I met only a year ago. He thought he had been one of the fortunate ones to have parent’s that set up a hard earned lifelong college fund since his infancy.
            He received training for a particular job field, went on to receive a good paying job, all to turn right around and lose it not even a year later do to a business collapse.
            He had gotten married & his wife had not went to college or gotten a job because they agreed since dating in high school that he would have a good enough paying job.
            They had both been raised with old school values by their parents and believed a women’s place was in the home, having children, caring for and raising them, a full time mom.
            They were currently trying to have a child when he lost his job. They lost all their health insurance and was facing foreclosure on their house.
            No offence intended Kathie but what would your religion say to this young man.
            Go ahead and get your wife pregnant, have the baby and let Family & Children Services come take the baby away for child neglect, lack of proper resources?
            I truly feel this teaching of your church became a little confusing to you too when you began seeing at least a few of these peoples life story unfold where they absolutely could not have children for a reason other than physical.
            Most birth control methods does not end a life but only prevents conception. It can’t end a life that was never there.
            You said, “People are claiming I am seeking out these discussions. When I am in reality just checking my email.”
            I am so sorry to hear that Kathie, & if its any consolation to you, I understand that’s all that your doing.
            You said, “Maybe you ought to move on! I have.”
            That’s ok, I think that I have already covered that.

          • kathiemarshall

            Valerie, I can respond to you. I can’t right now. I have to help with homework and get kids to bed. But I can respond later. thanks, Kathie

          • kathiemarshall


            Here is my story: I went on my Catholic website, Spiritdaily.org to browse articles and one link was, “Having it all without having babies,” (I think). I chose to read it. I assumed it was like a USA today article with people able to post comments below it. I do not know what site I linked to, or if it was any kind of blog for people supporting each other in not having kids. I read the article and was quite turned off by the woman they chose to do the story on and be a symbol for those choosing not to have kids.

            Whatever you may think of her, I happen to have thought her words were tacky and I said so. (By the way, you went on and on saying about all these poor people with infertility, and happen to miss the fact that her happiness over a miscarriage is an insult to those who would desperately love to be pregnant.)

            I never read all the posts. I only ever read comments back to me that came in my email. So, when you wanted to let me know about how people were comparing me to a little kid, etc. I just never read that stuff.

            I also never said that the CC believes marriage is only for procreation. I took pains to explain that although people tend to read what they want. It has a dual purpose is what I said. It is the place that God intended for children to be raised. And it is also for the growth in holiness of the spouses; to become a domestic church, to empty themselves for each other (and their kids) and simply to be their vocation and pathway to heaven. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church and I understand it and agree with it.

            Also, I made a type in that one instance. Why bring it up? I have never believed nor even entertained any sort of thought that an infertile person is a sinner, they are not condemned by me or by the Catholic Church and I never even began to intimate that in anything I wrote. I know that I could not possibly intimate that because I have never believed it. Their marriages are fully sacramental marriages.

            The point with my brother in law is that I don’t run around throwing my opinion in people’s faces at each opportunity. But I THOUGHT I had read an article whose topic was remaining childless and so I (apparently mistakenly) assumed I could give my differing opinion. I still do not really understand if that site is a newspaper, a blog or what. I have never gone back on it.

            I understand about calling people to repentence but I don’t do it in the way you do it. In fact I rarely do it. Probably with my kids mostly I suppose (and yes, I do have 12 kids — I thought I read somewhere you saying “I doubt it”). I would not painstaking take several paragraphs to tell someone all the criticisms of others and so on. If I want to correct someone at all, I usually put myself in their shoes and ask myself how it will sound if I am that person and if it would encourage me to be sorry. The comments I made regarding this article and the conversations that ensued do not qualify for that. I assumed these people could handle hearing my point of view. And if some Catholic fellow who was infertile was offended by what I said (do you refer to the sterilized man?)… then if he is Catholic, he should take it up with his church because it would be his own church who calls sterilization a grave sin but infertility a cross to bear.

            The reason you can’t follow my points and what I am saying is because you are not familiar with the teaching of the Catholic Church in the area of marriage and sexuality. It is some of the best and most beautiful teaching around. I took pains to explain it in an objective sense and failed at charity when some really annoyed person would start name calling and maybe I responded somewhat in kind, maybe calling a person infantile or something. Guilty of that I suppose.

            But to the nature of the points about the teaching of my Church, I do not apologize for that. I don’t apologize for telling people about being open to life as just another way of living and looking at the value of life. Those kind of statements ought to be far less offensive to an infertile couple than one who is happy about losing her child.

            Maybe someday you can actually take the time to read the full teachings and understand what I was talking about. The adults on that page or blog or whatever it was ought to be able to take what I was saying if they are truly convicted by their childlessness. I said nothing whatsoever degrading to infertile couples. And those who embrace childlessness should be able to handle another viewpoint.

            take care, Kathie

          • Valerie Pittman

            Hi Kathie,
            The name of this article is “Having it all without having children.”
            The main subject and topic of this article is women who choose to be childfree.
            It shows the majority of American’s view who believe woman should have children vs. 30% & counting who have chose to be childfree.
            It tells about statistics taken through the years shows that out of the majority that believe woman should have children, some say they believe having it all means having children.
            While many went as far as saying they felt that couples could not have it all unless they had children.
            Some even said, no couple without children can have it all.
            It tells about the life long struggles of couples without children in a very opinionated country that’s always either showing them unwanted pity or turning their noses down to them.
            Lauren Sandler goes into lengthily detail to describe the views of the childless and childfree through their eyes of the possibility of having it all without having children.
            This article is not pushing a limited bias view in order to encourage woman to not have children.
            On the contrary, rather it says its a very private personal decision whether or not a couple decides to have children or not to have them.
            I don’t know how you’ve missed the boat concerning the topic of this article and neither has anyone else on this site.
            This article is not a pro abortion site to encourage woman to have abortions. Or as you said, to encourage them to not have children.
            Rather it gives due recognition to couples that have made a conscious responsible choice.
            Couples that undoubtedly know they do not want to have children (unwilling to). For responsibly choosing then to not get pregnant.
            The millions of abortions occurring in America every year by mindless idiots. Who never took time to make up their mind, does not make up this low minority 30% who have made a smart conscious choice.
            This article covers a wide range of views, with many story’s or opinions listed. It gives each persons name and follows with their views or brief story.
            You keep saying they used a woman who had a miscarriage to do the story on as a role model or symbol for those choosing to not have kids.
            Kathie, anytime one person & their story is the main subject of an article, they always list them in the heading. Like they briefly cover the topic & then say the persons name and here’s her story or they just begin to tell about it.
            The main story & of coarse longest is about Laura Scott.
            Who at the age of 14 while washing dishes with her mother decided she did not want to have any children.
            It tells about how she got married when she turned 26.
            The first entire two good sized paragraphs are on her & never does it mention a miscarriage.
            It goes on to tell many brief story’s or views of various people, including a stupid scientific research study about women that don’t have children are smarter.
            Lesbians who are now having kids & the topic is not any more about them as the little piece that mentions the woman who had a miscarriage!
            How you think this woman is the main topic is beyond me.
            Maybe you should go back over this article and take the time to really observe the topic so that you’ll get the jest of the entire article.
            Not to be unkind but maybe you could take an English class during the day while your kids are at school.
            Or perhaps an online study coarse to reacquaint you with things to this nature. You know- Title, topic, heading, first paragraph or two being about the main subject & so
            forth. No puns intended here.
            After the article, then came the comments. It was going quite nicely until youaremisinformed posted a rude posting to Natasha.
            After Her and another lady posted her back though, the comments stayed pleasant until you came on the scene.
            I am sorry that you don’t seem to understand my views or anyone else’s on this site.
            People got what you said about the woman who miscarried, they said so.
            People also tried to tell you it was not the subject, it was about those that choose for whatever reason to be childfree and that is what they were going to talk about.
            Some people came right out and told you the topic was not about religion or a miscarriage and they were sticking to the issue at hand.
            Oh, I went on and on? What a hoot, Lol. about poor people with infertility issues? No, I put unable to financially right in there with it but if it makes you feel better to say it go ahead, my posts show otherwise.
            Also Kathie, I only sent 3 posts about it though. At least I was on the subject as this article covered the childless and the childfree due mainly to our economy collapse.
            No, I did not happen to miss the fact that her happiness over her miscarriage would be an insult to those who desperately would love to be pregnant.
            I just happen to disagree with your new & changed meaning interpretation of what dodged a bullet implies.
            As this meaning is never a description of happiness but relief. This expression’s root meaning is grounded in an actual act of gunfire and comes directly from being under gunfire and the nervous shaking relief.
            I felt agitated & sick over it when I read she said she wanted an abortion. Sense it seems so important for you to know but again it wasn’t the topic.
            Nevertheless, she changed her mind & was going to have the baby and that is all that matters.
            I just don’t take the first thing said and run with it, just as you asked someone on this site not to do it to you.
            Your wrong Kathie, I was thinking about the childless on this site. How that they were trying to look at their situation as for the best because of the economy we live in but couldn’t because you continued to make it stick out like a sore thumb. Although, I know it was never intentional.
            More replies on the rest of what you had to say later, have to go for now.

          • kathiemarshall

            You know, Valerie, I thought I might answer your lengthy emails since you seemed so interested in getting me to see the error of my ways. You characterized yourself as a Christian woman following the biblical approach of calling someone out on their sin and calling them to repentence.

            I only read your response you just sent as far as “maybe you should take an English class while your kids are at school during the day.” I need read no further.

            That sarcasm is not characteristic of any biblical prototype.

            I maintain my view that openness to children is God’s plan. I have no apology and if it was misplaced commentary on that site, is it really the end of the world?

            I think the control freak here is the one who needs to make sure I finally say, “you’re right and I was wrong.” I think you should call someone else to repentence because this sinner isn’t listening anymore.

          • Valerie Pittman

            I am so sorry your feelings were hurt, honestly this was never my intention.
            I felt saying things like, not to be unkind, reacquaint, and no puns intended was more than adequate to show my intentions were only meant as an aid for your good.
            Reacquaint, in other words I was not saying that you are stupid or never learned it.
            Many people forget things they learned as they tend to get on with their lives. Of a certainty, this is nothing to be ashamed of, offended or angry about.
            I’ve never heard of any parent, (teachers included) when helping with their children’s homework that never felt at a loss at least at some point in time.
            I never meant an entire English class study coarse to learn the entire subject. I said an English class or online study coarse to reacquaint you with things to this nature.
            In other words, a very short refreshers coarse just to refresh your memory to recall and recognize what you’ve learned in past experience.
            People on this site took you as being a control freak imposing a view that had nothing to do with the topic, and it appeared you were going to go on until everyone said you were right and everyone else was wrong.
            I am the only person on this site who saw the real problem and cared enough to tell you about it, and for this you are angry at me and terribly offended?
            Also, I sent you a very nice post, yet you brought it up again about the woman who had a miscarriage. I could have took you as a control freak but I did not.
            You said, “I maintain my view that openness to children is God’s plan. I have no apology and if it was misplaced commentary on that site is it really the end of the world?”
            It is really hard for me to imagine how you’ve come to the conclusion that I disagree with your view, most especially expect you to apologize for it.
            In fact your view concerning children is the primary reason that your the only one on this site I’ve cared to take out time for.
            I saw you as someone very intelligent with some good morals who has a very zealous love for children that I much admire, just a little misplaced & could use some guidance.
            I did not rebuke you because I thought you a sinner, rather that you were unintentionally causing others to sin and we can be held accountable for that.
            So I took you under my wing, and yes to show you the error of your ways (not as a sinner) because I feel your worth it. I thought that you understood that as I quoted the Scripture 19 as many as I love, I rebuke and chasten.
            Revelation 3:19
            I have an enormous burden and zealous love for Catholics, they try so hard & if you really think I am not familiar with the teachings of the Catholic church truly you are mistaken.
            I am very well educated in the Catholic church teachings.
            I have many years of extensive exhaustive research and study under my belt. I am well equipped, that I could teach you a lot of things that I am sure you don’t know about it.
            I think your a very remarkable woman Kathie, you stand out to me from a lot of people. Please don’t ever think that I feel otherwise.
            Have a very nice day today Kathie, and hold your head up as you go about your day, you mean a lot to God.

          • kathiemarshall

            Valerie, I do not understand you or what you are about. I didn’t “go on and on till everyone agreed with me.” I wrote back when someone responded to me. I could’ve exhausted every comment on the site and blasted every last person but I didn’t even check, with the exception of comments to me, which arrived in my email.

            I am well-equipped in English. I have a college degree from UofM and I homeschool my kids (some and some have at high school level) and I have taught them English and am able to teach at high school level. I do not have any deficiency in that area, except that I may read too fast.

            I am not sure what you could teach me. I know my mind, I’ve studied my faith. I understand fraternal correction, but it should at the very least not sound offensive or drawn out in its criticism.

            I am absolutely sure that not everyone will agree with me on that site nor will even probably one person agree. But I’ll still let them know what I think is true and good.

            Why are you spending your time reading and responding to those blogs/articles or whatever it is anyway? Mine only started as a human interest read from a Catholic website.

            That’s great that you have a heart for Catholics. But we more than “try so hard.” We are members of the very Church which Jesus began.

          • Valerie Pittman

            Wow, I had to take a break from you, your last 2 posts is so out there.
            You obviously don’t know what the bible has to say about how to behave toward a minister and don’t care.
            Romans 13:1-7
            Who ever said anything about fraternal correction? That would be in your religion a fellow religious on your level!
            I plainly said I rebuked you!
            There was a twofold reason that I posted that initial rebuke. 1 reason is because I thought from reading & getting a feel of your posts that I was dealing with an intelligent person that was using it to spin a vicious web on this site.
            That for a pretense of such zealousness for children, in all actuality was an advertisement & brag of your religion.
            My reasoning at that time was, how is it that what started out with you claiming you only wanted to share a simple view, could turn into what appeared to be a continuous holier than thou coming across your posts… Unless it was intentional.
            It did not sound like a mere personal view spoken in humility and kindness. Rather, as though you were out to prove something using your religion & so-called Christianity to beat everyone over the head.
            It was like, well the Catholic church says this… so that makes me right! The Catholic church says that… so that makes me right! The Catholic church teaches this… so that makes me right!
            The concept was, My dog is bigger than your dog so that makes me right!
            However, I did feel you truly zealous of children, I felt you used it for a pretense to act holier than thou.
            The other reason for my initial rebuke was for your best interest. I thought you as someone intelligent who knew better than to behave the way you were, so you would understand it. A person with some moral values, & not just a waste of my time but possibly worth it.
            Since then I have sent several nice posts, especially the last one so why can’t you get past it?
            I have took out time to give to you a lot of “drawn out” (as you put it) helpful information but why?
            Simply because you have sent replies not only portraying yourself as someone hurt by it, with much difficulty in understanding the biblical purpose of it. You have responded also as one who is not capable of grasping the main subject & concept of this article.
            So if my posts are “lengthy”, its only because you’ve acted as though you are incapable of understanding anything.
            Moreover, now in your last post your telling me you have a U of M college degree, home school some of your children, in which some are at high school level, (surely it is what you meant to say) so that you are able to teach at high school level.
            Yet, in your previous post you basically said you missed the (entire) commentary (your words not mine) as you snap at me, “is it really the end of the world?”
            Um, yeah it is for you from the sound of it, you were pretty sensitive about it.
            Yes, yes I’ve seen it all, your only problem is that you type too fast, is why you made that itty bitty typo mistake calling
            everyone sinners! Your only deficiency is that you read too fast, is why you miss ENTIRE COMMENTARYS, no big deal though!
            Oh yeah, we could all see it was just a typo mistake by reading the next line! Where you said, “Many can adopt,” right after saying “if they are physically unable to have children do we call them sinners? Of coarse we do. (next line) “Many can adopt.” So in your own words, anyone who doesn’t have children is a sinner, even if their physically unable because they can still adopt so that they are without excuse in your opinion!
            Yes you did, you called everyone on this site, even those unable to have children sinners!
            Revelation 21:8 You see Kathie? It says and all liars! It is not a little menial sin as your man made doctrine teaches and there is no stupid purgatory. It is the second death!
            The first death is physical but for those that obeyed His Commandments, they shall not suffer the second death but will have everlasting life eternal.
            Those that disobeyed will receive the second death. Its a spiritual death, the final Judgment, where they are permanently cut off from God, and cast into the lake of fire of everlasting punishment!
            Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: This means that people have but their lifetime to live for God or not! No additional time is given. No one goes to a place called purgatory.
            All people when they die rest in their graves, Christians and non Christians alike until Judgment Day!
            More in my next post.

          • kathiemarshall

            Valerie, I did not call everyone sinners. I made a typo. Would not be so schizophrenic to say one thing then decide to take it back by lying. Read Catholic doctrine (it’s what I believe, no more, no less, nothing sinister and evil).

            I am not sure why I would possibly pursue this conversation with a total stranger telling me how nuts, ignorant and “out there” I am. I cannot respond to your comments anymore.

          • Valerie Pittman

            The only reason I went back to my original impression is because I had posted some nice helpful comments but you couldn’t seem to get past my initial rebuke to see that.
            I posted the nice comments because I thought I was mistaken about you and that you were just a little mixed up.
            Even when you kept posting off the wall rude replies, falsely accusing & name calling, I apologized though I had done nothing wrong.
            Nevertheless, the reply you sent was more than uncalled for, it was terribly distasteful and shabby to say the very least!
            What else was I to think of someone who portrayed themselves confused. All to turn it all around and brag about a U of M college degree, home schools her children at high school level and says she has no deficiency in that area. But not only that, you just had to bring your religion into it again, and knowing I’m a minister you dare to insult my faith by saying you are members of the very Church which Jesus began.
            I just saw another post of yours telling me “Read Catholic doctrine.
            What part of I know the Catholic teaching did you not get?
            I told you that before I posted the last comment.
            I have a much better idea, as you said your not well verse in the bible. So why don’t you 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workmen that needeth not to be ashamed, rightfully dividing the word of truth.
            Otherwise, its really not fair or honest of you at all to bellow & holler that you are members of the very Church which Jesus began is it? When you don’t even have a clue of what Christ’s and his apostles doctrine is.
            I never once called you nuts. I did mention ignorant but with a U of M college degree I’d think that you would understand this does not in any wise imply stupidity.
            As for whether or not you feel that you can or cannot respond to my comments anymore, that’s your choice.
            But it is absolutely my prerogative to post the amount of replies I deem fit on this site to your claim of being members of the very Church in which Jesus began.

          • kathiemarshall

            I am not a terrible person. I have a rather hard time following your comments. Perhaps I read fast because having 12 kids I am always in a hurry. I did not know you were a minister. I respect all people, but I will still respectfully adhere to the belief that the Catholic Church is the one church of Jesus Christ. If I believe that, but I hide my belief depending on who I talk to, then I do my own beliefs a disservice.

            I have had Catholic/Protestant debates. I read all about my faith and tried to understand the teachings starting in my 20’s to this day (for over 20 years now) because I wanted to understand how the Church can claim these various beliefs that Protestants do not hold. I have been satisfied in every circumstance on the answers/reasons/bases given. I am completely convinced and without contention can have that debate if you want to, though I will only be able to post shorter replies here and there due to time. By the way, Valerie, I take it you are not from the US? Some of your language sounds a little different here and there. take care, Kathie

          • Valerie Pittman

            Why would you think that I am not from the U.S just because I am very well versed and fluent in the Scriptures. Just because I may show a bit of the original language translated into English. Or of names, how they originally appeared for proper pronunciation?
            I was born and raised here in the U.S.
            If anything, I would think you a Roman the way you have betrayed your own country’s Christian faith to vow an allegiance to a foreign country’s doctrine of devils and idolatry.
            But why do I get the impression that you don’t even know what I am talking about?
            Perhaps because, not only is it obvious that you have not
            bothered to learn the Holy Scriptures, Original True World History or even American History concerning this subject.
            But you are adamant about adhering to that religion simply because you have read about it and “you have been satisfied” in all circumstance on the answers/reasons/bases given?
            Wow, just let “self satisfaction” be your guide (more like your god) not truth.
            If you were an experienced banker who only handled authentic money. Just as I from a young child have learned the Holy Scriptures along with our true World History. Both myself and you the banker alike would immediately recognize any counterfeit.
            This is how it ought to have been done, and not the other way around.
            You said, ” I am completely convinced (you mean completely brain washed) and can have that debate with you if you want to.”
            I thought I did, I guess you read it to fast to see that I sent you numerous Scriptures proving your religions doctrine very contrary to it.
            In Paraphrasing, you said to an infertile woman offended by your posts, “If anything, you should have been insulted by the remark made by the woman who described her miscarriage as something joyful.”
            Why can’t you apply that same thread of sense to this situation instead of disagreeing with me? Because truly if anything, you should be insulted and sickened by the thought that you’ve been completely side blinded by a religion that not only is contrary to God Almighty’s Word but thus opposes it.
            Yes, I can debate with you Kathie but while I have selfless responsible reasons for my faith that is pleasing to God, what point is there in sharing it with you if your not even going to read it?
            Besides, your debate is not with me anyway, its God and His Word that you are offering to debate with.
            But I will send you some more information and you are free to except it or reject it, ask questions or say why that you disagree with God’s Holy Word and our true History.
            Good Evening to you Kathie

          • kathiemarshall

            It had nothing to do with your scripture verses at all. It had to do with one comment in which you used a word – wise I think – that I would typically associate with English (country) jargon.

            I read all your verses and have read verses all my life. I can address the Catholic interpretation of them but you would not be open whatsoever if you think that Catholicism preaches “doctrines of devils.”

            Why is your tone so sarcastic? If you are truly a minister, is this really how you relate to people? When I said I was “satisfied” with answers, I meant that they were consistent with Scripture and history and logic. There is nothing contradictory there. They are beautiful doctrines and they make so much more sense in light of scripture and also the witness of the early church fathers. Are you “satisfied” with the logic of your Bible interpretation? I am “satisfied” that I am a member of the very church which Jesus Himself began because history and scripture and the witness of all the saints attest to it. The very canon of the Bible would not exist if it were not for a Catholic council which infallibly defined it and declared it closed. I realize that is offensive to those who hold other views but so what? It is true. And don’t you think it’s hypocritical to act offended because I said that I am a member of the only church which Jesus began but then you turn around and tell me what garbage my church’s belief’s are? A minister should be caring and thick-skinned enough to handle doctrinal disputes.

            I fail to see how my pointing out that a woman who rejoices in a miscarriage is more offensive to an infertile person than a woman who points out that we should be open to life. That’s a “thread of nonsense?”
            well, have a good night.

          • Valerie Pittman

            I might as well point out (while you are accusing me yet again of being sarcastic) that your behavior has reached far beyond a childish manner, for it exceeds ridiculous.
            I do believe it was you that said, “Valerie, I take it you are not from the U.S? Some of your language sounds a little different here and there.”
            Although, here and there means little, it does mean throughout when referring to word form, such as letters, documentations, comments & so forth.
            Hereupon, I reached the sole conclusion that apparently you was referring to my language translations of the Scriptures. Sense this was the particular post of mine in which you made the reply to.
            Obviously, you are too prideful to admit you did not recognize my intent of incorporating a bit of translation into the Scripture text.
            Instead you reach for the ridiculous by saying, “It had nothing to do with your scripture verses at all.
            (Let’s settle something right now Kathie, they are God’s Scripture verses.)
            It had to do with one comment in which you used a word – wise I think -that I would typically associate with English (country) jargon.”
            However, there is a problem with this claim of yours.
            In the first place, the word you are referring to is “anywise” Moreover, it is not in my post you replied to when you, um-you know-thought I wasn’t from the U.S. and said my language was a little different here and there!
            In fact, it is in my last post so it is impossible for that to be the reason that you said it.
            You are a noted – liar – Kathie, so maybe it is – you that is loaded with – gibberish! – You seem to have a – weird language of – your own because surely – you love to try to – confuse – everything! Your motto must be, when all else fails – lie – lie – again!
            Next paragraph, “You have read all my verses and can address the catholic interpretation of it?”
            20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20
            But I would not be open if I “think?” Catholicism preaches “doctrine of devils?” Read 1Timothy 3:3 and then – think Kathie about your church doctrine forbidding all clergy to marry and all including religious to abstain from (red) meats on Fridays, Lent est. Like I said, your argument is with God, this is His Word, His verses.
            My tone if that is how you must put it, is not sarcastic but rather firm toward someone who has continuously been sarcastic to me. This has already been addressed, I posted a reply solely on that subject when you claimed I said you were nuts….
            No, this is only how I relate to hardheaded stubborn people like you Kathie, and yes I truly am a minister. So whether you believe that or not, truly it does not effect my labor of obedience to God.
            They are not consistent with Scripture! I’ve already proven to you how opposing they are with the Scriptures I posted to you. I can send you more….
            There is NO logic in opposing God’s Word, & history? They have rewritten their own versions (some even century’s later from the historian writer’s that lived in that time) to make it coin-side with their teaching. I know this for a fact.
            There is nothing contradictory there?Everything is contradictory there.
            My bible calls it, imposter, wolves in sheep clothing, abominable, blasphemers, reprobate minds, false prophets, false teachers, false Christ’s, greedy of filthy lucre, idolaters, adulterers, est.
            Kathie, you keep saying they are beautiful doctrines but everything that glitters is not gold. I already gave you Scripture on Satan and his ministers. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 Please read it carefully and give this important Scripture a chance to penetrate into your heart.
            You are dealing with seducing spirits and don’t even know it. Everything you say in return to me is based on what this religion has taught you.
            The Holy Scriptures I give you is not what I have been taught by a religion but God’s Word. No I am not simply satisfied, I am overflowing and very blessed with the logic of my bible interpretation because I have the Holy Spirit for The Perfect Teacher. John 14:26
            Consequently, and to your own detriment I might add, you sadly mistook a bold witness of rebuke for sarcasm.
            The history, scripture and the blood of all the saints attest to the fact that your church murdered God’s true Christian saints for 1260 years, & you don’t even know what the Great Reformation was really about.
            Only the lies your religion taught you like about Martin
            Luther, they say that he broke off from the catholic church and started a religion of his own called Protestants & that is the meaning of what the reformation is.
            The very canon of the bible would not exist if it weren’t for a Catholic counsel which infallibly defined it and declared it closed?
            Really? Then tell me Kathie, what did God’s chosen people the “Israelite Jews” live by throughout the entire Old Testament before the “Roman Catholic” began with their so-called claim of Peter being their first Pope, just air?
            If you think this promise was to the Roman church you’d better put on your hard hat because Scripture proves it was to the Jews. Luke 1:65-80 This indeed is God’s holy covenant the oath which he sware to their father Abraham.
            Zach-a-ri’as was Jewish & was speaking by the Holy Ghost.
            Their priests at that time were also Jewish and still living under the Old Testament law because Christ had not died yet.
            This may be a good time to point out that Jesus also was a Hebrew, Israelite Jew, as was his entire family. He and John the Baptist were second cousins,& most of his apostles were Jewish.
            The entire New Testament of Jesus was the manifestation of promised fulfilled prophecy’s of the Old Testament to the Jews not to Romans!
            In fact at that present time, the enemies that God had promised to deliver them from that Zacharias spoke of was militant Roman rule they were presently under.
            Why are you telling me your church doctrine when I already told you I know it?
            You said, “And don’t you think it’s hypocritical to act offended because I said that I am a member of the only church which Jesus began but then you turn around and tell me what garbage my church’s belief’s are?”
            No Kathie, I don’t. Why should I think that?
            Just because you became so big headed that you erroneously imagined I was offended because I agreed?
            Don’t you think that you’ve modeled hypocrisy in the most extreme severity by calling JESUS, THE WORD GARBAGE as you claim to be a member of the very church in which he began???
            The apostle Paul would have rebuked you much worse than I did. Galatians 1:8-9
            What doctrine do you think Paul is talking about here?
            No, sorry Kathie it’s not the Catechism of Roman Catholicism, the counsel of Trent or the Milan Order of Emperor Constantine est.
            Jesus said himself, Revelation 22:12-20
            Also, what about the seven churches (plural) in Revelation chapters 1-3? How about 2:9 here? I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
            Wow, how many Catholic priests and other clergy have we heard fake a Jewish voice claiming to be a Jew.
            I've heard them later talk in a regular American voice when they thought no religious heard them.
            I called a local Catholic church one time just to see if their beliefs were consistent with other states.
            The lady I spoke with was a seminar instructor by the name of Mariam & obviously so proud of her name that she felt the need to tell me its meaning.
            Which, I already knew. She told me she was Jewish & that was the reason for her rich accent but it sounded off to me and kind of creepy.
            We spoke for several minutes and she invited me to call back if I had any more questions. So I did, although they were about to close but I had just one more quick question.
            The office clerk had already left, so who answers the phone, Mariam. I did not even know it was her but she was talking away as though she knew me when I hadn't spoke a word. I didn't suspect it her because this woman had no accent whatsoever.
            I figured she must have been expecting a call because she went on for a good couple minutes before I could get a chance to ask for Mariam. She said, "I'm Mariam." I said, Um no the Mariam I spoke with is a seminar instructor. She said, yes I'm Mariam the seminar instructor. I said, can I speak to the other Mariam?
            She said, I'm the only Mariam that works here, I'm sorry I am expecting a call & I thought you were someone else, can I help you with something.
            I said, Oh, I just didn't recognize you I guess because the lady I spoke with about 20 minutes ago had a Jewish accent & I just called back to ask one more quick question.
            She said, Oh yes I remember you, & suddenly she changed her voice to the weird creepy Jewish accent. Even repeating herself, Oh yes I remember you, and she continued with the fake voice until we hung up.
            I have a bunch of cousins that were born and raised Catholic, 16 all brothers and sisters. I saw them at a family reunion a few years back to find they all had gotten out of the Catholic church after they were grown.
            They said they hated it, & one of their complaints was the fake Jewish voices that some of the clergy use.
            They also complained about many Catholics at banquets and such drink wine like a fish, including the clergy.
            "A minister should be caring and thick-skinned enough to handle doctrinal disputes?"
            How many ministers not of your religion has cared enough to take out the kind of time with you that I have?
            Also, this is the first doctrinal dispute you've given me. All your other posts were mostly beside the point.
            Your last paragraph needs no attention given it. Go back and read what I was saying there because you took what I only used as an example & tried to make a touch down. Leaving the point somewhere in the outfield were you put it. W-e-e-e…..

          • kathiemarshall

            I was specifically referring to the “wise” comment and not the Bible as I realize that people quote from all various Bible translations.

            There is no possible way you are a minister. If you are, you must have a congregation of one. Moving on!!! Happily! You are a very strange person. good night!!

          • Valerie Pittman

            I went back and looked the posts over and saw that I was wrong about when I sent that post, so what.
            Still, the word was anywise, not wise!
            You accused me of calling you nuts & I said, “I never once called you nuts. I did mention ignorant but this does not in any wise imply stupidity.”
            You couldn’t figure out that I bumped the space bar?
            Look at it Kathie it’s just a tiny space, I am so sorry that you had trouble connecting the word!
            Oh I think you know that I’m a minister alright, it’s just that you can’t handle the Scriptures I sent proving your religion false. Or the finally returned sarcasm so long overdue.
            By the way, you couldn’t possibly have a U of M college degree. If you do, you must have been a single person in a special ADHD class.
            To me, my interpretation of you is a very strange post control freak, that repeatedly says your not posting anymore but keeps doing it anyway!
            Why don’t you just leave me alone and let me post unhindered! Is it my fault you have it set to go to your stupid e-mail!
            You wouldn’t even know about my posts if you really don’t come on this site except you make it go to your e-mail.
            How about you take your own advice and really move on this time!

          • Valerie Pittman

            You said, “That’s great that you have a heart for Catholics. But we more than “try so hard.” “We are members of the very Church which Jesus began.”
            I am well aware that your religion claims this. But is it true or untrue?
            So lets go to the very so-called foundation of theirs where they have attempted to stake this claim. Sense this is where all things concerning the Catholic church was claimed to be built upon, came from.
            Lets search the Scriptures together to see where it rides upon, truth or heresy.
            12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
            The word of God will reveal their type of thinking, whether they had honest or dishonest intentions.
            So this claim of theirs when put to the bible test, will do one of two things. It will either confirm your church’s doctrine as true as a rightful shinning lamp or untrue where it will miserably fall under heresy.
            upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
            Matthew 16:18
            What rock, Peter? No! What was the question in the first place? 15 But whom say ye that I am?
            What was the answer? 16 Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. So upon the fact that He is (Jesus the rock), the Christ, He would build His church, upon Himself.
            Look, look! and that Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:4
            Its all through the bible, The Old and The New Testament
            4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. Deuteronomy 32:4
            32 For who is God, save the Lord? and who is a rock, save our God? 2 Samuel 22:32
            Did you get that? No one else can be the rock, only God Himself!
            There are many more Scriptures proclaiming Him to be the rock. What does this rock actually mean?
            26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Psalm 89:26
            So when He said, upon this rock I will build my church He was speaking about Himself, His death bringing salvation.
            For He alone is the Christ, the only Son of the Living God.
            I read where you told someone on this site that your religion started in Acts. No, Peter’s entire preaching was salvation in Christ because he knew that Christ was the rock of his salvation.
            What did Jesus say Peter was? Lets see, 42 Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Ce’phas, which is by interpretation, A stone. John 1:42
            Note the two emphasis here on each of these words, #1
            A stone, not the rock or the stone but A stone.
            #2 Look at the word A, its greatly emphasized with the a capitalized, A to plainly show that Peter was only A stone.
            Ever think that Jesus knowing all things, knew there would come a time when this heresy would arise?
            You should read the first 2 chapters in 1 Peter. In chapter 2:5 it says, 5 Ye also, as lively stones. Notice the also, as he is speaking of himself and all who are chosen of God.
            Christ the (Chief Corner Stone, the Massive) Rock, as an enormous mountain and all they that follow and obey (and don’t stumble at) the word are lively little stones of that Rock.
            Read 2: 6-8, will you stumble at his word (as he is the Word John 1:1-14). Will you stumble at his word so that he is a rock of offence to you or will you obey his word & cling to the Rock of Salvation?
            All religions, no matter how big or small, if their doctrine is contrary to the word of God, they are a false religion.
            Peter was not the Roman Catholic church’s first Pope, he was never a Pope at any time & I will prove this to you biblically that Roman Catholicism religion is based on lies and the truth is not in this man made doctrine.
            What does Peter call himself? Is it Pope Simon Bar-jo’-na? Pope Ce’phas Bar-jo’na? Pope Peter Bar-jo’-na? Or how about, Pope Simon Peter Ce’phas Bar-jo’na the rock, The Shepherd and Bishop of your souls?
            You need to read 1 Peter 2: 24-25 Jesus is the only Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. It is blaspheme to give your popes titles that belong solely to Our Lord, heavenly Father and his Christ.
            Back to the question, what did Peter call himself. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,1Peter 1:1
            Wow, he didn’t even say Peter, The Apostle Of Jesus Christ. He said, an apostle, for there were 12 of them.
            What does 2 Peter 1:1 say? Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ.
            Speaking of The Bishop, Peter was married. Oh but wait, isn’t it the so-called infallible doctrine of the Catholic church that The Pope has to be celibate as becoming Pope but also remain celibate for the entire duration of his office? Wow, I guess Peter really messed that up for you guys didn’t he.
            29 And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. (note its Simon Peter & his brother Andrew’s house) Just pointing that out because I’ve heard Catholics try to say this was the other Simon, not Peter. Reference: Matthew 4:18
            30 But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her. Mark 1:29-31
            38 And Simon’s wife’s mother was taken with a great fever; Luke 4:38-39
            Here it doesn’t say Simon but Peter. 14 And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever. Matthew 8:14-15
            Who’s wife’s mother? Peter’s wife’s mother, Peter’s mother-in-law!
            Lets look a this Bishop thing again concerning Catholic doctrine. This epistle is called Pros Philippesious, “To the Philippians.” The church at Philippi was the first church Paul founded in Macedonia.
            Paul and Ti-mo’-the-us, the servants of Jesus Christ which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: Philippians 1:1 Do you see a problem here? I do.
            Where ever they were received, the apostles founded church’s in much of the Mediterranean, during their lifetime ministry’s.
            They traveled many a roads and countryside to do this and because they could not remain at one church they had founded. But had to continue to other places, they appointed a bishop over each church, with deacons as helpers.
            They labored fervently to establish Christ’s Church to set it in the order as God ordained and this is the requirement of all bishops. 1 Timothy 3:1-6
            The fake bishops of the Catholic religion that they call prelates of a diocese & all popes sense they claim to be the Bishop of bishops, are all required to be celibate.
            By this reason alone, although its only one reason of many, is concrete proof that the Catholic doctrine is not characterized by any biblical prototype!
            4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times
            some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
            2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
            3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them that believe and know the truth.
            4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving;
            5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
            6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things,
            thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
            No office of ministry in the doctrine of Christ and the apostles forbids marriage but rather for bishops and deacons its a requirement.
            popes, cardinals, monsignor, arch bishop, bishops, monks, priests, nuns and anything else I may have left out, all are forbidden to marry by the doctrine of devils Roman Catholic so-called church.
            14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
            15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
            You said, ” I know my mind.” I am sorry that you have put your self opinion and false doctrine on the throne of your heart.
            There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12
            Hopefully for your sake after being shown these truths you’ll put Christ there where he belongs.
            Catholic religion is so contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ and his holy appointed, ordained anointed apostles God breathed doctrine of faith…. That it would take me writing a series of books to cover it all. But I may just do that!
            A bishop is like the pastor of a church. There are five offices of Christ’s One True Church, that he established for the perfecting of the saints.
            This is Ephesians Chapter 4. Paul writes instruction to the called of God to be a minister but also to the saints.
            Verse 1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called.
            Verse 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
            5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
            6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
            10 He that descended is the same also that ascended above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
            11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
            12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ;
            13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:
            14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
            Anything outside of this is false religion doctrine, heresy, fables, apostate
            Now if you knew anything about the bishops of the bible and how they have carried on from that time unto our present day, just as all five offices have.
            You would know that this is what was ordained and anointed of God. The true foundation of the Church and that our Holy Bible is all that is needed or accepted.
            2 Timothy 3:15-17
            Although, I’m sure that you are aware the medical meaning of circumcision & uncircumcision.
            However, you may not know that in the bible, during the time of Moses, God commanded all male Israelites to be circumcised. Not only did God command this but this was a very serious Covenant made between God and his chosen people the Israelites.
            This was very spiritual, for it was a special distinguishing between the Israelites and the heathen Gentiles of all other lands. The Israelites were still abiding by this Commandment during the time of the apostles.
            So lets take a look at Galatians 2:7-9 to see what the apostle Paul is saying here.
            7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
            8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, (Jews) the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
            9 And when James, Ce’-phas, (Peter) and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
            Needless to say, Peter was not a Roman Pope that started the Catholic church! Not even his apostleship was that of the Roman Gentiles. He did not preach to Rome.
            Without controversy, Peter’s sole calling was effectually wrought in God to the apostleship of the Israelite Jews.
            More proof: It was the apostle Paul that wrote the book of Romans that was to the Roman Gentiles.
            More on this in next post.

          • Valerie Pittman

            Hi Kathie,
            If its any consolation to you, no one on here compared you to a little kid, that’s not really what I said.
            You said, “Also, I never said the CC believes marriage is only for procreation.”
            You did word it that way a couple of times but you went back over it fully to say otherwise but by then none of them believed you and that was my point.
            Understand, many people take great offence in a lot of its teaching’s in the first place.
            If you can’t understand the hurt you can cause people by misrepresenting your church then I don’t know what to say to that. Except that everyone on this site except me was truly offended.
            One responder tried to tell you that you were doing more harm than good and you told him to grow up. Which brought more scowl from other responders.
            In a nutshell, when I said in light of truth, IF that’s what the CC teaches then it is what they believe, I meant to the other commenters on this site because of how you first worded it.
            I said if for the commenters benefit to save on their feelings.
            However, sense you want to get all technical about it to say that is not what they teach, is to show you are ashamed of your church’s teaching because unless they’ve changed this in the last decade, they do in fact teach this.
            You said, “Also, I made a type in that one sentence. Why bring it up?”
            My reason is all right there where I mentioned it. Why ask me that question? Its the same point I just made, how people perceived it. I believe I was understanding about it and was just pointing out that was the problem though for you and everyone else.
            23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
            24 For the name of God is blasphemed amoung the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
            Romans 2:23-24
            I understood what you said about your brother the first time you posted it. Again, I was explaining the impression it gave the commenters of this site.
            More replies tomorrow on the rest of what you said, I’m tired. Rest well tonight

      • kat

        Why is there infertility if he wanted us to multiply? We were not brought here to multiply.

        • kathiemarshall

          The Lord has certainly graced humanity with enough fertility to multiply in abundance. Infertility is not the norm although it exists. When a couple is infertile, it is often a cross to bear. Scripture is clear that we must all pick up our crosses and follow Him. Importantly though, we are not reduced to lab rats who must reproduce to increase the subjects of this God. We have dignity of ourselves and are valuable and loved for our own worth.

      • Mikko

        That is your own religious beliefs. We have only one life. I owe it to myself to pursue the interests and pleasures that enrich my life and bring me joy. I have family and friends that have kids. I see their lives and I do not want it. Folks are going broke sending their kids to seven years of school and then supporting them even after they graduate (or flunk out) well into their 20’s and 30’s. Kids have become more of a pain and expense than ever. I do things and pursue interests that folks of kids simply could not.

        • kathiemarshall

          Yes, we certainly have our own choices to make. And we each have the personal freedom to make an assessment about where we came from and where we are going in the next life. As for me, I conclude that this life is not all their is; in fact, it is a tiny blip in eternity and it is best lived for others and not only for ourselves. take care!

  • Natasha

    The issue is that raising children has become a two parent (or worse yet single parent) affair. In other cultures it is a community undertaking. I grew up surrounded by two sets of grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins. They all took care of us collectively and in spurts. My European mother had a year off per child. I have no such luxury and childcare is insanely expensive. As a 35 year old woman in a great marriage and an amazing career I’m hesitant. The society almost punishes women for having children (financially, emotionally, physically) yet looks down on women who don’t have children. We are underinvesting in our children in every way possible. From the moment that the woman gets pregnant by making it costly to give birth, to childcare, education and so forth. It’s not a surprise that people are opting out.

    • Denise

      You have to think about it in terms of market forces, unfortunately. In Europe, because the birth rate is so low, governments are giving women massive benefits and incentives to have children. In Scandinavia, for example, the mother gets a paid year off, subsidised nanny care, etc. In Italy, it’s becoming that way, too. And so on. All this is the direct effect of there being more childfree people in their societies. The more people opt not to have children, the more the government will reward the people who do. Ergo, the more society accepts the childfree and see it as a valid choice, the better off everyone will be!

    • youaremisinformed

      This post strikes me as hypocritical – the critique of (what I’d assume is) American society being too individualistic and unwilling to help is followed by a cost-benefit analysis of why having a child would be too damaging to this individual’s current lifestyle. Furthermore, the argument that we are under-investing in our children sounds a lot more like “it would not be entirely easy for me to raise children.”

      Society doesn’t punish women for having children, but women shouldn’t expect society to reward them for doing so, either. Children are their own reward, and a quintessential piece of the human experience. You’ll never care for anything as much as your own child, and that child will return that love.

      Now, every person has their own utility function. However, if trading off children for the mundane, repetitive, ability to work long hours or grab yet another cocktail at a moment’s notice is more appealing than the ever-changing (and sometimes difficult) ride of parenthood…there’s likely an issue with being able to rationalize the total long term benefit associated with some of the near term costs. It’s why smokers keep smoking.

      I really don’t think it’s a selfish decision, but rather a misinformed or miscalculated decision when women don’t have children. The biggest beneficiary (other than the child) to childbirth is the family the child comes into.

      However, if it’s well thought through and the decision is still made to not have kids, that’s definitely for the best for society. Self-absorbed parents are

      • Natasha

        Your first paragraph implies that you don’t understand the word hypocrisy. The costs support the the prior premise that we don’t take care of children as a society to a necessary extent. You are trying to color facts with political demagoguery. Children are happier and healthier when everyone pitches in to help. Not sure why you find that controversial.

        Secondly society does punish women for having children. Let’s look at costs again which is a factual way to back up arguments with data. US average cost to have a child $30k, cost of a royal birth $15k. US costs to attend university vs costs to attend university in other countries. Why shouldn’t I expect my hard earned tax dollars to go to education and healthcare when I have a child? As opposed to corporate subsidies? Again I’m not sure why you find that controversial. It would benefit your own children.

        Thirdly I never said that I will never have children simply that I’m hesitating to do so because it’s a hard job.

        Finally it’s a pretty dirty dig to misalign women who don’t have children as ‘trading off children for the mundane, repetitive, ability to work long hours or grab yet another cocktail at a moment’s notice’. Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. Everyone has the right to decide what makes them happy in life.

        You are martyrizing yourself for having children. There’s also a lot of envy coming through in your words for those who didn’t make your choices.

        • Rosy

          i agree with u raising a kid is a full time job and youremisinformed is a moron

      • Jessica

        As a 33 year old woman with health issues, a life of my own, and a lack of family due to a less than nice past and childhood of my own, I resent you saying I am misinformed. I choose not to be a mother. In my experience the women this upsets the most are those that wish they had a choice or at least considered the choice, and now want to thrust upon every woman their decisions. There are many people, who want and need different things from life, there is no one right answer for everyone. Hint: flavors other than vanilla ice cream. Natasha is entitled to her opinion. For some of us having a strong partnership, running off on a last minute vacation, having a clean house, sex in the afternoon, an amazing career, or a last minute cocktail is the life we want; the choice isn’t yours to judge. Good luck with your children, I hope you love them regardless their choices.

      • Jill

        I am a 24 year old woman with no plans to have children. I am badgered constantly by friends and family as to why I am not going to have kids. I am dismissed as being immature and told repeatedly that I’ll change my mind, as though I am a small child.

        I completely disagree with the comments that, “You’ll never care for anything as much as your own child, and that child will return that love.” and “I really don’t think it’s a selfish decision, but rather a misinformed or miscalculated decision when women don’t have children. The biggest beneficiary (other than the child) to childbirth is the family the child comes into.”

        Growing up my parents were the happiest of couples UNTIL they had children. It did not enrich their marriage, “youaremisinformed”, it hurt their marriage, and eventually destroyed it. My mother came from a democratic-parenting household and my father came from a totalitarian-parenting household. They could not agree on how to raise the 3 of us and it tore them apart. My father resented my mother because we seemed closer to her and my mother resented my father for all the rules he wanted to impose on us. What started as a loving, communicating, happy couple, disolved into a bitter, tense, quiet, angry marriage because both parents wanted to raise us differently. And it wasn’t for a lack of planning. Both my mother and father said they discussed for 2 years how they wanted to raise kids but said it was very different when the kids actually arrived. So kids did NOT enrich the family they came into. They ended it. Furthermore my grandmother had 4 children and was divorced and became a single mother. She busted her ass and worked 3-4 jobs constantly around the clock to support those 4 kids and then to support the 2 children 2 of them had at extremely young ages… Those kids now hate her and think she was a terrible mother and haven’t spoken to her in 25 years. She’s 85 and my father is the only one of her kids that speak to her. Children do NOT always return that love. Sometimes no matter how much you tried and sacrificed they treat you horribly.

        I did not grow up with good examples of how children enrich lives. I have big plans for my future and my acting career and they do not involve children. That does not make me any less of a woman.

        • regrets

          You are spot on. I regret having kids. I came from a similar background and was guilt-tripped into keeping and raisinh two unplanned pregnancies. My life has been a struggle ever since, and I never felt that sense of joy and love that I was assured would kick in. By the time I acknowledged to myself that I couldn’t do it, it was too late to give them up without fucking them up for life by knowing they were unwanted. It’s all of the attachment and obligation and none of the joy. One is 19 and autistic so I’m probably stuck with him for life. All I have to say is, don’t let anyone give you that bullshit line about fulfillment. Some people, like me, are not emotionally able to be good mothers and if we recognize this and try to avoid becoming g mothers we shouldn’t be treated like horrible people. My cats, however, give me unconditional love and joy. Go figure.

          • 25525

            if you regret having kids give them up and kill yourself theirs no need for you on this earth

          • Wow

            ^ So people who don’t want kids should kill themselves?

  • Michele

    I wonder what percentage managed to keep themselves “child free” through abortion of pregnancy?

    • Lily

      Who cares? In the end, they’re still Childfree. How you remain that way doesn’t really matter. I’m Childfree, and if I ever become pregnant, I’ll abort.

    • SamMcCall

      I’m happily married. I use the Paragard Copper T IUD. It has no hormones, a less than 1% failure rate and I love it. My husband will get snipped soon enough but even then, I’m keeping this IUD in for the full 12 years. And if I did get pregnant, I would not hesitate to get an abortion. There’s no shame in that.

    • Blue

      What does it matter? Women who want children abort all the time, so why aren’t you questioning those stats?
      I would have no problem getting an abortion at any time in pregnancy.

  • Guest

    It’s interesting. In Europe, because the birth rate is so low, governments are giving women massive benefits and incentives to have children. In Scandinavia, for example, the mother gets a paid year off, subsidised nanny care, etc. In Italy, it’s becoming that way, too. And so on. All this is the direct effect of there being more childfree people in their societies. The more people opt not to have children, the more the government will reward the people who do. Ergo, the more society accepts the childfree and see it as a valid choice, the better off everyone will be!

  • Denise

    The fact is the Environment can’t sustain so many people, and as a result we are crowding out and killing the animals. In the 1960s, the total global population was 3.5 billion, now 50 years later, we’re at 7 billion. In another 50 years, it’ll be 11-13 billion. If you think about how much a human being consumes in resources in a lifetime, especially in the US, the noble thing is not to have your own kids (or adopt) AND (this is important) to not be afraid to tell other people about the ecological impact of Overpopulation. The animals are worth it for you to break the social code of politeness to mention the Environment and Overpopulation as one of your reasons. Do your part to make people think about it.

  • Blue

    Reading comments posted here and elsewhere, I’ve noticed a common thread; the ones that are doing the judging, name calling, insulting, bingoing and making ridiculous comments are the PARENTS.

    What a great example you must be for your kids! Someone makes a different choice than you (for reasons you won’t even bother to understand), which has absolutely NO effect on you whatsoever and your reaction is to insult them and put them down? My, what a truly godly and loving thing to teach your kids! And then you ask why there’s so much hate in the world today.

    • They’re all jealous haters. They wish they could back in time and not have kids. Why else would they be so damn judgmental and hateful?

      • Blue

        On the whole, I don’t think it’s so much jealousy as a lack of empathy. Many people have a hard time putting themselves in someone else’s shoes. They can’t possibly understand (or respect) a decision different from the one they made. ie It was what they wanted and was great for them, so it must be the same for everyone else.

    • kathiemarshall

      Which thread are you reading? ?????

      • Blue

        I said comments posted here AND elsewhere.

      • Jessica

        It is interesting to me that the parent that is most active here is a Catholic and totally admits this is her personal reason for having children. I would hate to feel that a doctorine was making a choice for me; but that is me, it sounds like you are very happy with your choice Kathie. I hope you understand that for some of us other choice have been made from our experiences. This does not make us wrong or even Godless, just different. In the end we all have to live with our own decisions. I am happily partnered with a man who had his children, I love him very much, and choosing to be with him I knew that meant I wouldn’t have my own children, but I have also never been called to them. Kathie, you should know it isn’t an easy decision. Rarely is it made in haste or by a person due to one of the sins you listed earlier (sloth, vanity, etc.) but often a highly personal and hard decision to make based on a multitude of factors, many I feel you probably have been blessed not to deal with in your life. I wish you and your family well – perhaps today God will call you to do the same for others that have made different choices.

        • kathiemarshall

          Jessica, I am not sure where I would have said that sloth and vanity would stop one from having children. ???? That does not reflect a thought that has ever entered my mind.

          People seem to take my encouraging a particular thing for hating and judging others who don’t. I can say a thing and encourage a thing but that doesn’t mean I get to judge someone’s motives.

          Yes, I follow my church’s teaching on remaining open. But that does not translate to “I had kids because of a doctrine.” I understand the doctrine and I agree with it. And I love my kids more than life itself.
          I think that what would be good is that people understand the convictions of people with faith; that believing there is an omnipotent God who sees us and loves us will translate to us wanting to share that and why not some tolerance for those who want to share something we feel is good. Why bristle at us daring to share with you. Maybe you need to show tolerance when people show well-intentioned thoughts with you?

          No one is “making” anyone have kids.

          I only show disgust for people like the woman in this article who “dodged a bullet” by miscarrying. ?? How come no one wants to criticize her for her tactless comments?

    • Kathy Cook Siewert

      I am 59 years old and have two grown children. That is my choice. I considered myself a nondenominational Christian for many years, then an agnostic, and now I am a proud atheist. The natural world is, for me, enough to color my world with all the love and beauty I need and desire. But it doesn’t mean that I force that view on my children (as if I could anyway; they’re both in their 30s), and it doesn’t mean that they will force their own views on their children if they decide to have them. I believe that it boils down to the universal edict that binds all human beings: Treat others as you would have them treat you. Before Christianity, Judaism, Islam and countless other religions, that was, and is, the simple reason that humans are here today. If I had no children, this would still be true.

  • nOggin

    Have fun when you die old and alone.

    • nOggin
      • SamMcCall

        Okay. Time for you to go now. No soliciting. Not that anyone would be interested in what you’re selling anyway. IGNORANT!

    • SamMcCall

      OMG! Here we go with the “Who’s going to take care of you when you’re old?” ignorant question. First of all, having kids so you’ll have “someone” to take care of you when you’re old is not only selfish, but presumptuous. There are lots of lonely people in nursing homes who have kids that NEVER come to see them. That’s a stupid reason to have kids. Secondly, I hope to be like my great grandmother when I’m old. She was still physically active, had all her marbles and lived on her own. She was 95 years old when she dropped dead taking out the trash one day. That’s the way to go. You’re very ignorant.

    • wanderluster214

      My grandmother had two children and four grandchildren and died as alone as alone can be. No one even had a funeral for her until several months after her passing. Having children is no guarantee that you won’t die alone. And I certainly don’t want to create new human beings just so I can burden them with my future decrepitude.

    • Good fucking lord, how selfish is that? Is that the reason to have kids, so they’ll take care of you when you’re old? There are absolutely no guarantees they will even do that and you call us child free selfish?

    • Alexis

      That’s how everybody dies.

  • American Dissonant

    The sad reality that no one in government wants to talk about is that technological advances in the fields of robotics and artificial intelligence mean that most of the jobs lost this past decade are never coming back. Many experts have begun to say that we now have steadily rising structural unemployment, and that by 2095 AD fully 50% of Americans who want jobs will not be able to find one.
    The Republicans are paralyzing Congress in their desire to make severe cuts to the food stamp program, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, yet at the same time they oppose birth control and contraception initiatives. This just does not make sense to me; rather than cut programs that provide food and shelter to families who need help, rather than causing children to starve and adults to engage in questionable activities to feed their kids, does it not make sense to simply cut down on the number of children? In all honesty, I believe that we should emulate China’s one child per family policy, at least until our economic house is in order.
    Thank you!

  • Mother of One

    Good article. I struggled with infertility for several years before having our 7 month old daughter, but my husband and I only want one child for many of the reasons discussed above, so I get it. I do. I love my daughter with all my heart, and I always knew I wanted to be a mom, but I think it is definitely possible to live a happy, fulfilled life without kids. We are such a judgemental society.
    However, I did take issue with this statement in the article, “With fertility treatment widely available, not to mention adoption, even clinically infertile women have more options than ever to become mothers, which increases the possibility that any woman who doesn’t will be judged for her choice. ” Clinically infertile women do NOT necessarily have all of those options. Fertility treatment is not covered by insurance, is VERY expensive, it’s a crap shoot whether or not it will even work, and it can take a toll on a woman’s body (daily injections, horrible or even dangerous side effects, etc.). Adoption can be even more expensive and/or fraught with pitfalls and heartache at every turn (even when adopting through foster care, as my best friend did). Yet many infertile people get the same judgemental comments as those who choose not to have kids, because people ASSUME that they don’t want kids. They assume, incorrectly, that having children is simlply a choice.
    For some people, parenthood is a very real, primal desire, and yet they are denied at every turn. In sticking up for those who choose to remain child-free, don’t marginalize the heartache faced by those who were robbed of that choice by infertility.

    • SamMcCall

      I see that heartache nearly every day in my job. The OB/Gyn I work for does some infertility treatments. While I personally can’t understand having such a strong desire to go through the process repeatedly, I feel empathy when a patient is in serious emotional pain over infertility. When no matter how long or hard they try, it’s not happening. I feel sad for them. But when they do get pregnant, I am truly happy for them. For myself, however, I really think I was born without a biological clock. I can be very nurturing, clearly as shown in the work I do. It’s my personality but also because my mom is awesome and she is a great role model for me. She truly was born to be a mom. If someone doesn’t like my mom, I wonder what the heck is wrong with them. LOL. I really look up to her. And my parents have NEVER judged my choice to remain child-free. Congratulations on your baby girl though.

    • Laura Jay

      Thanks for talking about this. My husband and I are unable to have children. This is especially hard for me because I got pregnant in college and chose adoption for my son because I wasn’t ready or able to be his mom.
      I used to hate the getting to know you phase of new friendships. They used to start out like this:
      “Are you married?”
      “Do you have kids.”
      “No.” (before I was able to explain why)
      “Why? Don’t you want kids?”
      I could either reply. “Yes, more than anything right now.” or “We’re not able to have children.” Either way I went home and cried many times.
      Now in my 40’s I have pretty much come to terms with the fact that we will not have children. Adoption and infertility options are too expensive for us. I hope one day to be able to be a temporary foster mom for babies that need a place to stay after they have been relinquished by their birth moms and before they are placed in adoption.
      I also hope that one day I will not be looked down on or judged because I don’t have children.

    • Pissed off


  • I’m 36 and extremely happily childfree. Made that decision when I was 15. I have the freedom to pursue goals, time and money to travel, engage in intellectually stimulating things and have a life. I live in a very conservative, small town so being me is a middle finger to these miserable women. I love it, LOL.

  • queenmaggie

    I have kids. I’m glad I had them… but that doesn’t mean every one should; heavens there are a lot of folks out there with kids who should NEVER have had them and hurt them so. No one has the right to judge anyone else; that’s not our place. you want to judge, study fro the God exam and take over. Until then, shut yer yap. Because God won’t be happy that you tried to usurp his place.

    • word_garden

      Ppregnancy has nothing to do with God . . . unless you happen to know Him. 🙂

  • kirsten

    This is funny to me as I have had the exact opposite experience. I am a white middle class woman with one child. I love being a mom but have always firmly believed that women and men can lead totally fulfilling lives without kids and that no one should be pushed into having them. The odd thing is, I am the only one of my social group who does want to have children, and I have lost my entire social circle because no one I know wants to have children.

    • YoureKidding

      Sounds like they are lucky to have you–seems you understand their wish to remain childfree. I hope they and you work to remain connected. I am lucky enough to have single and married friends who won’t have kids, but for the ones who do, it takes a real effort on the part of all involved to carve out time together.

  • Emily

    Can’t tell you exactly why I always wanted children, but I did. And then, after years of a carefree life studying and traveling in Asia with my husband, we had a daughter. In a few short months, I’ve grown as a person so profoundly, in ways I really could not have imagined. Definitely the hardest job I’ve ever had – every day is a struggle, a war even, with my selfish self. The lows are low, but WOW the highs are the highest I’ve ever experienced. And I’ve been some amazing places, done some amazing things, thinking to myself all the while “Those young parents don’t know what they’re missing, poor them.”
    Here’s what I’m thinking lately: life is seriously not about what we can do and where we can get to, serving ourselves, making something of our name, having fun, getting smarter, whatever. Why do we admire Mother Theresa so? We love her because she embodied the putting aside of oneself for the sake of another. Motherhood (and fatherhood, for that matter) is one fast-track way to get there, but there are countless avenues.
    This article is missing something, because in all the talk about “having it all”, there’s no mention of how it’s in the giving away that we are truly made whole.

    • Cristina

      People need to stop thinking they are being selfless by having children–you may be “giving away” to your child, but she didn’t ask to be born–you had her because *you and your husband* wanted to. Having children (instead of adopting or staying child-free) given the current overpopulation and resource depletion situation in the world is very selfish–you are simply choosing to reproduce for your own benefit. If you really want to experience parenthood, why not adopt?

      If someone wants to be like Mother Teresa, there are a myriad ways they can help people and give of themselves without needing to be a parent.

  • Cristina

    One thing does worry me about the fact that more and more women are choosing to remain child-free:

    “At the London School of Economics, Satoshi Kanazawa has begun to present
    scholarship asserting that the more intelligent women are, the less
    likely they are to become mothers.”

    Well, if the most intelligent women are most likely to stay child-free, humanity’s future is not looking too good!

    • word_garden

      Yes, that is the unspoken sad aspect of this story. Look at communities where there is poverty, lack of employment, lack of access to birth control and/or religious oppression of women. Those women have no choice and the cycle of poverty and ignorance is repeated. I think about about African women whose husbands have sexual freedom which often results in their contracting AIDS. This is passed on to their wives and subsequently to their children. The cycle repeats itself. That’s why I think our support should go to women in need.

  • CFG

    People like to make ignorant assumptions about those of us that don’t have children. I am a 40 year old woman that has never had a child (and never been pregnant) and I’ve had people make snide remarks about me not having children because I am too “selfish” when they don’t even know me or even bother to consider that not all of us are capable of having children. I was told it would cost me between $5,000 and $10,000 to TRY to have a child, with no guarantees. It is a VERY PERSONAL topic that some of us don’t wish to discuss openly with others. Sometimes you hear people say that they just don’t want kids, etc. to avoid discussing their inadequacies. Instead of sitting around boo-hooing about it or seeking out pity from others my husband and I try to live our lives to the fullest and be thankful for everything else good in our lives. And regarding the issue of not enough tax payers in the future: News Flash….Most of the babies being born now (and their mothers) are supported by Welfare (Medicaid, food stamps, etc.) which IS tax payer money.

  • Scott

    With one famous exception, here is the REAL American tradition of having children:

    For the past 200 years, every generation of Americans has fewer children, on average, than the one before it.
    It’s a trend that goes back to 1800. Americans on average have fewer children than their parents did, and their parents had fewer than their grandparents did. The overall trend for the last 200 years has been a declining birthrate.

    The one exception was the Baby Boom years (1950’s), which were a total aberration in U.S. History. This declining birthrate is not some recent thing. It’s not just because more people are choosing not to have kids. Parents are just as responsible, because they’re deciding to have fewer than parents used to.

  • Michelle

    I have four children, and often found myself having to justify my choice when I was younger. People would ask if I knew what was causing it, if I was aware the world was overpopulated to the point of crisis, if I could identify as feminist after “selling out”, and so on. When I inquire of a new acquaintance in my age group (50’s) “do you have children?” – and the answer is no- the woman invariably launches into a explanation of why, often including personal information and pain, and I cringe. I recognize people have held her to task for her lack of children the same way I was ridiculed for my choices. The crux of the matter is that women, married or single, mothers or not, fertile and infertile, lesbian or straight, educated or not, cannot please society and are always judged. Until women can learn to support each other no matter what choices are made, and stop tearing each other down in order to feel more self-esteem and validation, this will not change. My desire for my three daughters is that they continue to be strong women who make decisions that fulfill them, and that they try to avoid judging the choices of others.

  • rog


  • Jenny

    I don’t understand why some people get so upset over people’s personal choices. If everyone did what was right for themselves and kept their nose out of other people’s business (not just with kids, but everything else too – sexual orientation, religion, political leanings, etc.), we’d live in a much nicer world.
    I have one child and am constantly being pressured to have another. I can’t even imagine how bad it is for the child-free crowd!

  • Amina Bennett

    I’m a Mom and I agree with much of what’s been said above. Having children does complicate and un-inhibited life. But I’ve learned more about myself as a parent than I ever did as a single woman and a wife. I think it’s precisely because like one of the interviewees noted above “it requires all of you.” Most people aren’t willing to give all of themselves to anyone without direct personal gain. http://www.mommamina.com

  • Amy

    Something I wish this article would have delved more deeply into is the
    financial impact of having children. As a struggling 30-something who
    just moved back in her parents because rent is ridiculous, and home
    ownership is off the table, I couldn’t afford to raise a child even if I
    chose to, or could do. My mother told me once that she and my Dad
    always raised my sister and I so that we would have more than what they
    had growing up. (Which is a really nice way of saying we were both
    spoiled rotten.) I’ve always used that as a base point. At present, I
    can’t provide a decent standard of living for myself, let alone one for a
    child. If knowing my limitations and being realistic about my
    expectations makes me selfish and self-centered then so be it.

    • Bartmann_van_Ghent


      You raise an interesting point: how well are we doing providing a decent standard of living.

      At the tender age of 47 and living in New York, I still rent a one bedroom apartment with my wife. We have been saving for a downpayment for 20 years. We still don’t have the life we want and can just about provide for ourselves. We don’t have a car and take public transportation everywhere. It is still such a challenge. Some years our rent increase exceeds our annual raises. When we wanted a new sofa, we saved for a year and eleven months. We both feel that we are WAY OUT OF OUR LEAGUE in our ability to afford a kid. In the words of the article, we are still at step 3 – buying a house.

      When my wife and I can provide a life of basic necessities for ourselves, then perhaps we’ll feel more comfortable with the idea of children. But I have struggled so hard in my life that I feel if and when “we make it”, that by that time I’ll want to coast a bit.

    • Lelaina Landis


      I’m Bartmann’s age, and I agree that one’s personal finances are one of the first things one should consider before starting a family. I’ve reached an age where almost all of my friends are divorced. Some of them, single parents, still have to support kids who are 18+ without the aid of child support, and many of the stories I could tell you aren’t pretty. If the money isn’t there, it’s just not there. I don’t apologize for having kids anymore than I apologize for not driving a car or owning real estate. It’s out of reach.

  • Notawoman

    This is an incredible article. I wanted to read it on Time’s website but needed a subscription. Thank you for posting it!

    My wife and I (yes, I’m a man) have chosen not to have children. I like to joke that “I can’t afford them” but such a statement could not ring more true. Plus we have 2 dogs which has shown me that I wouldn’t have the right temperment to take care of children. I work great with kids, but am more than happy to hand them back at the end of the day.

    My wife is repulsed by babies and children. A feeling that other people don’t understand because “hey! everybody loves babies”. Snot nosed foul smelling Satan spawned hellions in reality. They’re gross, loud, heavily depended, and a drain on already scarce resources. She doesn’t relish the idea of this “thing” gestating in her for 10 months. All very Sigourney-Weaver-Aliens gross.

    The ” ‘glamorous martyrdom’ of child rearing” is so true. I’ll bet that everyone you meet who have kids will sigh and go all “woe-is-me” pity party because they haven’t slept, eaten, or exercised properly for ages. But then play the martyr card because “kids are worth it”. I don’t know about you, but anything that negatively affects my mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual health along with my bank account usually gets the boot.

    There are billions of people in the world. Hundreds of thousands of children who could be adopted. Perhaps we should focus on helping them grow as a worldly community instead of oversaturating it with kids simply for the sake of societal pressures.

  • BoBoZoBo

    Good for her, but she is comparing a life she has with a life she has no clue about.

  • Pissed off

    Shame on TIME magazine for not doing FULL research of this subject. Being deemed ‘infertile’ and not made of money, I did my homework on this situation. Every year the rates increase for infertility. The article mentions other options for helping having children, but they do NOT ONCE touch on the cost of this help. Up front costs to pay to have children is near impossible for any normal middle class family to come up with.

    By no means am I against those people who choose not to have children. I do not think any woman should have to feel obligated to mother. I only feel that this article did not look at the big picture as to why the rates have gone down.

  • Juliette

    It’s o.k. Not to want to be a mother. You are doing a favor to an Un wanted kid. Not all of us women Should be Mothers!

  • Lynn Bedri

    Once again women are being told they are selfish if they don’t want to have children. How absurd! Totally dismissing the economics of having/raising children much less the emotional /mental ability to go through all that is necessary to raise a healthy, productive, valued member of future communities. Some of us know from youth whether we are equipped for child-rearing yet our culture and individual families and communities will do their best to change our minds. I remember a gentleman saying to me when I was 30, “You’re so smart and have such great values you need to have children!” My reply, “Why? People don’t examine themselves and just get into this whole parenting thing with the idea that ‘nature will fill in the blanks (meaning make up for what I call my own shortcomings when it comes to kids.) That doublespeak has gotten my whole generation into therapy with little hope for redemption. How about I just be a good human being and save any child I might have from me and all of my issues. I believe in ‘the sins of the fathers/mothers to the 4th generation’ and to me that means mindless child bearing while thinking that some deity will save them from what I don’t fix in myself.” He (wonderful/loving/intelligent Jewish man) had a hard time with that. And again, 30+ years later, with an economy that is still faltering, education that is only talked about as important while telling parents they need to pay more and more and more to help give their children a good start in life…etc., we’re back to telling women they are selfish if they dare to think for themselves. Really? Rubbish!!!

  • jb1907

    It is awesome not having kids. We can have way more fun, travel more without the burden of raising a child that might or might not become a productive citizen.

  • JKNM

    I am in my 30’s and am sometimes afraid to tell my friends, who are all in the height of
    their child-bearing, family focused life, that I have no desire to join
    them. I am afraid they are going to shun me or take my choice to not
    have kids as a statement against their choices and lives. I find myself
    constantly stopping myself from saying things like, “whew, glad it’s not
    me,” when they share stories about potty training, sleeplessnes, and
    stretch marks. I also HATE the “I’m sorry” looks they give me when I tell them my boyfriend does not want children. It’s like they assume I want kids and am settling for none because he doesn’t want them. You’d think with all the articles on this topic that have been in the news lately, that they would get the message that not all women want kids.

  • Alexis

    One thing that doesn’t get touched on in this article is the fact that many of us women who are now of child-bearing age grew up in broken homes with poor parenting role models. When I was 11 and my sister was 8, my mother decided she didn’t want to be a wife and mother anymore and left the family. After that, my dad made us feel like burdens to him, and consistently warned us that “having kids will ruin your life”. I watched many of the adult couples’ marriages around us implode spectacularly, with disastrous implications for the children involved. Needless to say, I was not instilled with strong family values, and although I do occasionally feel a biological urge to have a baby, I can’t help but feel somewhat repulsed and frightened by the idea. I am happily married to a wonderful man, though.

  • Cy

    My mother never wanted to have children – I love her and she loves us, but she was very absentee as a parent, preferring to read all day as opposed to change a diaper. She had kids because she had to. We are much closer now that I’m an adult.

    I felt in my early teens that I wouldn’t want children and my decision was made firm by some inheritable medical issues (I am now disabled with one of them). Sometimes I question my decision, but not often. I have taught children and played with children and it’s fun and I find them mostly charming, but I don’t miss having my own and I’m happy to hand them back to their parents. My boyfriend also decided he didn’t want children. I had a fulfilling stage career prior to my illness getting bad. In a few days, we are leaving for 3 weeks in Italy. I’m 54 years old and perfectly fine with my decision.

  • Alison

    I want to testify to everyone on how my husband and i got children after our 5years of marriage. we got married and we could not conceive a child we have been to several hospitals for checking and the doctors always say that we are okay that nothing is wrong with us, we have been hoping for a child, my husband was beginning to keep late night outside and pressure from the family for him to marry another wife and divorce me, i was always crying and weeping because i was loosing my marriage. so i visited my friend in Florida and she told me that she also have been through this same situation but she got her help of getting her own child from a great priest of fertility from Africa, so she told me that she will contact me to the priest and he will do some fertility spell for me to have my own child, i spent 4days with her in Florida and we both email the priest and he said i should bring all my information to him and he said in 2days after the spell will be completed. so i waited and i went back made love with my husband and i conceive. so i am very greatful to the priest for his help and miracle that help me save my marriage. please for same help, conatct him on fertilitytemple@yahoo.com

  • SexyLittleIdeas

    I am a late-20s, Christian male who has just opted permanently out of having kids. I believe it is both the responsible and the loving thing to do.
    If you’re interested, here are my thoughts on the subject: http://sexylittleideas.com/the-childfree-environmentalist/

  • Mikko

    In a society where the most educated, intelligent, stable and financially well to do have the lowest breading rates and the least educated, unstable, and impoverished are over breading, idiocracy is the future.

  • Monica

    It’s better to regret not having kids than to have kids and regret having them. Maybe society would be better if more people thought this way and didn’t have children they resented.