Why is it taboo to admit you are having children because you want to be looked after when old?

[KeenTaupeDog]

I’ve noticed that any time someone hints at this, people jump down their throats — “children aren’t your pension,” “that’s selfish,” etc.
But if we’re being honest, this used to be the whole point of having kids. In many cultures it still is. Even here, plenty of parents quietly hope their kids will care about them when they’re elderly — not just emotionally, but practically.
We act as if you’re only supposed to have children out of pure love or to “nurture the next generation,” and that expecting any return is somehow shameful. Yet everyone still wants family nearby when they’re frail, lonely or ill.
Why is it socially unacceptable to say the quiet part out loud? Is it because we’ve built an ideology of self-sufficiency that makes dependence feel dirty — even though in reality, we’ll all need someone in the end?
Not trying to be provocative, genuinely curious what people think.

That's still very much the case across a huge part of the world.

Unless you live there, how is that relevant to you?

When I’m 96 my eldest will be 80, we will be in the care home together

Having children is a very strong biological urge.

In the past having children was unavoidable is you wanted to have sex.

It was also necessary because family groups were required to farm the land and work cooperatively to defend and feed the community.

Having children in the past was no guarantee of old age care when illness, childbirth, famine and war could wipe out your children before you reached old age.

My parents have two children, only one of us lives nearby enough to care for them in their old age (and only because they moved location to be near that child)

We have a great relationship with our own children but who know where in the world they might end up living? The days of spending your life in the same town are gone.

Very true but genuinely, I don't think people really thought about whether or not they would have kids.They would try and avoid it by using the rhythm method.And it would fuck up!

I don't think most people, in the UK at least, have children because they want to be looked after when they're old. Most people don't think that far ahead and when you're young, you can't even imagine being old, frail and vulnerable. It certiainly wasn't something I thought about when I had my children.

There's no guarantee that your children would be able to provide care anyway, or be willing to.

Perfectly put.

I couldn’t think of anything worse than my dc wiping my arse in old age

I don't think it's expectation they'll look after you - and it certain shouldn't be.

But more that they will be there for you and around you as you grow old and aren't able to go to them.

Certainly dm has a friend who chose not to have children. They didn't regret it until she was retiring. Now they're into her 80s they really regrets it because they see friends busy with grandchildren/great grandchildren who pop in and see them, even not very much but it means a whole extra set of people to come and see who are younger and more able to get around and visit. She points out that what she hadn't really thought about was that as she got older and less wanting to visit and travel, so have her friends.

And all those posters who think they’re superior because they waited till they were 40 before having children will expect them to give up their prime years to wipe their arse

I don’t think it’s taboo. I think it’s a completely idiotic reason that will leave you disappointed because who wants to look after someone who gives off the impression that the reason you exist is for their care.

It's not; but it wasn't made clear whether we were only discussing the UK/wealthy western countries or including everywhere.

I think it's always a good idea, in questions like this, to 'check our privilege' - and not assume that everybody is as fortunate as we are.

It's not even a western world/developing world issue either: plenty of threads on here have wealthier (mainly British) MNers scoffing at what they see as trivial amounts of money to lose, which to many poorer (mainly British) MNers can represent their families' weekly food bill.

People had loads of kids because they had no contraception. And because they needed large families to work in the fields/grow crops etc.

Nowadays we do have contraception. And as I've said before, if you have kids, you know that barring disability the burden will become increasingly smaller as they grow up and become more independent (and they start off small so are easy to carry round!) It is for a finite time, too.

It is very different to maybe starting off needing to care for someone in their 60s or 70s who might survive in poor health until their 90s and can only get worse. And there's a difference between helping out with hospital appointments or getting them logged back into the NHS app when it keeps logging them out (can you tell what I get asked to do :) ) etc and actual physical caring which is best left to professionals (with the right equipment eg hoists in some cases).

That’s absolutely awful. I hope you’re not doing it.

I didn’t have DS to look after us when I am
old. My DPs are very elderly and expectations suddenly seem to have ramped up, I would hate DS to ever have to go through what I am. I would much rather go into a care home or have a care package and DS visit because he wants to.

I don’t want my kids to go through what we did with my Mum ( dementia). If I am able, I will end my life rather than them have such a burden.

i see this from the opposite point of view. What’s wrong with preferring to die rather than be a burden. People always say about assisted dying bills, ‘ooh, we can’t have that. People will want to die rather than be a burden’. I see that as a perfectly rational choice. I don’t want the humiliation of my children caring for me in the way we did for Mum. My Mum found it humiliating too, and she hated knowing the effect it had on our own lives ( my sibling became her full time carer, giving up their own life in the process). That was a huge source of pain for my Mum.

That assumes the grandchildren have stayed in the/live in the same area and visit their grandparents. I never lived anywhere near my two grandmothers.

Ha, I hope my parents were hoping this, because they'll be sorely disappointed 🤣

There's less than 20 years between DD and I; she'd be too old to do any caring even if I had any intention of her doing it, which I don't. Her life is hers to live in any way she wants - whether that's coming for tea every day when she's 40 or travelling the world and speaking to us on video chat occasionally when she's 18.

Obviously not you 😂😂

I agree with you. My MIL was bedbound for 4 years with dementia. In what world is that a sensible way to end your days? Admittedly in her case she probably wouldn't have been able to make an informed choice to end her life, but it is ridiculous for people to be kept alive when they have zero quality of life.

A friend's grandmother was bed-bound for TEN YEARS after a stroke.

That's an utterly stupid outlook. Many kids these days go to Uni, and never return to their home town due to lack of decent jobs, particularly in the regions, so stay in the bigger cities. There's no guarantee of kids staying in your home town to be close enough to look after their parent(s). It's an incredibly selfish attitude if you want to hold back your kids and expect them to stay around your home town, missing out on career/life opportunities just so you've someone to take you to hospital appointments and ultimately wipe your bum!

We've made it absolutely clear to our DS that he should go out there and do his own thing, with no expectation at all to look after us. We virtually pushed him out to University and did loads of research for him for graduate jobs. He's never really been back home since going to Uni (other than holidays), as he went straight to a different city for his first proper graduate job after Uni and has now moved again to move to London. There are no jobs in his chosen profession within commuting distance of our home town, so we know there's very little chance of him relocating back home to us. It's his life, he needs to live it for his own good, not to look after ageing parents. We're sorting ourselves out re future care etc.

We have seen a marked decline in MIL cognitive ability over the last few months. I do not want to care for her. There is no long tender history of her raising me and nurturing me. My parents had the good grace to die without cognitive decline, obviously it’s not a choice. They did have some physical issues but that was far more surmountable than dealing with dementia.

I do not want to burden my children, I’m all for voluntary euthanasia. I’m sure there is the chance of exploitation but think that’s a risk worth taking.

This is my "hill I will die on."

(Not the point of the thread, I know. As you were.)

That is shocking but I think a lot of parents do this - they have a disabled child and then have another "normal" child with the expectation that the sibling will take over their care when they can't do it anymore.

A friend of my mum's made a will in these sorts of terms - she had a disabled son and two daughters and said the daughters would only inherit if they looked after the son. I don't know what happened in the end, he had kidney disease and had dialysis so often that he couldn't work.

Actually I think the biggest thing a lot of elderly people need is company, not care.

My mum is pretty fit but a lot of her friends have died and so she likes me there so she has someone to go out for coffee or lunch with!

I would rather kill myself than have my DC providing personal care for me in my dotage. I am already in my sixties and they are mid twenties.

It just isn’t a thing I have ever considered.