Wife regretting not having kids

[BettyDraper]

3 minutes ago, YOLO66 said:

As far as the "procreation" argument goes, you're missing the point.

Woman are biologically programmed to procreate.  Whether that is an ordinance from God, or the result of evolution, it is what it is.
That the drive may be less, or indeed absent in some women, doesn't change the overall fact.

Similarly, the fact that the majority of women choose to manage that drive, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And that is very much the point for the OP.  His wife may very well have decided that she doesn't want children, and she may in fact continue to be of that same mind.
But that doesn't mean she doesn't have the biological drive. not that it might not intensify at some point.

It's very hard to have a worthwhile forum discussion with someone who refuses to peruse all replies before responding.

In fact, it isn't worth the effort if you can't be bothered to read. You are missing far more than "the point" if you refuse to read before responding in an online forum. 

I have clearly stated more than once that humans have the biological imperative to reproduce! 

Edited February 6, 2020 by BettyDraper

[BettyDraper]

30 minutes ago, YOLO66 said:

Also need to remember the old adage.  Women change, men don't.

My 2nd wife had a career and didn't want kids.  I had kids and didn't want a 2nd batch, so it was a match made in heaven.
Until it wasn't.

The old biological clock went off like a fire-alarm.

I love my kids, and would do literally anything for them.  Which in part is why I didn't want them ever to feel they had been replaced or usurped.
'll also be honest and say I didn't want the burden.  It was hard enough juggling access and holidays, and being there for t-ball games and music recitals, without trying to balance a 2nd family.   And yes, with so much of my money going to child-support, losing her income and trying to sIupport a new family would have been a struggle. 

So I guess you're just as puerile as you said I was! Thank you for proving my point about your obvious jealousy toward the childfree. 

[DKT3]

1 hour ago, BettyDraper said:

Religious beliefs are not facts. 

Women to choose not to have children needn't be mindful of the views of others on this subject. This is a choice that we have every right to make. 

If you want to put a Christian spin on this, you might consider remembering that humans have free will. 😉

 

It is for those who believe 

I'm not a religious man,  but I respect the opinions of those who are. I dont discount their beliefs when it doesn't match mine.

Science is fact, evolution is fact. Free will doesn't mean we dont have a purpose.  

I personally don't judge or care if women choose not to have children it's not even something I think about. What caught my attention in this thread it the nonsense about it not being the primary reason we are here, and how that is being manipulated to give validity or a sense of comfort to those who choose not to reproduce and also this idea that the female body doesn't crave childbirth...you know, the biological stuff that some seem to believe they have intellectually evolved past, that's all bs.

Making the decision is a personal preference and that's ok. Saying that one never wanted children is very unlikely.  Even if it was passing thoughts , the desire has to be suppressed, and measures have to be taken to prevent it. No amount of feminism can change what most of you seem to be really trying to avoid, that being the females primary purpose 

Ultimately arguing the point is fruitless, you know like you telling believers thier beliefs are meaningless,  no matter how you say it they will believe.

 

[SummerDreams]

3 hours ago, DKT3 said:

@Ellener

We have one purpose.  If one believes in creation 

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

If one believes in evolution then the basis of evolution is reproduction without reproducing there can be no evolution. 

Just because someone has the ability to forgo thier purpose doesn't change that purpose.  Just because that purpose is foregone doesn't mean it's not the purpose.  

 

So I assume you have never used a condom or any other means of contraception right? And how many kids have you got so far?

[DKT3]

5 minutes ago, SummerDreams said:

So I assume you have never used a condom or any other means of contraception right? And how many kids have you got so far?

I have three children. 

Using contraceptives changes what? Our purpose? Or how many children we have?

I understand what I'm saying isnt popular.  Factually and scientifically it cant be challenged.  No amount of emotional reaction or feminist beliefs can change it.

Strip away all the unnecessary stuff on this earth and at its core there are males female and offspring....period 

[schlumpy]

Procreation is the ultimate reason for our existence. No matter what my social status in life is or what knowledge I've been able to retain or what skills I've developed, I am essentially an evolutionary failure because my childless status guarantees that my singular genetic heritage is a dead end. Nothing of what I am will survive into the future. It's an ultimate form of death. 

 

[elaine567]

52 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

Procreation is the ultimate reason for our existence. No matter what my social status in life is or what knowledge I've been able to retain or what skills I've developed, I am essentially an evolutionary failure because my childless status guarantees that my singular genetic heritage is a dead end. Nothing of what I am will survive into the future. It's an ultimate form of death. 

OK but even people with children or even grandchildren may still quickly progress to that genetic dead end and evolutionary failure...
Half your genes are in your children, 1/4 in your grand children, 1/8 in your great grand children,, you very  quickly  become irrelevant anyway.
In thriving populations there is no need for everyone to reproduce, in fact it may be more beneficial in the bigger picture for some lines to naturally die out 
Some people set great store on their legacy, but truth is few people know much about their great grandparents, some do not even know their names....

[preraph]

I never wanted kids. I assumed I would someday but I never did. I moderated a child-free board for some years and there are plenty of people out there who never did want kids. 

 

And then there are plenty who just decided it wasn't the right decision for them. 

[Els]

6 hours ago, schlumpy said:

Procreation is the ultimate reason for our existence. No matter what my social status in life is or what knowledge I've been able to retain or what skills I've developed, I am essentially an evolutionary failure because my childless status guarantees that my singular genetic heritage is a dead end. Nothing of what I am will survive into the future. It's an ultimate form of death.

In 6-7 generations' time nobody would be able to genetically trace any live person's DNA to yours anyway, because it would have been too fragmented.

I mean, reproduction doesn't even literally take half of your genes and merge them with someone else's. What happens during the process of meiosis is "crossing over", where your chromosomes will "swap" material. The result is a patchwork of genes that is not really the same as yours - gene sequence will differ, some will be broken, etc. And that's just with ONE round of meiosis, imagine what happens after 7 rounds (not to mention that even if that miraculously didn't happen, "your" genes would only constitute 1/2^7th of that person's).

Also, IMO genetic reproduction will be irrelevant to humankind <100 years from now - if we take the optimistic route and assume that we haven't been wiped off the planet by climate change or nuclear war, then either gene editing or the formation of an entirely new posthuman entity will prevail, spurred by technology. But that's probably going a bit far from the point.

 

[SummerDreams]

23 hours ago, DKT3 said:

I have three children. 

Using contraceptives changes what? Our purpose? Or how many children we have?

I understand what I'm saying isnt popular.  Factually and scientifically it cant be challenged.  No amount of emotional reaction or feminist beliefs can change it.

Strip away all the unnecessary stuff on this earth and at its core there are males female and offspring....period 

I just wanted to show the hypocricy. If you believe in God's rules that people have to procreate then you don't mess with His rules; you don't use contraceptives. You just let Him decide how many kids you will have.

I don't like to discuss with people who don't ever want to consider their opinions may be wrong so I'm leaving the conversation with you.

[Els]

21 minutes ago, SummerDreams said:

I just wanted to show the hypocricy. If you believe in God's rules that people have to procreate then you don't mess with His rules; you don't use contraceptives. You just let Him decide how many kids you will have.

I don't like to discuss with people who don't ever want to consider their opinions may be wrong so I'm leaving the conversation with you.

Haha, I don't even see this guy's posts anymore, until it appeared in your post. I suggest making hefty use of the block feature for sanity purposes.

I think basically that while most people in this world believe that the decisions they make are right for them (and that's a fair belief)... there are a certain subset of those people who seem to believe that the decisions they make are right for EVERYONE ELSE. Be it having 10 kids, 3 kids, 1 kid, 0 kid... the number they themselves have is the right one, and everyone else is wrong and doesn't know what they're doing with their lives apparently. I mean, look at all the people trying to speak on OP's wife's behalf, lol.

I also think that some of the backlash we are getting is because a few of the "old fashioned" people feel somewhat threatened that women are taking control of their own bodies and lives, a move that is unprecedented in human history. Only a century ago, women literally had no choice in how many children they had, unless they remained single and abstained from having sex (although even that would be difficult since they had no economic power for the most part). Perhaps it's a yearning to go back to the days when men held all the power. Or perhaps they subconsciously realize that women literally hold the fate of the species in our hands (at our current level of technology, anyway), as reproduction doesn't happen unless, at the very least, a woman consents to undergo the process of pregnancy and childbirth. If many of us opt out of it, maybe they might have to start doing some "horrible" things, like improving legal maternity rights *gasp!*, or doing some actual research into improving the obstetric processes, or ectogenesis.

[schlumpy]

22 hours ago, elaine567 said:

OK but even people with children or even grandchildren may still quickly progress to that genetic dead end and evolutionary failure...
Half your genes are in your children, 1/4 in your grand children, 1/8 in your great grand children,, you very  quickly  become irrelevant anyway.
In thriving populations there is no need for everyone to reproduce, in fact it may be more beneficial in the bigger picture for some lines to naturally die out 
Some people set great store on their legacy, but truth is few people know much about their great grandparents, some do not even know their names....

Like ripples in a pond except they won't be my ripples.

[Baman]

Life is always about sliding doors. If it's any consolation, my wife did the same a few months ago at 40. She thought about it from a ''did i really choose or just get complacent'' angle. She decided it didn't matter the why, it just is and she wasn't about to start now.

Is this just her expressing the what ifs that a lot of people have about any path in life?

just ask her...

As for all the derailed opinions of whats right, wrong, normal or godly... sheesh

Edited February 7, 2020 by Baman
adding comment

[Tamfana]

On 2/5/2020 at 11:36 PM, YOLO66 said:

Woman are biologically programmed to procreate.  Whether that is an ordinance from God, or the result of evolution, it is what it is.
That the drive may be less, or indeed absent in some women, doesn't change the overall fact.

Similarly, the fact that the majority of women choose to manage that drive, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And that is very much the point for the OP.  His wife may very well have decided that she doesn't want children, and she may in fact continue to be of that same mind.
But that doesn't mean she doesn't have the biological drive. not that it might not intensify at some point.

Perhaps people who do not have a desire to procreate are further along on the evolutionary timeline.  Populations of animals evolve in response to needs and circumstances.  While the drive to procreate is definitely a biological drive, animal populations have also been known to self-regulate especially when there is overpopulation or resources are limited.  Perhaps rising infertility rates and decreased desire to reproduce are actually perfectly natural biological/scientific steps in human evolution and self-regulation, just a step ahead of what will be a growing norm. It's worth considering the possibility.  

Or maybe it’s the opposite of that. Maybe the biological drive for unlimited procreation was a stress reaction to higher death rates and since we don’t “need” to bear 4 children so that 2 survive, the population’s overall drive to reproduce is declining. 

I don’t know.  I’ve never studied these things but it seems generally logical.  

Edited February 7, 2020 by Tamfana

[preraph]

Most of my reason just had to do with that I knew I didn't want to live my mother's lifestyle. She was just home all the time and she wasn't overwhelmed with work, but it was just day in and day out the same thing, and I knew I didn't want that. She was a very good mother and provider in most ways, but I never felt like she had great joy from it. 

 

I just wanted more, and I was lucky that I got to have a dream and follow it for a while. 

[BettyDraper]

8 hours ago, Elswyth said:

Haha, I don't even see this guy's posts anymore, until it appeared in your post. I suggest making hefty use of the block feature for sanity purposes.

I think basically that while most people in this world believe that the decisions they make are right for them (and that's a fair belief)... there are a certain subset of those people who seem to believe that the decisions they make are right for EVERYONE ELSE. Be it having 10 kids, 3 kids, 1 kid, 0 kid... the number they themselves have is the right one, and everyone else is wrong and doesn't know what they're doing with their lives apparently. I mean, look at all the people trying to speak on OP's wife's behalf, lol.

I also think that some of the backlash we are getting is because a few of the "old fashioned" people feel somewhat threatened that women are taking control of their own bodies and lives, a move that is unprecedented in human history. Only a century ago, women literally had no choice in how many children they had, unless they remained single and abstained from having sex (although even that would be difficult since they had no economic power for the most part). Perhaps it's a yearning to go back to the days when men held all the power. Or perhaps they subconsciously realize that women literally hold the fate of the species in our hands (at our current level of technology, anyway), as reproduction doesn't happen unless, at the very least, a woman consents to undergo the process of pregnancy and childbirth. If many of us opt out of it, maybe they might have to start doing some "horrible" things, like improving legal maternity rights *gasp!*, or doing some actual research into improving the obstetric processes, or ectogenesis.

I certainly believe that the type of men you described ultimately love to control women. They also have bruised egos because women can point out the inconsistencies in their beliefs or reply with facts which are too advanced for them to grasp. 

[SummerDreams]

21 minutes ago, BettyDraper said:

I certainly believe that the type of men you described ultimately love to control women. They also have bruised egos because women can point out the inconsistencies in their beliefs or reply with facts which are too advanced for them to grasp. 

Sometimes in life people find themselves in a situation they don't particularly like but they are stuck in it so they try  to convince themselves there was an ulterior reason for what happened to them until they believe it but they tend to hold a "grudge" to other people who didn't go through the same thing. For example, a person who is stuck in a bad marriage because they don't have the financial means to leave it convince themselves their purpose in life was to be in a s***ty marriage in order to raise their kids, but while they end up believing that, they resent people who have the financial means to leave a bad marriage. In the same way, a person who has kids and maybe they didn't want them at the time, they were forced into having them or they thought that they missed things from their personal lives because of the kids convince themselves it's God's will and people's purpose to have kids but they resent people who were smart - brave - logical - bold (etc) enough to not have them.

I find myself doing that as well sometimes. It's only human to want something others have.

[sothereiwas]

On 1/13/2020 at 4:35 PM, Woggle said:

We got to talking today and my wife was saying that even though deep down she knows that parenthood is not for us because we travel a lot she still wishes sometimes that she was a mother. She has a very close relationship with her college age niece and she said she sometimes wishes she said a child of her own to show that love to as well but also said that it's easy to be maternal when they go home at the end of the day. Is this just her expressing the what ifs that a lot of people have about any path in life?

Not sure how old you folks are but it's pretty common for women who have put off having kids to have a sudden realization that the bio-clock is ticking around age 40 or so. Unfortunately I don't have any really good advice that would be seen as comforting so the best I can do is just say she's not alone. 

[Els]

1 hour ago, BettyDraper said:

I certainly believe that the type of men you described ultimately love to control women. They also have bruised egos because women can point out the inconsistencies in their beliefs or reply with facts which are too advanced for them to grasp. 

Pretty much, except it's not just men, sadly. In this thread it seems to be mostly men, but IRL I've seen a lot of women behave this way towards other women who make different decisions from them, too.

3 hours ago, Tamfana said:

Perhaps people who do not have a desire to procreate are further along on the evolutionary timeline.  Populations of animals evolve in response to needs and circumstances.  While the drive to procreate is definitely a biological drive, animal populations have also been known to self-regulate especially when there is overpopulation or resources are limited.  Perhaps rising infertility rates and decreased desire to reproduce are actually perfectly natural biological/scientific steps in human evolution and self-regulation, just a step ahead of what will be a growing norm. It's worth considering the possibility. 

IMHO, "natural" evolution in the biological sense has pretty much halted now in the advent of modern medicine - the "survival of the fittest" simply does not happen because we intervene. Obviously, this is the right thing to do and we should never go back to our "natural" roots of simply letting the weakest die, but it does mean that we need to evolve different strategies of improving ourselves. Technology, biotechnology, information, culture. My guess is that if humanity does survive another 100 years, the people of that time would view our current reproductive methods as "crude" or "barbaric", much the same as the way we view the barber-"surgeons" or leeches of 300 years ago.

Quote

The barber surgeon, one of the most common European medical practitioners of the Middle Ages, was generally charged with caring for soldiers during and after battle. In this era, surgery was seldom conducted by physicians, but instead by barbers, who, possessing razors and coordination indispensable to their trade, were called upon for numerous tasks ranging from cutting hair to amputating limbs.

Fun stuff, right?

Edited February 7, 2020 by Elswyth

[sothereiwas]

3 hours ago, Tamfana said:

Perhaps people who do not have a desire to procreate are further along on the evolutionary timeline.

A famous geneticist once said "only grandchildren matter" so while I'd not label a person who has failed to reproduce as an evolutionary dead end, a person whose parents have a small number of grandkids, or none, might fall into that category from his educated viewpoint. Overall, with well over 7 billion (!) units in service I don't think humanity needs every unit we can produce at this point, so if someone opts out there's no need to throw shade on them IMO. 

On the other hand, if someone decides to have a few kids and can support them, I say good for them. 

Edited February 7, 2020 by sothereiwas
Correction

[sothereiwas]

10 minutes ago, Elswyth said:

IMHO, "natural" evolution in the biological sense has pretty much halted now in the advent of modern medicine - the "survival of the fittest" simply does not happen because we intervene.

I don't agree with your line of reasoning. Evolution is simply adaptation to fit the survival pressure present in our environment. The simple fact that we can modify that environment (medicines, agriculture, etc) doesn't mean adaptation stops, it simply means adaptation has a different set of rules to play by. Perhaps a reduction in pressure being met by a flourishing of variety is adaptation's way of hedging its bets against unknown future conditions. Who knows. 

[Els]

4 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

I don't agree with your line of reasoning. Evolution is simply adaptation to fit the survival pressure present in our environment. The simple fact that we can modify that environment (medicines, agriculture, etc) doesn't mean adaptation stops, it simply means adaptation has a different set of rules to play by. Perhaps a reduction in pressure being met by a flourishing of variety is adaptation's way of hedging its bets against unknown future conditions. Who knows. 

Yes, I said "evolution in the biological sense", the specific sort of genetic selection that we've known prior to the modern era. Adaptation can and will certainly happen, but the way in which it will happen in the future is anyone's guess. Personally, the horse I'm betting on (and helping to win, if I can) is transhumanism.

[sothereiwas]

6 minutes ago, Elswyth said:

the horse I'm betting on (and helping to win, if I can) is transhumanism.

I hope that happens, I believe it will, however "evolution in the biological sense" isn't going to stop so much as simply continue as it responds to changing pressures. Maybe the new ideal, biologically, is diversity in the face of lack of adversity? Maybe it's something else. It's probably too big and too slow for us to see clearly this close up, but I don't see any evidence or reason it would stop. 

Edited February 7, 2020 by sothereiwas
to v too

[Els]

18 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

I hope that happens, I believe it will, however "evolution in the biological sense" isn't going to stop so much as simply continue as it responds to changing pressures. Maybe the new ideal, biologically, is diversity in the face of lack of adversity? Maybe it's something else. It's probably too big and too slow for us to see clearly this close up, but I don't see any evidence or reason it would stop. 

Perhaps I wasn't specific enough - Darwinian selection has stopped, specifically. Referring to the definition:

Quote

n. The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, organisms that are better adapted to their environment tend to survive longer

This is not the case any longer. The biggest determinant of childhood mortality is now not genetic adaptation, but rather pure luck, specifically luck in the sense of where you were born - poor nations have a much, much higher rate of childhood mortality than rich nations, due to modern medicine and wealth disparity.

Quote

and transmit more of their genetic characteristics to succeeding generations

Also not the case any longer. The reason is that we have now divorced sexual selection from reproduction. In this day and age, ~90% of the time, the people reproducing are not the ones who have higher genetic fitness or who survived the longest, but simply the people who choose to reproduce. Before the modern era, having lots of sex without reproducing was never really possible, and similarly it was previously not possible to reproduce without a sexual partner or with certain reproductive issues. All of that has changed (which is a good thing).

However, I really feel like this will all be irrelevant very soon. Biological evolution is an extremely flawed process IMO - we can do far, far better.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Elswyth

[sothereiwas]

6 minutes ago, Elswyth said:

This is not the case any longer. The biggest determinant of childhood mortality is now not genetic adaptation, but rather pure luck, specifically luck in the sense of where you were born

I don't want to continue off topic, but I disagree. Luck of the draw has always been a huge factor.