Honest opinion - what do you think of parents choosing to have one child?

I'm slightly gobsmacked by your inability to see it is offensive. What about adopted children? Not blood related so less important? Are they not equal family? This is why it is offensive.

We have a 7 year old DS and no fertility issues that we know of.
We have still chosen to have only one child.
I guess I’m just wondering what other parents think?

I find your stance odd. The vast majority of people will be relying on family as their main support network when they are elderly. This doesn't mean you forgo all other relationships and don't try to build a wider network but I don't know what you are expecting from friends of elderly people? My grandma has lots of friends but they are often elderly themselves and have their own struggles and issues. They also have their own families that ultimately they will prioritise over my grandma. Blood is thicker than water for most people.

Even now as younger woman, I know that I can rely on my siblings in a way that I can't my friends. I love my friends and would do a lot for them but I would do more for my siblings. I don't think I'm unusual. I would never for example leave money in my will to my friend's children that I like very much but I would my nieces and nephews.

I understand you're trying to reassure people that have only one child that those children are not destined to a terrible, lonely existence as they age. Of course they are not, but I do think siblings are a protective factor and this should be acknowledged. No guarantees and no promises but siblings can be an important feature in people's lives and by having one child you are denying your child that opportunity. There will be other positives though that your child will have from being an only child such an intensity of focus and resource that those with siblings don't enjoy. It's swings and roundabouts.

Yes, almost everyone will have family members not related to them through blood. I still think most people prioritise blood relations. I think in most cases we feel closer to our siblings than their husband or wife for example even though they are technically related too. I'm not suggesting it's always the case but I don't think it'san offensive phrase or suggestion as you seem to suggest it is. In the same was that it isn't offensive to suggest that friends are actually more important because they're your 'chosen' family. It's all opinion and subjective. You don't need to shut it all down under the guise it's offensive.

I really hope so. At the moment, I feel very much like I don't 'deserve' care when I am older. I haven't been able to have children (I would like them) and with no extended family to direct any of my love or care to, it does seem like I am destined for a very lonely and sad old age.

Hopefully things will change, but I am not sure how.

What about my stance is odd? I literally said in my post I wasn't denying the positives of a good sibling relationship or that people rely on their family. I work in Older adult social work. I assess for care. I'm aware of people's support networks.

My point is that there are many people who don't have good sibling relationships and who rely on their friends more and these relationships can just be as meaningful and more supportive. This is clearly not your experience but it is mine and just as valid. And the experience of many people I come across both professionally and personally. My MIL is poa for her best friend. My mum cared for her neighbour in the absence of closer children. I've seen people have support that isn't family.

Of course having a good sibling relationship and family is a good thing and people will tend to rely on those if they have them. I wasn't saying it wasn't. But for those that don't, they can have just good support elsewhere. This isn't having an odd stance, it's stating a fact.

And the thing with quoting studies is you can literally find any article or study to fit your point of view. Here's articles here saying people rely on friends more as they get older.

https://siliconcanals.com/m-bt-why-friendships-become-more-important-than-family-the-older-you-get/

And if we want to be really pedantic the actual phrase is The original phrase is believed to be: “The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.” And that? It means the relationships you choose—the ones sealed by intention, loyalty, shared hardship—are deeper than the ones you inherit.

I find your stance odd. The vast majority of people will be relying on family as their main support network when they are elderly. This doesn't mean you forgo all other relationships and don't try to build a wider network but I don't know what you are expecting from friends of elderly people? My grandma has lots of friends but they are often elderly themselves and have their own struggles and issues. They also have their own families that ultimately they will prioritise over my grandma. Blood is thicker than water for most people.

Even now as younger woman, I know that I can rely on my siblings in a way that I can't my friends. I love my friends and would do a lot for them but I would do more for my siblings. I don't think I'm unusual. I would never for example leave money in my will to my friend's children that I like very much but I would my nieces and nephews.

I understand you're trying to reassure people that have only one child that those children are not destined to a terrible, lonely existence as they age. Of course they are not, but I do think siblings are a protective factor and this should be acknowledged. No guarantees and no promises but siblings can be an important feature in people's lives and by having one child you are denying your child that opportunity. There will be other positives though that your child will have from being an only child such an intensity of focus and resource that those with siblings don't enjoy. It's swings and roundabouts.

I think society will need to adapt to a world where this scenario is more common. Like it or not, there is a significant presumption built into the system at the moment that we generally do have family that will get involved to some extent with our care as we age. I have experienced this first hand with relatives that would have been left in absolutely terrible circumstances without family intervening.

I do think how we are going to fund and resource all of this does need to be considered though. It's the ying to the yang in many ways. Lots of people my age and my parents age have caring responsibility for their children and grandchildren. Of course it isn't always the case but often this is reciprocated when people get old themselves and need care. Having no kids is a brilliant way of avoiding caring responsibilities for younger family members but this may make the poor of people available to care for you as you age smaller. Nobody has any guarantees no matter what we choose but my experience is that those with a bigger family network have more options.

You can't choose to forgo care and you may find that you can't pay for the type of care you want in the way you envisage. One of my relatives has a lot of paid care but still needs family to advocate for them and undertake specific tasks. It's complex.

Which raises the question, what are those of us with no family at all supposed to do? Just suffer I guess. It's very sad and worrying.

I've been through it, I'm fully aware what's involved.

Most people know it is offensive as many , many people have family members they are not related through blood to. I am rather surprised that that hasn't occurred to you and rather taken aback at you quoting You gov at me.

That isn't quite the case though. Happens slower than it often should, granted, but hospitals/doctors etc can deem someone unfit to be home alone and then it falls to social services to organise either incoming or residential care.

You can't choose to forgo care and you may find that you can't pay for the type of care you want in the way you envisage. One of my relatives has a lot of paid care but still needs family to advocate for them and undertake specific tasks. It's complex.

Which raises the question, what are those of us with no family at all supposed to do? Just suffer I guess. It's very sad and worrying.

What do you find offensive about the phrase? It's simply another way of saying family comes first and Yougov polls suggest up to 90% of us agree with that sentiment.

You can't choose to forgo care and you may find that you can't pay for the type of care you want in the way you envisage. One of my relatives has a lot of paid care but still needs family to advocate for them and undertake specific tasks. It's complex.

What do you find offensive about the phrase? It's simply another way of saying family comes first and Yougov polls suggest up to 90% of us agree with that sentiment.

You can't choose to forgo care and you may find that you can't pay for the type of care you want in the way you envisage. One of my relatives has a lot of paid care but still needs family to advocate for them and undertake specific tasks. It's complex.

What an offence post. 'Blood is thicker than water?'. I thought most people knew not to use that phrase these days.

I'm not planning on having any child of mine do the caring of me when I'm old, it is not what children are for. I want to be cared about not cared for. I will happily pay for care or not have it at all rather than rely on an adult child trying to juggle their own family and work etc.

What an offence post. 'Blood is thicker than water?'. I thought most people knew not to use that phrase these days.

I'm not planning on having any child of mine do the caring of me when I'm old, it is not what children are for. I want to be cared about not cared for. I will happily pay for care or not have it at all rather than rely on an adult child trying to juggle their own family and work etc.

Of course being an only child isn't completely irrelevant to getting older. Almost all the elderly people I know are in contact with their siblings still and have very important relationships with them if they're still alive. As their social circles have diminished over time and some have become widowed, they have gone on to rely more on sibling relationships not less. They have aged together but provide each other important support socially and emotionally. Nieces and nephews are a bit of a mixed picture but I definitely know if a few scenarios where they have supported their Aunts and Uncles in important ways.

I do think having children yourself is probably even more important than having siblings but it all matters as our lives generally get smaller as we age and we fall back on family relationships to support us in so many ways.

There are no guarantees with siblings or children and you may still end up lonely and isolated when you're elderly but having a larger family network is a protecting factor. Studies have shown that a warn sibling relationships are linked to lower levels of loneliness.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335194522_Sibling_relationships_in_older_adulthood_Links_with_loneliness_and_well-being

I find your stance odd. The vast majority of people will be relying on family as their main support network when they are elderly. This doesn't mean you forgo all other relationships and don't try to build a wider network but I don't know what you are expecting from friends of elderly people? My grandma has lots of friends but they are often elderly themselves and have their own struggles and issues. They also have their own families that ultimately they will prioritise over my grandma. Blood is thicker than water for most people.

Even now as younger woman, I know that I can rely on my siblings in a way that I can't my friends. I love my friends and would do a lot for them but I would do more for my siblings. I don't think I'm unusual. I would never for example leave money in my will to my friend's children that I like very much but I would my nieces and nephews.

I understand you're trying to reassure people that have only one child that those children are not destined to a terrible, lonely existence as they age. Of course they are not, but I do think siblings are a protective factor and this should be acknowledged. No guarantees and no promises but siblings can be an important feature in people's lives and by having one child you are denying your child that opportunity. There will be other positives though that your child will have from being an only child such an intensity of focus and resource that those with siblings don't enjoy. It's swings and roundabouts.

I'm an only and had to deal with my mum's funeral, bank accounts, clearing her stuff, etc. I had some of her lovely friends to help me, and my DH. That's not a good enough reason to have more than one child. Being an only might have some disadvantages but they are balanced in other ways - I have learnt resilience and the ability to fend for myself.