to think that having children is not a "lifestyle choice"

[YorkshireTeaGold]

Sooo, saw a thread on aibu where the op complained about childcare costs and was told by another poster that she shouldn't complain as having kids was a lifestyle choice.

I've heard this so many times recently, both on mn and in rl and it massively pisses me off! My father actually told me not to complain about morning sickness as I wanted children.

I have 2 dcs and think that this is just maintaining the equilibrium of the world. Reproduction is a biological need, like eating or survival, it's not like taking up golf or buying a yacht. I can see maybe having no kids could be a lifestyle choice for some, as could having 9. But a couple? Not a lifestyle choice.

Plus it hides a political issue in that it's really difficult to afford to bring up children atm. I did a online check (think it was in the guardian) and dh and I are 75th centile for earnings. However 1/3 of this goes on the mortgage, 1/3 on childcare and 1/3 to barely cover the bills. It's ridiculous that this is the case, and if only people who truely afforded it had kids then it'd just be an elite minority reproducing. The government should organise the country so an average family can afford to buy a house and work.

Of course it's a choice, the world is overpopulated as it is, cannot believe you see it as anything else!

Ginger, I didn't say it. I was playing devil's advocate, and anyway, I said choosing to be actively gay e.g. having sex.

I was suggesting that "lifestyle choice" is a bit rubbish (and yes, insulting) as a descriptor for having children. It's a bit more fundamental to the human species than that. If you can't choose not to be attracted to a person of the same sex, then it's highly unlikely you can choose not to want to have a baby. You may choose not to have a baby, but that's not quite the same as choosing not to have the desire or attraction to have a baby, in which case there should be nothing insulting about suggesting that choosing not to have sex as a gay person is a "lifestyle" choice.

Similarly, the default would be that most human beings want to have access to clean running water. Yet there are religious people, such as monks, who choose not to as a lifestyle choice. The fact that people choose not to do what most people do as a default does not usually make the default "a lifestyle choice". The cancer example was the extreme end of this. People choose to treat cancer (or to seek euthanasia) when the default is to cling to life no matter what.

On the other hand, I think issues around family planning are quite complex in the developed world where we have this very recent experience of actually being able to choose. I grew up in Ireland where it was illegal in my youth and my grandmother had to leave work when she got married as she was clearly about to have (as she did) eight babies as her life's work. That's obviously still the norm in many developing countries. I don't think it's that easy to turn your back on a long evolutionary history and freely choose what was never chosen by any of your ancestors.

People going on about overpopulation, the issue isn't the number of people, it's the levels of consumption of the earth's resources.

A couple in the US probably consume far more resources then a family of 10 in Bangladesh. Here's a good overview: www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/the-overpopulation-myth

I'll counter that argument with the withdrawal method has been around a fair few years, the Catholic family on my street have 3 children and have been married for years i'd wager my house that they've been choosing population control at their residency

Funnily enough, the pope has just advised Catholics to have three children using the rhythm method, as apparently if you do this over the course of your childbearing years while breastfeeding and allowing for natural gaps between children, this is easily done without contraception.

I have a friend who was considering tweeting him to ask what she should do with her current "surprise"....

It's a lifestyle choice. We're currently deciding whether to have a child or not. There's pros & cons on both sides. I'm pragmatic about it. If we had more money, steady jobs, a home... These are factors whether you have kids or not.

It's a choice to a certain extent in developed nations but not about lifestyle. It is also for many many women around the globe a very decided need. The need to start a family overrode pretty much everything for two years of my life. That had nothing to do with choice and everything to do with my instincts pushing me irrationally towards starting a family. It came out of nowhere and took me by surprise. I was married previously and had no desire whatsoever to have children and never envisaged myself with babies. I would now not trade DD for my previous lifestyle for anything in the world.

Internet boards are full of ttc threads and two week wait chat and I know I am not the only one who has this driven need to have babies. The fertility industry is worth billions. You could argue it is choice that means we put ourselves through such extremes to get pregnant but it is need and instinct driven at the end of the day. So I think YANBU. The decision to have children is not solely a rational, logical decision and the term choice indicates that some of us had a say in our feelings. I honestly don't believe I had a choice - it was something I just had to do.

duplodon the 'natural gap' between my dc2 and dc3 was 16 months, while breastfeeding

I disagree living.

I did IVF for 7 years but I had the family I could afford for lifestyle reasons.I'd have loved to have 4 but stopped at 3. I know many who struggle to conceive but don't do IVF or stop before reaching their goal.I know many with just one IVF child because of lifestyle reasons(ie treatment has cost a lot and they put the needs of the child they've got above those they might possibly never have).

Those struggling with infertility aren't crazed women after a child at any costs.Many if us have had to consider lifestyle more than most other people.

A couple in the US probably consume far more resources then a family of 10 in Bangladesh

Well yeah- you want to live like a Bangadeshi peasant farmer? Thought not, and neither does the Bangladeshi farmer for that matter, so if we want the poor to be able to have the things that we in developed countries take for granted, there need to be fewer of us.

Surely the more attractive option is a lower population with more each, rather than a higher population scratching around in the dirt?

I love my dc, but did not have the first one by any sort of choice. Seems to me it happens that way often enough, certainly when I say it plenty of women tell me their stories and one or more of their DC too were not choices. Loved and adored, but not choices. My handbag, my job, my home and my cycling are lifestyle choices. The DC were not.

Anybody who has children as a 'lifestyle' choice must be very disappointed. Really, a wood burning stove is much lower maintenance. You never have to take it to soft play and you can ignore it for months and months and it never comes home from school and tells you it has no friends. You always know exactly where it is and it's never going to get into

Oops - bad company

Isn't there a difference between something that's a choice - which applies to a lot of things in our lives - and something that's a lifestyle choice? The latter sounds more offensive to those who are struggling with childcare costs etc because it places having children, which is a fundamental decision and often the most important thing in someone's life, in the same (media-branded) category as golf or flower arranging.

Yes of course we can (if we're lucky enough) choose to have children or not, but it's hardly a trivial decision and childcare costs are such a massive issue for so many people that saying parents have to suck it up because they chose to have kids is a bit unrealistic really.

50/50 I can see your point both ways but in terms of expense of raising children this is where the lifestyle choice really comes in - eg dress kids in Gap clothes (more expensive) or Primark? Eat own brand food or not? Drive 2 cars or not? Expensive mortgage or downsize? These are all choices which can make life with kids expensive or manageable depending on what you feel your actual needs are. Having kids is a big choice if you look at it financially otherwise everyone would be having 16 of families. Perhaps. Actually no sane woman would want to raise 16 kids would they?!

Bathtimefunkster absolutely

Although my mother is fond of telling me that if she had her time again she would never have had children - by choice

Of course it isn't a lifestyle choice. That phrase makes it sound like a hobby.

We are lucky in this country that women have some choice- I say some as access to contraception still isn't what it should be. This choice is also incredibly recent.

In most countries in the world there is no choice at all or very little about how many children you have and when.

Also who should be "allowed" to have children? Because someone has to. WORK IT OUT.

Interesting to read that the term life style was first used by Alfred Adler in 1929 the same year as the stock market crash.

Anyway, it's a fairly new term and implies consumer choices as many posters have said. I'm not comfortable viewing children as a consumer choice as I don't define myself purely as a consumer in a man made societal system.

You can't bottle and sell emotions and most of the time having children is an emotive decision. Therefore outside of the system and outside of an lifestyle choice.

Its obvious we have a very different definition of what lifestyle means so we will never agree. I'm ok with that.

If it's seen as a lifestyle choice, we'll soon be told that only the rich can responsibly afford to make that choice, and the next step will be the sterilisation of the poor.

Those struggling with infertility aren't crazed women after a child at any costs.Many if us have had to consider lifestyle more than most other people.

Where on earth did I say crazed women . I said it overrode logic and was instinct driven. That hardly equals crazed. I struggled with infertility and miscarriage for years before getting dd so I well understand infertility issues.

If I looked at it logically I wouldn't put myself through so much pain and expense to achieve having children but I did choose to do so. As do millions of women around the world. Why do we do that? On a rational level to me it does not add up. I am sure there are a few families that sit there and work out their ten year plan which is great if it works for them but the majority of us just want children for no other reason than that. My point is what drives that choice. It isn't logic in the main part. The term choice means you have some say over the matter and I don't think it is applicable when it is a part of basic human function to reproduce.

If I look at my current life now I have dd however it sure as hell wasn't a lifestyle choice in any material sense. But worth it all the same.

And what about all the people whose 'choose' to have children but aren't able?

If we are lucky there is a choice element, often, such as putting it off or not having them at all, or stopping at the number of children you think you can afford.

But, there is clearly a biological imperative to reproduce, felt very keenly by many, many women (and men I understand). It might not be personally life threatening if we don't do it but what about our society, as other posters have said. Of course we need future generations.

Agree with Aggressive Bunting: it's ridiculous to say that it's all fine and dandy for a Bangladeshi family to have 10 children but not Westerners. As expectations and consumption rise, it's unacceptable for anyone on this planet to have a large number of children.

Btw I shall put my hand up and say that I was a very crazed woman when suffering from infertility! So from personal experience I'd say that there's as much biology as a desire for a certain lifestyle in the mix.

Livingzuid having been through it myself I strongly disagree that it's illogical. If you want to have a child naturally there are very strong reasons based on logic rather than instinct. If you can't have a child you want I think it's perfectly logical to realize that missing out on something you've always wanted may well make you very unhappy for the rest of your life. The majority of people still have children and if you can't have them but not by choice you can very much be excluded from large swathes of society and not be able to participate fully in your community. It's logical to know that when you or your partner are bereaved you may well lack any really close familial relationships and face increasing isolation. It's logical to know that you may have to suppress the part of your personality which needs to nurture and that will make you unhappy.

For people who choose not to have children these are obviously not issues which matter to them. But to me to say 'oh, it's just an instinct, it's not worth it' would be the most logical thing of all. And y'know, I can't look at my little boy and think of how much I love him and how much happiness he's brought and think 'logically I shouldn't have bothered'.