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.

[HolyTerror]

Catz, if having children isn't a lifestyle choice (in the largest, non-weekend-supplement sense of 'a choice about how to live your life'), then how can not having children be a lifestyle choice? It involves making a yes/no choice about the same situation, with neither being any more or less valid than the other.

[Greywackejones]

Op YOU ARE RIGHT! So great to find a thread I can agree with the op on.

The only people who have ever said to me that kids are a lifestyle choice are either single or smug 'upper middle'ers.

Nobody else has ever referred to children as a lifestyle choice.

Imo it is a phrase born in the recent times of all those sneering at 'feckless' single mothers who had the temerity to either not be married, be teens or get divorced.

It's another way to shit on people by those supposedly better.

[SantasLittleMonkeyButler]

Forgetting the wanktastic phrase "lifestyle choice" for a moment - yes, of course having children was your choice!

In this country, we are far from the days of having to have children so that there will be someone to earn the money & save you from starvation in your old age.

If you choose to have DCs you have to take the burden of the bad points (childcare charges, no sleep etc.) along with the good points. There are lots of people in this country who do actually decide not to have DCs because they can't afford these things. Or who only have one DC when their "biological urge" is to have more.

[rootypig]

isaid I wanted a child a lot more than I wanted to have sex

To answer your question more sensibly, no I don't think that they're logical equals in terms of choice, i.e. we start from an equilibrium point between the two. One is clearly the (biological) norm and (for the sake of this argument) the economic imperative, merely by the fact of old age. Of course one can get into the semantics of choice, but semantics is rarely where the argument lives. Imo.

[WoodliceCollection]

YANBU. The only people whonuse that stupid phrase are utter misogynists. Firstly, children are not an accessory- which is what it implies, nor are they equivalent to keeping a dog in a handbag, driving a fancy car, etc, which are the kind of things "lifestyle choice" correctly applies to. Secondly, parents are a very diverse group encompassing most human beings at some stage, so cannot be described as a lifestyle, any more than there is a "gay lifestyle" or a "white lifestyle" etc.

I suppose for privileged women (no one ever uses the odious phrase at men) there is an element of choice, within limits, but many women are made ill by contraception (speaking as someone who is having, not my ideal, to get surgical sterilisation after all hormonal and physical methods have made me seriously ill, it's actually incredibly offensive for people to pretend reversible contraception is available to all, just as it would be to make sweeping statements about women who struggle to concieve). Abortion, even if everyone was happy with it as an option, is not freely available on demand in the UK; you need a doctor to certify a health risk to get one on the NHS. Therefore clearly not a choice, in the sense any normal person would use this word, as it is not freely made by the individual with full knowledge of all possibilities.

[YonicScrewdriver]

It's absolutely a life choice (not a lifestyle choice) but so what? So are lots of things - going to uni, buying or renting, emigrating - whatever.

[arethereanyleftatall]

Agree with apatite.

Are the op plus those agree with her really saying that their decision to have children was made to maintain equilibrium of population, and not because they wanted children? Give over.

[rootypig]

I don't know anyone who decided to have children to do their bit for the future economy.

Lots of interesting work in development economics would indicate that for many, this is wrong, at least at the family level. Gets a bit more complicated with the existence of the welfare state.

[squoosh]

Reproduction is a biological need, like eating or survival

Codswallop.

In the past it wasn't a lifestyle choice. Due to lack of choices it was pretty much inevitable that a woman of marriageable age would marry and if fertile would have children and often many in quick succession.

These days it's obviously very different. That's not to say people can tell you that you've no right to complain about morning sickness, childbirth, moody teenagers, the cost of childcare etc. etc.

But it is most definitely a lifestyle choice.

[hmc]

Bathtimefunkster put it really well (and made me smile)

[angelos02]

Of course it is a choice. I chose not to have children so surely the opposite is also a choice.

[kaykayred]

YABU.

It isn't so much of a "life STYLE" choice as it is a "LIFE" choice, but it still a choice nonetheless.

Women here get free access to reliable contraception, and no one is ever forced to continue a pregnancy (thank god!). Some people might not see that as much of a choice, but it is a choice nevertheless. No-one ever wakes up with two children thinking "how the fuck did they get here".

Reproduction isn't a "biological need", it's more of a biological urge. In this day and age we consider "urges" to be second to rationality, not an automatic given beyond our control.

To compare it with eating and breathing is insane. Every single person needs to eat and breathe in order to survive. Literally no-one in the history of time needs to have children in order to survive. Having children is wonderful, but not a "right". We don't hand out free babies to couples who can't have children without doing very careful and thorough checks first - they aren't "entitled" to a child.

You having 2 children does not "balance the world". I guess you have never bothered to look at projected population estimates? Or ever rising population increases?

No-one is going to disagree that childcare is very expensive. But that isn't an overnight phenomenon.

Some people might find that they can't afford to work until the kids are at school. That is a consequence of deciding to have children. No-one is obliged to provide you with free childcare because you want to work, have children, and be in the same financial position.

To the person who mentioned the french system - the french system is pretty much as bad as the UK, maybe even worse. It is basically impossible to get a creche space, especially in any city. Paris is obviously the worst. You can pay for a private creche (as expensive as the UK pretty much) and even THEN it's pretty much impossible to use a creche. People pretty much get the choice of being a STAHP or getting a nanny. The "tax break" isn't really a tax break, but to avoid people paying cash in hand. Which is what everyone was doing.

This video sums it up.

HERE

If it takes you to the main page, just click on the search and search for "creche".

[rootypig]

yes bravo Bathtime, though children as consumption IS an interesting idea - the Economist did a piece on it a while back. At some point (on the wealth curve), when parents stop expecting children to contribute economically, and children become an economic drain, they start to behave a bit more like a consumer good. Certainly a very risky investment.

If one wishes to view the world through the eyes of an economist inadvisable

[Catzeyess]

Having children (whatever the motivation) is a biological norm for most which we NEED to keep the human race going.

Not having children (when able) is opting out of that and therefore more of a choice (It's not a wrong choice - it's just a choice evolutionarily speaking if you see the difference)

[squoosh]

But if choosing NOT to have a child is considered a choice well then logically it follows that choosing to HAVE a child is also a choice.

[TedAndLola]

Of course it's a choice, but that doesn't mean it's not valid to moan about it. It's my choice not to eat meat but that doesn't mean I can't moan when restaurants think offering ONE vegetarian "option" is okay. I chose to get married but I can still moan when my husband annoys me.

Choosing to have kids doesn't mean you therefore have to live with every inconvenience and annoyance that comes with it, without complaint.

[Chavaloy]

It is your choice whether you decide to have a child. No one has to.
Whatever decision you make it will affect your lifestyle. Obviously.
I would never describe having a child as a lifestyle choice though!

[squoosh]

I think 'lifestyle choice' as a phrase is problematic as it makes people think of fun, frivolous things like hobbies and holidays. But I suppose having a child is the thing that impacts most on your lifestyle above all else.

[rootypig]

But if choosing NOT to have a child is considered a choice well then logically it follows that choosing to HAVE a child is also a choice.

Nonsense. What about choosing not to eat. Do we also choose to eat? The biological imperative is clearly tipped toward one side.

On the other hand, it would be very difficult to choose not to sleep. Nearly impossible, as it would kill you. But we also talk about choosing to sleep.

The language of choice is misleading.

[grocklebox]

If not having children is a lifestyle choice, then so is having children. You can't have it both ways.
You're not an animal. You choose whether to have children. In what way is not a lifestyle choice?

[Treats]

"Of course it's a choice"

Um. Not always. Suppose you found yourself pregnant after a rape? Or faulty contraception? Or succumbed to cultural pressure? Or pressure from an abusive partner?

"Choice" is a very slippery concept in my experience.

I hate it when people are prevented from expressing their very real frustrations with aspects of parenting with "it was your choice to have them" or "you should have thought of that before you had them" or similar phrases. As if - even in the most ideal circumstances - you could have minutely planned out every aspect of the experience beforehand.

And - as one pp put it - you can't unmake that "choice" once it's made. You can give up golf, sell the yacht, move house, break up with a partner, find a new job. Once you're a parent, you remain a parent for the rest of your life however badly you do the job.

So, from that pov, it's not a lifestyle choice.

[squoosh]

Rubbish.

We all eat to survive, no one has a child to survive.

[ArsenicFaceCream]

YANBU .

Calling children a lifestyle choice is one of the maddest MN tropes.

Complete nonsense designed to be withering and to put reproduction on a par with consumerism.

It's the same kind of politically motivated lingustic manipulation that brought us the nauseating 'hard-working families'.

[TedAndLola]

rootypig Nonsense.

How on earth is it nonsense? The drive to have a child is nothing like the drive to eat or sleep.

[HolyTerror]

Can we discard the weekend-supplement-vintage-furniture sense of the phrase 'lifestyle choice', which is admittedly trivialising, and focus on the 'life choice' sense? Obviously no one is seriously comparing the decision to have or not have a child to a decision about buying shoes or growing a hipster beard.

The planet doesn't need us (by which I mean first world women who have access to reliable contraception) to have children - it is more than adequately populated by the children of women who have no choice about limiting their children. The UK birth rate has gone up significantly over the last ten years - if there's a population crisis, which there is, it's not down to a lack of babies being born!