Replies to '12/28 Wifestyles'

It's true there are a lot of things that make us human and being a mother for a woman is one of the roles assigned to her by nature. We say that it's natural and healthy to eat, sleep, move a lot, have sex... Well, getting pregnant is just as natural. Over years people have learned to control the process of getting pregnant and it's a great accomplishment. But voluntarily bringing it to a halt seems like giving up to me.  

I think that those people (men and women) who choose not to have kids are setting their minds for a failure. It's as if they are saying "I'm not good enough to produce more people like me. I don't like my DNA. I don't want to continue my generation. Sure since I was born I'll do something with my life and maybe make other people happy and maybe make a huge contribution with my work to the mankind so that others can have better lives. But I voluntarily sacrifice my chance of staying in the game of life and a race for survival." 

We talk a lot about accepting who we are. But are those women who choose not to have kids (not to get pregnant) not accepting their bodies and DNAs the nature gave them? We say we have to reach our potential in life. Do those women decide not to use this gift of nature, this opportunity, meaning they don't reach their bodies' full potential? We teach all around us to never give up. But don't those women give up in the natural competition of DNA survival? That makes me think that for a woman deciding not to have kids not because she can't (and I feel very sorry for those who want to, but can't), but because she doesn't think it's important for her, is not healthy. 

It is a slightly different thing for a man, because he is not the one getting pregnant. In nature where he hasn't been given any control over his mate's body, it's even more natural for him to assume that he will be a father as long as he is having sex with young females. But again, if a man chooses to have protected sex nowadays, he chooses to control this process. And if on the top of that he chooses not to have kids, that to me also sounds unhealthy. In other words, I think choosing to control and to plan your parenthood is a great idea, but choosing to give it up is nothing less than giving up on yourself. 

There is also a timing issue involved here. Men were given an advantage here (bastards!). They can make kids from puberty until they die, but women have only a window of 20 years or so to make all the kids they decide to have. I'm talking about ages from about 20 to 40 years while the woman's body can do it's best to have healthy children. So if a man decides not to have kids, but suddenly changes his mind at 75 like David Letterman, he still has a shot. But for a woman this decision is irreversible when she looses this battle to time.  

And even 40 is too late for most women. I've been told by many doctors that the most healthy age to have the first child is 20-23. It's not just about getting pregnant which with new methods (like freezing your eggs etc.) could be delayed until a woman is 50 or so. It's also about a woman's body getting old and less capable of carrying a healthy baby into the world with time. 

And even that is not it. OK, the baby is born and healthy. If his parents are getting old on the plus side they are getting wise and more settled (presumably), but on the minus side they loose their energy with age. It's not enough for them to make a kid, they have to give this kid a good start in life too so that this kid has a better chance of spreading his DNA around. (I know putting in these words sounds blunt, but we are all creatures of mother nature, aren't we? Denying this fact doesn't make it any less of a fact.) And if you are David Letterman and make a lot of money you can sort of hire someone to be a parent for your child if you become sick and fragile with age. But for a 35-year-old supermarket manager with the goal to become a head manager by the age of 50 and then have kids the picture is different. 

I'd like to conclude with a very strong statement here. If some say that not having kids is a choice, I can't agree more. It is a choice. Only in my point of view it's a loser's choice and unhealthy! 

It's true there are a lot of things that make us human and being a mother for a woman is one of the roles assigned to her by nature. We say that it's natural and healthy to eat, sleep, move a lot, have sex... Well, getting pregnant is just as natural. Over years people have learned to control the process of getting pregnant and it's a great accomplishment. But voluntarily bringing it to a halt seems like giving up to me.  

I think that those people (men and women) who choose not to have kids are setting their minds for a failure. It's as if they are saying "I'm not good enough to produce more people like me. I don't like my DNA. I don't want to continue my generation. Sure since I was born I'll do something with my life and maybe make other people happy and maybe make a huge contribution with my work to the mankind so that others can have better lives. But I voluntarily sacrifice my chance of staying in the game of life and a race for survival." 

We talk a lot about accepting who we are. But are those women who choose not to have kids (not to get pregnant) not accepting their bodies and DNAs the nature gave them? We say we have to reach our potential in life. Do those women decide not to use this gift of nature, this opportunity, meaning they don't reach their bodies' full potential? We teach all around us to never give up. But don't those women give up in the natural competition of DNA survival? That makes me think that for a woman deciding not to have kids not because she can't (and I feel very sorry for those who want to, but can't), but because she doesn't think it's important for her, is not healthy. 

It is a slightly different thing for a man, because he is not the one getting pregnant. In nature where he hasn't been given any control over his mate's body, it's even more natural for him to assume that he will be a father as long as he is having sex with young females. But again, if a man chooses to have protected sex nowadays, he chooses to control this process. And if on the top of that he chooses not to have kids, that to me also sounds unhealthy. In other words, I think choosing to control and to plan your parenthood is a great idea, but choosing to give it up is nothing less than giving up on yourself. 

There is also a timing issue involved here. Men were given an advantage here (bastards!). They can make kids from puberty until they die, but women have only a window of 20 years or so to make all the kids they decide to have. I'm talking about ages from about 20 to 40 years while the woman's body can do it's best to have healthy children. So if a man decides not to have kids, but suddenly changes his mind at 75 like David Letterman, he still has a shot. But for a woman this decision is irreversible when she looses this battle to time.  

And even 40 is too late for most women. I've been told by many doctors that the most healthy age to have the first child is 20-23. It's not just about getting pregnant which with new methods (like freezing your eggs etc.) could be delayed until a woman is 50 or so. It's also about a woman's body getting old and less capable of carrying a healthy baby into the world with time. 

And even that is not it. OK, the baby is born and healthy. If his parents are getting old on the plus side they are getting wise and more settled (presumably), but on the minus side they loose their energy with age. It's not enough for them to make a kid, they have to give this kid a good start in life too so that this kid has a better chance of spreading his DNA around. (I know putting in these words sounds blunt, but we are all creatures of mother nature, aren't we? Denying this fact doesn't make it any less of a fact.) And if you are David Letterman and make a lot of money you can sort of hire someone to be a parent for your child if you become sick and fragile with age. But for a 35-year-old supermarket manager with the goal to become a head manager by the age of 50 and then have kids the picture is different. 

I'd like to conclude with a very strong statement here. If some say that not having kids is a choice, I can't agree more. It is a choice. Only in my point of view it's a loser's choice and unhealthy! 

It's true there are a lot of things that make us human and being a mother for a woman is one of the roles assigned to her by nature. We say that it's natural and healthy to eat, sleep, move a lot, have sex... Well, getting pregnant is just as natural. Over years people have learned to control the process of getting pregnant and it's a great accomplishment. But voluntarily bringing it to a halt seems like giving up to me.  

I think that those people (men and women) who choose not to have kids are setting their minds for a failure. It's as if they are saying "I'm not good enough to produce more people like me. I don't like my DNA. I don't want to continue my generation. Sure since I was born I'll do something with my life and maybe make other people happy and maybe make a huge contribution with my work to the mankind so that others can have better lives. But I voluntarily sacrifice my chance of staying in the game of life and a race for survival." 

We talk a lot about accepting who we are. But are those women who choose not to have kids (not to get pregnant) not accepting their bodies and DNAs the nature gave them? We say we have to reach our potential in life. Do those women decide not to use this gift of nature, this opportunity, meaning they don't reach their bodies' full potential? We teach all around us to never give up. But don't those women give up in the natural competition of DNA survival? That makes me think that for a woman deciding not to have kids not because she can't (and I feel very sorry for those who want to, but can't), but because she doesn't think it's important for her, is not healthy. 

It is a slightly different thing for a man, because he is not the one getting pregnant. In nature where he hasn't been given any control over his mate's body, it's even more natural for him to assume that he will be a father as long as he is having sex with young females. But again, if a man chooses to have protected sex nowadays, he chooses to control this process. And if on the top of that he chooses not to have kids, that to me also sounds unhealthy. In other words, I think choosing to control and to plan your parenthood is a great idea, but choosing to give it up is nothing less than giving up on yourself. 

There is also a timing issue involved here. Men were given an advantage here (bastards!). They can make kids from puberty until they die, but women have only a window of 20 years or so to make all the kids they decide to have. I'm talking about ages from about 20 to 40 years while the woman's body can do it's best to have healthy children. So if a man decides not to have kids, but suddenly changes his mind at 75 like David Letterman, he still has a shot. But for a woman this decision is irreversible when she looses this battle to time.  

And even 40 is too late for most women. I've been told by many doctors that the most healthy age to have the first child is 20-23. It's not just about getting pregnant which with new methods (like freezing your eggs etc.) could be delayed until a woman is 50 or so. It's also about a woman's body getting old and less capable of carrying a healthy baby into the world with time. 

And even that is not it. OK, the baby is born and healthy. If his parents are getting old on the plus side they are getting wise and more settled (presumably), but on the minus side they loose their energy with age. It's not enough for them to make a kid, they have to give this kid a good start in life too so that this kid has a better chance of spreading his DNA around. (I know putting in these words sounds blunt, but we are all creatures of mother nature, aren't we? Denying this fact doesn't make it any less of a fact.) And if you are David Letterman and make a lot of money you can sort of hire someone to be a parent for your child if you become sick and fragile with age. But for a 35-year-old supermarket manager with the goal to become a head manager by the age of 50 and then have kids the picture is different. 

I'd like to conclude with a very strong statement here. If some say that not having kids is a choice, I can't agree more. It is a choice. Only in my point of view it's a loser's choice and unhealthy! 

It's true there are a lot of things that make us human and being a mother for a woman is one of the roles assigned to her by nature. We say that it's natural and healthy to eat, sleep, move a lot, have sex... Well, getting pregnant is just as natural. Over years people have learned to control the process of getting pregnant and it's a great accomplishment. But voluntarily bringing it to a halt seems like giving up to me.  

I think that those people (men and women) who choose not to have kids are setting their minds for a failure. It's as if they are saying "I'm not good enough to produce more people like me. I don't like my DNA. I don't want to continue my generation. Sure since I was born I'll do something with my life and maybe make other people happy and maybe make a huge contribution with my work to the mankind so that others can have better lives. But I voluntarily sacrifice my chance of staying in the game of life and a race for survival." 

We talk a lot about accepting who we are. But are those women who choose not to have kids (not to get pregnant) not accepting their bodies and DNAs the nature gave them? We say we have to reach our potential in life. Do those women decide not to use this gift of nature, this opportunity, meaning they don't reach their bodies' full potential? We teach all around us to never give up. But don't those women give up in the natural competition of DNA survival? That makes me think that for a woman deciding not to have kids not because she can't (and I feel very sorry for those who want to, but can't), but because she doesn't think it's important for her, is not healthy. 

It is a slightly different thing for a man, because he is not the one getting pregnant. In nature where he hasn't been given any control over his mate's body, it's even more natural for him to assume that he will be a father as long as he is having sex with young females. But again, if a man chooses to have protected sex nowadays, he chooses to control this process. And if on the top of that he chooses not to have kids, that to me also sounds unhealthy. In other words, I think choosing to control and to plan your parenthood is a great idea, but choosing to give it up is nothing less than giving up on yourself. 

There is also a timing issue involved here. Men were given an advantage here (bastards!). They can make kids from puberty until they die, but women have only a window of 20 years or so to make all the kids they decide to have. I'm talking about ages from about 20 to 40 years while the woman's body can do it's best to have healthy children. So if a man decides not to have kids, but suddenly changes his mind at 75 like David Letterman, he still has a shot. But for a woman this decision is irreversible when she looses this battle to time.  

And even 40 is too late for most women. I've been told by many doctors that the most healthy age to have the first child is 20-23. It's not just about getting pregnant which with new methods (like freezing your eggs etc.) could be delayed until a woman is 50 or so. It's also about a woman's body getting old and less capable of carrying a healthy baby into the world with time. 

And even that is not it. OK, the baby is born and healthy. If his parents are getting old on the plus side they are getting wise and more settled (presumably), but on the minus side they loose their energy with age. It's not enough for them to make a kid, they have to give this kid a good start in life too so that this kid has a better chance of spreading his DNA around. (I know putting in these words sounds blunt, but we are all creatures of mother nature, aren't we? Denying this fact doesn't make it any less of a fact.) And if you are David Letterman and make a lot of money you can sort of hire someone to be a parent for your child if you become sick and fragile with age. But for a 35-year-old supermarket manager with the goal to become a head manager by the age of 50 and then have kids the picture is different. 

I'd like to conclude with a very strong statement here. If some say that not having kids is a choice, I can't agree more. It is a choice. Only in my point of view it's a loser's choice and unhealthy!