To think not having children because you've never met the right person...

Please read my posts. I said lacking compassion in THIS instance. We all have different situations for which we will feel compassion. We all judge others based on our own attitudes and experiences.

You seem to be taking it as an attack on the person as a whole, rather than a judgement of a single attitude the person has. That is not my intent.

We're obviously not going to agree on this so I'm leaving it here.

I disagree. Telling people they lack compassion is a very negative thing to say. In fact I think its one of the worst thing you can say to someone. And it also makes you sound arrogant as well as judgemental, as if your style of compassion is the only valid one.

Both situations are equally sad. For whatever reasons both women do not have a much longed for child. How can one be worse than the other when the outcome for both is the same?

The outcome for both women isn't the same. One has partner but no children. The other has neither a partner nor children. However, some people will be more resilient, cope better with their situation

LiveLong - you have taken a single segment out of my post and misrepresented it.

If you read my full post, you will see I am not denying that I am judging. I am denying that I am judging people very negatively.

My judgement is not strong enough to be classified as "judging them very negatively". I am judging a particular attitude as I think they are lacking compassion in this instance. However, I am not judging the person as a whole. I know nothing about the individuals who are posting here so I can only judge based on what is posted. I make no apologies for judging particular attitudes. I expect most people do the same as otherwise we would have very little discussion about topics.

Let it go.

I wouldn't say I'm judging people very negatively because they feel differently to me

You should, because you did. That is what your post was. It was entirely unambiguous.

Anyone who is not sympathetic towards this situation must have a heart of stone

You can be sympathetic, but to a greater or lesser degree. And like pretty much everything in life, it very much depends on the individual circumstances.

In some countries, when they say 'that's life', they mean it in a sympathetic tone, i.e it's the way of the world but yes, pretty horrible. I was told a relative had died when I was living abroad and a colleague said 'That's life!' which I found quite upsetting until I'd got used to the different use of the phrase. No excuse for your friend unless she's not British though as I think it always sounds flippant to our ears.

I just like this foreign sense of 'that's life' for expressing that parts of it are utterly horrible but all part and parcel of its random nature. It's how I feel about fertility (from personal experience) and how I would feel about the childless friend - sympathetic and sort of hopeless accepting.

I wouldn't say I'm judging people very negatively because they feel differently to me. It's not something I would expend that much energy on.

However, in the sense that we all make judgements based on the information available to us, I would judge people as lacking in compassion in this instance. It doesn't mean I think they are bad people or incapable of being compassionate in other circumstances. Yes, it's a negative judgement but I am not judging the person as a whole, simply judging their attitude in this instance in the same way I would judge someone who littered or who thought people shouldn't get benefits if they haven't paid in to the system previously, for example.

Anyone who is not sympathetic towards this situation must have a heart of stone

I think it's possible to judge your dismissive friend as lacking in empathy ("that's life" is an APPALLING answer) without having to rank and rate all forms of female suffering due to childlessness.

So you're not telling people how to feel, you're just judging them very negatively if they don't feel as you do.

Oh thats so much better then.

No, I am not telling you that you should be equally sympathetic to both. I cannot tell you how to feel.

I am telling you that I believe they are equally deserving of sympathy and that I think someone who does not see that, while entitled to their belief, is lacking in compassion.

So you don't think anyone is telling us that, and then you go on to tell us exactly that?

LiveLong - I don't think anyone is telling you that you should be equally sympathetic to both.

Rather, people are a bit shocked that you don't in the same way people would be a bit shocked that you might be sympathetic to someone with lung cancer due to environmental reasons but either less, or not at all, sympathetic to someone with lung cancer due to smoking. Most people would consider both to be equally deserving of sympathy and would feel someone who felt differently was a bit lacking in compassion.

Then why are people telling us that we should find them equally sympathetic?
You cant have it both ways.

Both situations are equally sad. For whatever reasons both women do not have a much longed for child. How can one be worse than the other when the outcome for both is the same?

LiveLong - of course nobody gets to decide who is "deserving" of your sympathy and empathy.

Equally, nobody gets to decide whether others are more sympathetic to someone dying from lung cancer as a result of smoking or someone dying from lung cancer as a result of exposure to environmental radon. However, I would think most people would be capable to recognising both are dreadful situations and worthy of sympathy.

Good point.

*As a childless woman who hasn't met the right person, and is probably now unlikely to conceive if I do, I couldn't agree more with the OP.

I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of compassion in some responses though.*

I agree with this. Going it alone with a sperm donor isn't an easy solution.

My take on it is that a single woman without children has a double whammy of no partner AND no children. A happily married woman who can't have children still has the partner

and both equally deserving of sympathy and empathy

But you don't get to decide what is deserving of my sympathy, or what I empathise with. You can only decide that for yourself.
Both situations may make the people involved equally sad, but I don't have to find them equally sad. That isn't how emotion works.

Edit: I obviously meant childless by circumstance in the first sentence of my prior post!

Some charming responses here. I see childless by choice and infertility as very related. FFS, anyone who hasn't had the opportunity doesn't even know if they are fertile anyway, and if they DO have the support and means to 'go it alone' as some of you seem to blithely think is an easy option, they are essentially going down the fertility treatment route. Sure, they might have a statistically increased chance of success but it's not a guarantee.

I am both, fwiw. Unexplained infertility after three and a bit years of trying with my husband, who then ditched me so I am now in the childless by circumstance camp in my mid thirties. Neither is much fun.

OP you sound like a lovely friend, she's lucky to have you.

Sorry - cross posts Star.

Star - I don't think anyone is saying the situations are the same, anymore than the situation between two different couples dealing with infertility is the same. One couple may be successful with sperm donation while another may never be able to have a successful pregnancy.

Apples and oranges again but both deserving of sympathy.