So You've Decided Not to Have Children...

Published on February 18, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Now, I made this argument earlier as part of another subject entirely, but I'm going to go into it further here.

One of the very interesting contradictions I find among some of the left is the tendency to browbeat and criticize myself and my wife for our "irresponsibility" in having a large family (five kids), while there are pockets of the planet that are overpopulated (and my having fewer kids is going to help India's overpopulation problem...HOW?!?). The contradiction comes from the fact that invariably, these individuals are against the move to privatize social security and wish to leave it as it is, where the current generation of workers pays for the last generation's retirement, rather than that generation's earnings going to fund their OWN retirement.

EXCUSE ME?

What you are saying, in essence, is that you want to maintain a system that pays your retirement from MY children's wages. Interesting.

Because you chose not to have children, that effectively makes you a mooch on the system. You didn't contribute to the labor pool that would provide for your retirement (and sorry, you can't count the money YOU paid to Social Security; remember, you fought AGAINST it being used for your own retirement). On top of that, you belittled and ridiculed those that DID have children. So, the morally "right" thing to do would be for you to refuse social security once you're old enough.

But I'd be willing to wager a large sum NONE of you will do that.

Comments

ParaTed2k

on Feb 18, 2005

My 4 kids and I say GOOD POINT!!!

Zoomba

on Feb 18, 2005

In my view, it's the parents who have a large number of kids then sit on the govt pocketbook for income that are irresponsible. My personal thoughts are why the heck should I support someone's kids when that someone couldn't afford them in the first place? If you can't afford to support them, then you're not in a position to responsibly raise them. By the way some of those people reason, I could make a case for a government support program to help me stay afloat with my 10 BMW fleet. I mean, I knew I couldn't afford to get them, but well, I just couldn't help myself. I should now get govt support to help pay them off.

The overpopulation issue is a bigger problem and people are looking to fix it in the short term, hence the ridiculous idea that me not having a kid helps or hurts the problem any. 1 in several billion... That's like saying we need to reduce the size of the beach by taking out one grain of sand at a time.

Myrrander

on Feb 18, 2005

hm, I'm afraid I can't say anything nice about this article, so I'm not going to say anything at all. But I'm pretty offended by you here.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 18, 2005

The overpopulation issue is a bigger problem

Sorry, I can't buy into the whole "over population" thing. According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. has an estimated population of around 293,027,571 people. The state of New York has a land area (minus inland water) of 47,223.839 square miles. Considering there are 640 acres in a square mile, if the entire population of the country were forced to live in New York State, it would come to just short of 10 people per acre.

CIA World Factbook Link

Land Area Of New York State Link

Acres per Square Mile Link

Angloesque

on Feb 18, 2005

Hmm. Upon rereading, I see you've qualified "these" people as "some on the left." I still think it sounds like you're referring to all people who choose not to have children being "mooches on the system" but I could be misinterpreting it....

-A.

Nebraskawoman

on Feb 18, 2005

Why do people chose to condemn each other for their choices? Unless you are in that persons shoes then you have no idea of why they made that choice. I personally have 3 children that I wouldnt give up for the world. My brother in law and his fiance want 5 children. I also know people that have chosen not to have children because of previous problems with pregnacies or,as in the case of my older brother , he just doesnt feel like he wants children. That may change who knows. But as for

the parents who have a large number of kids then sit on the govt pocketbook for income that are irresponsible.

do you know why they are on goverment help? I'm guessing not. You are just assuming that they are lazy and want a free ride. I know a couple who have 6 children. They both had great jobs when they started their family. But circumstances changed and she got laid off and a little while later he was in an accident and is not able to work now. These two are the most responsible people I know but yes, they are on some government assistance. I just want to say that neither side should be casting stones. Because neither knows the whole story.

Myrrander

on Feb 19, 2005

Nah, I think you're on to something Gid, now that I've given it some thought. I therefore say that all property taxes I pay that go to pay for schools are simply people with children mooching off of those of us who have none. So pay for your own schools. And when my state income taxes go to pay for roads that I don't drive -- well, that's wrong too. As a matter of fact, let's change the entire tax system so we only have to pay for things we want to pay for. That way I might get the potholes fixed in front of my drive way but I won't have to pay for this war in Iraq. And I'll say no to my social security when I quit having to pay for schools for people who have huge families.

Of course, I'm more than happy to keep paying my property taxes, even though my wife and I can't have kids.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 19, 2005

. Myrrander, aren't you a teacher? If so, don't you get paid from the very property taxes you with to do away with? At least when I was in the Army, we joked that we had to pay taxes from this months check, so they could afford to pay us next month. ;~D

Of course, if I'm completely off-base, and your not a teacher (in the immortal words of Miss Emily Litella)... "Nevermind".

Myrrander

on Feb 20, 2005

Yeah, I'm a teacher. So I help pay my own salary. But take out everybody in a community that either doesn't have children or doesn't currently have children enrolled in a school, and the school goes bankrupt.

The whole point is, my SS payments are already helping out some retired people who never had kids. And if the program is still around when Gideon retires, my payments will be helping HIM. And when I retire, then yeah, because me and my wife weren't able to have kids, somebody else's kids are going to be helping out.

I understand that the original article was a reactionary piece to people who think that families shouldn't be any more than 2 parents equaling 2 children (or 1). I'm one of those people myself who feels that the world is vastly overpopulated. But if you can feed you kids, far be it from me to force my choices on you. There's a lot more to "pro-choice" than abortion.

Cheers.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 21, 2005

And if the program is still around when Gideon retires, my payments will be helping HIM.

Well, mathematically speaking, I won't see a retirement. One of the proposals has been to raise the retirement age to 72, which, given my likely life expectancy, I'm unlikely to reach or exceed by any substantial time.

My point, myrrander, is that by the time you're 65, you will, like me, have put well over 40 years of payments into the Social Security pool. And, like me, you deserve to see some of it because of that fact. BUT, by insisting we hold onto the anachronism that is the current system, while at the same time openly criticizing "breeders" whose children will be essential to the support of that system, you're sending an inconsistent message...in other words, if even 50% of the US followed your example, the system would come crashing down hard like the house of cards that it is.

Personally, I respect your decision not to have children. It is YOUR decision, and not one with which anyone should be able to interfere. All I ask is for an equal amount of respect for those who DO choose to have children; they are essential to the future of the country.

As to Social Security, my point is that we need to work towards a more sustainable system.

I'm one of those people myself who feels that the world is vastly overpopulated.

I feel that POCKETS of the world are overpopulated. I can assure you, during my time as a parent, I have never lived in any of those overpopulated pockets, and thus have not contributed to the drain on resources.

But I also believe the starvation and poverty that result from overpopulation are more a result of politics than they are a result of not having adequate food. For example, the tsunami greatly underscored the problems with the caste system in India; even if my family and I contributed ALL of our resources to assist families in India, we would not be able to make a dent among India's poor; largely because many are lower castes and aid is often given first to those of higher castes. It also doesn't help when you have cows walking down the street that you can't kill for food (which I kinda respect), BUT that do require a good amount of grain and water to sustain that could well go to the hungry (which I don't respect). Or we could point to China (a wonderful example of the disastrous failure of a "one child per family" policy if ever there was one) and her numerous human rights abuses. Once again, aid given to this nation is likely to be caught up in government bureaucracy before it gets to the individuals of greatest need.

I'm glad you DID comment, myrrander, you have valid contributions to make in this area. But I would suggest that, when it comes to issues of overpopulation and the poor, that you work and encourage others to work towards REAL, lasting solutions that can make a meaningful difference in these countries.

Deference

on Feb 21, 2005

Great post Gideon. Another home run!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!