Rather have selective breeding, to many people having kids that can't support them and also neglecting their development. Thus quickening the dumbing down we are now into.

My wife and I are in the Anti-Baby mode right now. Don't want kids because they control you life and you're stuck for 20+plus years.

Would you honestly want selective breeding? Society had done that in the past. You know what it led to? Force abortions, force sterilization, euthanizing the 'unfit'. That is not a path to go down again. It would eventually lead to a radical and racist genocide. It is called eugenics. Check it out.

TCS-3900151-don't mean to play the bad guy however its going to have to happen sooner or later, just a matter of when.

... and i fear for that day.

"Selective breeding" as you suggest, is also known as Eugenics. It is abhorrent and will not happen in any free society.

TCS-390015hi1- its made worse between China and India's exponential population growths and while China has limited family's offspring they are allowed to have, India has not. They no longer can support their own populations dietary needs and are now buying massive quantities abroad much like our corn stocks. China has all ready laid claim to billions of dollars worth of corn in pre-season sales which is unheard of and are opted to buy more. While this is good for farmers in the mid west, it drives up the cost of corn considerably. Legitimately there is barely enough food to freed everybody in the world as it is now as stated by many UN report and even our own US agriculture forecasts. That already is translated into the hyperinflation of healthy fresh foods we find in our markets today and continues to grow. While China tried to create a agriculture force to recon with however they made the same mistake we did in the mid west with the dust bowl. They have tilled so much land without an agriculture oversite to show them the proper way to do it and now face most the the farms begin taken in by desertification of the provinces of northwestern China. They have made efforts to reclaim the land from the dessert however they have still proven fruitless. Thus they have vested interests in supplies from abroad.

Do you know what they do in China when someone is pregnant a second time and are caught. They are arrested, their families are harassed trying to force them to abort. There are also stories of the them physically restraining women and giving them abortions.

Not only that, when they find out the sex of the child, girls are aborted in the hopes of one day having a boy. The government has touted this 'one child only' policy has prevented over 400 million births! ...... I don't even know what else to say after that.

It would eventually lead to a radical and racist genocide. It is called eugenics. Check it out.

"Selective breeding" as you suggest, is also known as Eugenics. It is abhorrent and will not happen in any free society.

There is "negative" eugenics, and then there is "positive" eugenics.

From Dictionary.com:

eu·gen·ics

the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

TCS:

Forced abortions? Arrests? Drink the kool aid much?

I've been to China and I spent most of my time up in the northwest region that GimDan talks about....so waaay off the tourists path, but I also spent time in Beijing and Shanghai and I can tell you that we here in the West just glomped onto these sensational stories without bothering to see if its based in reality. Has there been selective abortions and is there a gender gap, the numbers say yes, but has it been blown out of portion because our society loves feeling morally outraged, heck yeah. If you go to villages you will see families with a bunch of kids, not as many children as I saw in the Middle East or South America, but I certainly saw larger families.

I also talked to a lot of Chinese and asked about this one child policy, they were all very dismissive of it and wondered why we here in the West were so obsessed with it. If a family has more then one child then it just means that the family doesn't get as good or as much assistance from the government. Now when people live in rural China, there isn't a lot that the government does for them, so families accept the trade off for the benefit of having more help around the 'farm' (I put that in quotes because its certainly not farming as I've known).

I talked to a lot of women while I was in that country and the general consensus was if they decided to have children they would only want one. They certainly didn't have the anxiety of finding a husband and having a child like I see here in this country, if anything I have to say the one child policy has freed up women and if they decide not to have a child its an acceptable choice, but there certainly isn't any shadowy government forcing women into having abortions or committing infanticide.

Would you honestly want two people with genetic mental retardation to have a baby? Why damn that new person to such a life?

Seattlemary: wow. could you be more ignorant. Your experience does not reality make.

Aleithia: "positive" eugenics is an oxymoron. We don't 'do' eugenics of any kind in a free society. Shame on you.

Seattle Mary,

Who said anything about a shadowy government agency that does this? Do you know how many different ways China violates human rights? Most Chinese people agree with the policy. Most would only have one child. But that is not the case for all. When a sizable chunk of the population disagrees with the policy and still has another child, the government would get involved and demand an abortion. They may or may not physically force the abortion, but even if they don't, they are still forcing the abortion through threats, arrests, intimidation, and the like.

If America starts to become anything like China in that regard, I guarantee you there would be outright revolt and civil war.

I have to say that as a taxpayer, there's a compelling argument to be made for requiring unmarried women who want to receive government assistance to first get a long-lasting-but-reversible form of contraception (IUD's, Norplant, etc). Anyone who didn't like the strings attached could simply refuse the handout. It would go a long way in cutting down on the welfare queens who have 5 kids by 5 different guys, none of whom were married to the mom at the time the baby was conceived.

There sure seem to be more than enough STUPID people having babies in the US...

Aleithia: "positive" eugenics is an oxymoron. We don't 'do' eugenics of any kind in a free society. Shame on you.

The Dictionary doesn't lie. Shame on you for being ignorant about the very thing you pass off as "evil". Eugenics isn't "evil", nor is it "good".

It is simply a philosophy or belief which, according to history, a lot of American ancestors used to follow (both positive and negative) long before the Nazis hijacked it. Today, some people still support positive eugenics in "a free society", and they have a right to believe what they want and "do" it for themselves, through their individual reproductive choices, if they so please.

"At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by a wide variety of prominent people, including Winston Churchill, Margaret Sanger, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling and Sidney Webb." - Wikipedia, "Eugenics"

That exact same thing happened to me 40 years ago. Lucky for me I was a single Dad in the seventies.

She loved me enough to give me the child I wanted so the challenges that came were my choice.

Actually, there is no species in which every individual member procreates.

Nonparents keep the herd alive in ways that parents do not understand.

Are you 12? Get over it. Women AND men have hormonal surges. Did you not read the article?

And since you are filled with testosterone, you do not understand the hormones that control a woman. These are very powerful and not to be taken lightly. Maybe your comment about psychiatric help be applied to yourself. Obviously someone didn't get held when they were little. Men use womens "hormones" to insult and belittle women everywhere but remember it was hormones that allowed you to be born. I have 4 wonderful children I have been raising on my own. I was on birth-control pills when I got pregnant with 3 of them and the other one was concieved because the "birth-control" broke. Did I want children? Not until I concieved them. They obviously were meant to be born. Do not group all women together because we have the same hormones.

I may have the same hormones as grapegirl, but I don't want to be grouped in with her. Women who go on and on about their biological clocks and their hormones irritate me to no end. It's like they wallow in it.

I have never understood the "sanctity of motherhood." It's a basic biological function--you have sex, your egg is fertilized by a sperm, you gestate, and you have a baby. It's not like a human giving birth is a rare occurence.

Jack: you post moronic sexist drivel like that and then claim all WOMEN are crazy?

Wow. Who was talking about that scenario anyway, Jack? Not a bit angry or anything, are you? I'm sorry you dislike women so much...must make people around you feel so happy to have you near them.

Are you 12? Get over it. Women AND men have hormonal surges. Did you not read the article?

He DID read the article. He simply said that a hormonal urge is a stupid reason to decide to bring a life into the world. People are goddam selfish, and many have children to be in the "in crowd" with their friends, and to be stylish. To keep up with the Joneses. And, it's stupid.

Get over YOURSELF, hon!

You are out of touch with your humanity. Children are not negotiable for some people, it is nature and requires no justification.

Jack's language was hostile, but I agree with his basic point: that people who decide to have babies based solely on their hormones are doing something stupid.

Jack:

I think it is a valid comment. Just because you can do something (be horny and fertile) doesn't mean you should.

I had a baby think it over doll years ago in HS for a child development class....

Wasn't nearly as effective as 16+ preggo and Teen mom though. Terrifying!

Me and my female friends ( all early 20's) have no desire for children at the moment..some of my friends don't even want them. Maybe we are still too young for baby fever?

I was a nanny when I was a teenager, and if anything, the experience made me want kids of my own some day even more. I loved spending my days taking care of babies & toddlers, even with all the dirty diapers and whatnot. I used to say that if I'd had a husband and a stable financial situation, I'd have wanted to become a mom then. Obviously, I didn't get pregnant because I wasn't in a position to responsibly raise a child. Fast forward 15 years and I'm now a mom of 3 with a desire for a 4th. The main reason we're waiting on another baby for the moment is financial (darn cr*ppy economy)

Several years ago, I was working with a fellow female colleague who actually told me I was being "selfish" for not wanting to reproduce. Help me understand how it is considered selfish when there are already billions of people on this planet, while millions of those can't feed, educate, or sustain employment for themselves.

I've frequently heard it referred to as baby rabies, not baby fever. Much catchier.

Maybe you should be writing these benign articles, then.

The Duggars are married and so was Kate Gosselin at the time she and Jon had their kids...

And Mr. Duggar plots his daughters' menstral periods on a chart on the refrigerator to make sure that they are all virgins for the highest bidder. Creepy.

Whatever happened to choice? My wife and I chose to have children, and are fortunate to have four great kids aged 24 to 12. While it has been a challenge, it is worth every minute, every sacrifice we have to make. I think you anti-baby posters are just being selfish, but that is your choice. I would not give it up for the world.

FYI, just because some people like and want babies, doesn't mean they go out and have a baby every year.

Some of them do. First hand experience, I saw a couple have six girls, and they kept having babies to "try and see if they could have a boy".

It's not that "anti-baby" people are against babies simply for the sake of being against them.

I, for one, believe that any couple living in a developed country (with a stable income that can support children) should not have more than two children, to replace themselves and their long-term partner.

Adoption should also be widely promoted for those who want children of their own. This gives an abandoned child a loving home with caring parents. Example: a friend of my mother's adopted seven children, and all are highly successful due to a nurturing, stable environment.

This keeps the nuclear family intact while keeping the population stable [unless one of the children dies, which is very unlikely in this modern era of medicine]. However, I am not a baby person myself, so I doubt I would ever have children.

There are just too many people on the planet, 7 billion to be exact, and that number is going to at least double by 2050 to 15 billion.

No one is against having children in a responsible manner. But the media are behaving irresponsibly by coining terms such as 'baby fever', as if babies are the latest fashion accessory, and our culture needs to stop assuming that everyone desperately wants at least one.

Why is not having children a selfish thing? I don't like babies at all, so I chose to not have any.

Do you matter more as a human being because you martyred yourself for your children's future?

Sarah: a little touchy aren't you? That wasn't a criticism of those not having children...it sounded like a defense against being hounded for merely wanting to be a parent. Who exactly is playing martyr?

"I, for one, believe that any couple living in a developed country (with a stable income that can support children) should not have more than two children, to replace themselves and their long-term partner."

What matters is the overall AVERAGE fertility rate being approximately 2, not how many kids each individual couple chooses to have. So many people these days are choosing to have only a single child or none at all, that my 3 (and any others that God may bless us with in the future) are more than balanced out. Of my cousins who are married, I'm the only one who has 3 kids. One other has 2, and the rest have only 1. None plan to have any more children at the current time.

I know FAR more single-child families than I do those with 3+.

Crimson Wife,

Those of us who have opted for only one child did not make that choice to "balance out" your herd of children. Our planet is already overpopulated, so do it a favor and start using some birth control instead of just waiting to see how many more "God may bless you with in the future." Quit trying to keep up with the Duggers.

I myself was wondering about his sexual orientation, in many different ways. So, yes, I did find it a little creepy.

Not necessarily; I have had friends at work that were closer than people I grew up with. By the same token, I have in the past gone overboard on events for my friend's daughter. I've also done things for the children of regulars at my store; I don't necessarily know the kids well, but a kind act and a bit of a bright moment can make someone's day.

I'm a crafty person, I like putting these sorts of events together, and little kids love the attention and festivities of it, something a lot of adults lose. So its gratifying to know you made a kid's day special. I also cook, clean, sew, program computers, and am married to a beautiful woman who can kick my backside in martial arts, and works on machinery and the lawn.

Regading baby fever, I probably thus have "dog fever".

I think you might want to term "extreme dog fever" as "animal hoarding", which is a serious psychological and mental disorder. In fact, from watching episodes of Animal Planet's Confessions: Animal Hoarding, it seems there may be a link between animal hoarding and this so-called "baby fever".

(i.e. the hoarders, usually women, are usually older with grown up children, refer to their animals as "babies" and "helpless", etc...in their minds, it is quite possible they view their animals as their own "babies" or "children".)

Hoarding in general warrants the help of a certified psychologist or psychiatrist as well as therapy.

Unfortunately they make a normal response seem like some sort of disease that is out of your control

True, because all it is, really, is mass-selfishness and idiocy.

Ha, I know what you mean. Baby fever is hitting me full force. I'm married, but we don't have the money for baby stuff, and medical expenses. Still doesn't stop me from gazing longingly at the pregnant woman across the street.

I wanted to have a baby ever since I was in my teens and I came from an intact home. I don't think it was about any deep psychological issues but rather that I love kids. I worked as a nanny when I was a teenager, and in college I wanted to become a pediatrician. The main reason I didn't wind up pursuing that field is because I didn't want to spend my 20's in medical school and training. I got engaged my junior year of college and knew that I didn't want to wait until I was 30 to have a baby.

I'm married, but we don't have the money for baby stuff, and medical expenses.

Since when does THAT stop anyone... most people who have kids cant afford them! But in this society, that doesn't matter to them... They think it's their RIGHT and they expect others to pay for them. The selfish ME ME ME people don't care...

Reproducing is a basic biological urge. No reason to medicalize it, stigmatize it or deify it, for that matter. It is what it is. People who want to have kids will pass on their genes, those who don't will not. It's easy to see who will be selected for...

As a mother of four children, ages 19 to 8, I didn't have to give up anything. My children slept throughout the night from the time I brought them home (with the exception of the third one who was preemie). I have not had to "give up" my interest or put them on hold. I am the same now as I was before I had children. I have met my life goals and made new ones, I have completed college since my children were born and am having a successful career. And I am a single parent. My husband passed away the year after my youngest was born. I had no life insurance or security of any kind. What did I give up? Would I have to work if I didn't have kids? Of course. I enjoy my children and love them beyond anything I have ever loved before. It does go to prove that you're selfish, you shouldn't have kids. And no, I don't believe everyone should procreate and fill the world with babies. I don't think that there is anything wrong with being selfish. More people should be selfish especially when I am supporting their kids with the taxes I pay.

"To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven." Moms don't have to give up their goals forever. Look at somebody like Sandra Day O'Connor- she was a SAHM when her children were young and didn't have much of a career at all until she was in her 40's.

My grandma lived to be 99 and many of my other relatives lived well into their 90's. I should have plenty of time to pursue my goals after my kids are older and more independent.

Why "wrong" Why is out of the norm always wrong in this silly country?.

Well paramed said there's somthing wrong with those who "dislike babies and children". She didn't say there was anything wrong with not choosing to have a famly yourself. Get the difference?

There's nothing wrong with disliking babies or children. Not all people are the same. That's what makes us unique.

This article is wrong. It shows how selfish people can be just because someone else has something that the other wants. There's a lot of jealousy involved too.

Example. I found it very sick when one person at wrk became pregnant and within 3 weeks 9 others were pregnant. These women were jealous that one of them were going to have something that they didn't. I was disgusted.

Seriously? I just don't like babies because I'm so awkward around them. The youngest in my family is my brother, who's only 2 years younger than me. I have almost no experience, I hated baby sitting, and now that I have a nephew (on my fiance's side) I'm just starting to try and get used to it. But I'm in college and live an hour away, so I only see him maybe once a month, if that. It gets easier the older they get though.

My fiance and I both have no desire to have children. We both don't do well with them, and we recognize we probably wouldn't make the best parents. That doesn't make us bad people, it just means we aren't aren't cut out for that. It happens in the animal kingdom everywhere. Sometimes other animals don't make good parents either. We're also going to end up with jobs that won't leave us much time for anything more than a dog or two maybe, we just aren't going to have time for a child. In fact, I make a much better pet parent than anything else. I currently own rabbits and rats, adopted and rescued, all very well loved and taken care of. I plan on rescuing Pit Bulls someday, and it's probably best to have them in an environment without children anyway.

We aren't selfish, we choose to recognize it's something we have no interest in doing. Why bring a child into the world for the sake of just having one?

I do think it's fine to recognize that you're not cut out for parenthood personally. What I really don't get is all the vitriol of the "childfree" movement. I don't care much for dogs, but I don't go around bashing dog-lovers and proudly proclaiming how much better the "dogfree" lifestyle is. I just say if anybody asks that I'm not interested in getting a dog. I might inwardly roll my eyes when I hear doglovers go on and on about how great dogs are, but for me, it's a "different strokes for different folks" type of thing. Why can't childless folks be the same way?

What I really don't get is all the vitriol of the "childfree" movement.

Try being childfree and you will understand. You won't believe the reactions my husband and I get from people when we tell them we want nothing to do with raising kids. Take the reaction you get from dog lovers for your dogfree lifestyle and times it by 100. We get bashed quite often as you can read by these comments about how selfish and egotistical we are just because we don't want kids. I don't have a problem with people who want kids just people who have them when they are by no means ready for it.

Why can't childless folks be the same way?

ChildFREE, not childless. We aren't missing anything. Like I said, I don't have anything against people who want to have kids. But if you want to try to convince me to have them, I won't hold back as to the reason I don't want them. People have a right to go on and on why they want kids, well I have the right to go on and on why I don't want them

I have several cousins who are younger than me. With each of them I went through the same pattern: I disliked them when they were babies but started liking them more as they grew and got more independent and were easier for me to relate to them. Maybe some of this had to do with me as a kid being jealous of them getting what felt like all the attention, but over time I've found out that I'm awkward around all babies. I've learned to accept this and plan accordingly. I know that if and when I develop baby fever, the best thing for me to do would probably be to adopt an older kid. I like kids, but don't particularly like babies, and the only thing I don't like about the situation is the looks people give me when I tell them I'm not a baby person.

The selfish ones are the ones that are mentioned in the article. Bravo for being responsible human beings.

Actually, developed countries are in big trouble because they're facing a "demographic winter". Too few babies are being born to support the swelling elderly population. By 2050, there will be 2 seniors for every child! The only reason why the U.S. has not been as affected as other developed countries is because of immigration. Native-born U.S. women have an average fertility below replacement rate. Scary stuff!

That's racist BS - code for "We're not having enough white babies." The elderly are healthier than at any other time in history and are delaying retirement or reconfiguring it to do volunteer work. Developed countries are developed because they have fewer children and can accept qualified immigrants, who then often become citizens (and begin limiting their childbearing rates). Successful children is what matters, not a blind number of children.

This planet now has more human beings on it today than have ever lived in the whole history of Homo sapiens sapiens!

Actually, I've met FAR more people who regret that they didn't have another child and only one who said she wished she had fewer (and she had 7 very close together in age, so I can see where she's coming from there!)

Not me Crimson. I know FAR more people who have come to me telling me they wish they would have remained childfree or that parenthood isn't all they hoped it to be, but there are a few who can't wait to have more. My sister in law couldn't wait to have a baby but 6 months after she did, she got Mirena to make sure she doesn't have another one and now says she will never have another kid. That's just one example, I can think of plenty more.

Do you actually, really truly *hate* kids?

I mean. There is an individual or two I hate. I wouldn't shed any tears if I read their obituaries. If all the children in the world died tomorrow (species propagation aside), would you feel mostly positive or negative emotions?

It is one thing to have your panties in a twist and say "hate" hyperbolically. It is another to actually *hate* children more than any other type of person. The former represents the feelings of a normal human being. The latter 100% merits "there is something seriously wrong with you" comments.

It is pretty f*cked up to hate beings that are defenseless and helpless compared to one's self. Disdain? Sure. Hate? No. Hate is for those who have some sort of power of you- certainly not other peoples children. Selfish doesn't even scratch the surface. Try potential bully, cruelly inclined, or murder suspect.

LOL. That argument has no merit. I know people who hate practically all other kids except their own precious little urchins, and MAYBE the little crap-factories that their starbucks-buddies have. And that's it. christ on a biscuit, you should hear some of the pathetic, vag-irritated soccer-moms talk about "other peoples' kids". Get real! Most of the hate for kids comes from parents!

So Ug1, I assume you're basically saying that we should stop reproducing, wait until there's almost no one alive and then force a few select people to create new life?

While I do think there are a lot of selfish reasons for some to have kids, I still don't see an issue....but then, I can be a bit of hypocrite because I look at people who pop out five kids, and have barely enough to survive themselves, and wonder why in the world would they keep having kids? So they can get a little extra cash in the mail? To drain the system further...and I realize, that makes me a horrible woman for thinking that.

The population doomsayers have been crying "overpopulation!" since the time of Malthus, but human ingenuity has allowed for a continual rise in living standards :-)

Human ingenuity being wars and genocide, that is, allowing for a continual rise in living standards only for some.

Who is watching your kids while you're typing all these comments? Aren't you a bizzy maaaawwwwm?

Why do people gripe about something so general as world conditions when it's really the extent of your individual resources and local environment (opportunities, available land, etc.) that determine if you're in a good position to raise a child.

Someone with a full time job in a commited stable relationship who already has a decent home and lives in a good area (at least not a war zone) is far less selfish than a drug addicted bum on the street when they bring a child into the world, or a parent in a famine/drought/war ridden country who nevertheless keeps popping them out! No matter how many people are in the world there will have to be some to reproduce and it should be the ones that managed to gain a good support base.

If I (a nurse who owns a house in an industrial nation) decides not to have a child then what the hell is stopping a woman from having 10 of them in Somalia only to watch them starve? I can't affect what goes on in other parts of the world. Your arguement is old and tired and never made sense but some things if they're repeated often enough gain a dogmatic legitimacy somehow. It reminds me of the old lecture "there's starving children in China!" As if stuffing your face when you're not hungry is going to help them somehow!

I think it's painfully obvious right now who here should not be breeding!