I don’t want kids. Never have. I won’t go into the reasons, as it’s simply enough to recognize and accept that being a parent isn’t for you. To each his or her own, I think the majority of PJ Lifestyle readers have agreed here this week, even if disagreeing with another person’s choice.
But I love animals, as you’ve figured out by now. I mean, to the point where I stopped and watched in fascination a northern brownsnake basking on the sidewalk the other day (he wasn’t so sure about me and eventually slowly slithered into the bushes). The animal kingdom is magnificent, and I can’t imagine life without pets in it.
Pets are not substitutes for kids, and I don’t know anyone who views them this way. They are their own distinct beings with own distinct personalities and behaviors. I do often, however, hear and completely understand statements like what one higher-up at AEI would gush every time I brought the puppacita into the office: “I don’t like people, but I sure like dogs!” Having been a criminology major in college and covering the crime beat as a reporter makes one appreciate all the more these bundles of fur and feathers that won’t grow up into serial killers. The political beat doesn’t reveal much different in terms of human nature, frankly, which is probably why an increasing number of lawmakers now bring their dogs to the office to get through the day (stay tuned to future Furry Fridays for profiles).
But there’s little to stop the dark side of humanity from inflicting itself on the animal world. It tears my heart out when I hear stories of animals being abused or neglected, and punishments for those crimes should be about tenfold what they are now.
Being a good pet parent does require time, energy, and money. I have veterinary insurance on most of my crew, happily pay extra for natural food, have a pet-sitter, and get nickeled and dimed by landlords, airlines, hotels, etc., in a way that would be illegal to do with kids. I’m behind on work today because the puppacita has a tummy ache and wants to be held, which makes typing difficult. The goal is not to raise productive members of society or construct some sort of old-age insurance policy, but simply to make a pet happy and healthy, to care for it in a way that extends that healthy life, and to soothe any memories of past trauma for rescues.
In return, many are loyally by your side whether you’re fighting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s nuclear program or simply cleaning the casa. Many will teach you what unconditional love is, even my sweet old silly rat. But the point is not about what they give you back — a fish may be excited to see you, but isn’t going to cuddle. It’s about making a creature’s time on Earth, whatever the lifespan, happier, safer, more enjoyable.
I recently took the puppacita in for her annual checkup, and the vet tech asked if she was scared by the previous night’s thunderstorm. I noted that thunder used to scare her, but doesn’t anymore. “That’s because she knows she has a forever home,” the tech said. I never thought of it that way, but keep thinking about that hypothesis. Who doesn’t love some warmth and security?
Pets play an invaluable role in our lives. We play a valuable role in theirs. It’s about giving, not taking, and about loving and learning. It’s not about substituting them for any other type of being. It’s about loving and caring for a wonderful creature for exactly what it is — whether a rodent, a cat, a snake, a bird (St. Francis’ fave), or a tiny pound puppacita.
Also read: The Top 4 Reasons I Don’t Have Kids
As someone who travels with children and pets, please let me know which hotels or airlines don’t nickel and dime you for your kids as well.
Good piece of work, Bridget. Just for thought though, my sister has a Golden Retriever who was obtained from a breeder, hence no homelessness, and is rather spoiled but is terrified of thunderstorms. I believe there is some truth in your Vet’s observation but does not work in all cases.
Every time I bring my dogs into work for a visit people seem to be having a better day.
Just sayin.’
Sparky used to be scared of thunderstorms, I think, being a min pin mix, his ears amplify the sounds. But then when we brought Maggie home, she took over the being freaked out over thunder job, as well as guarding the house. Haven’t had a big thunderstorm since Susie came home so we’ll have to wait and see.
You are not a pet parent. You are a pet owner. It’s a very important distinction, especially in an article noting that pets are not substitutes for children.
I have never considered myself to be their “owner”. I am their companion and they are mine. No human being can achieve their level of love and loyalty. The average dog is a “Mother Theresa”. Humans simply cannot compare to a dog, for they are inferior in every way that matters.
My dog offers me unconditional begging. Which offers me a silly segue to saying that on some of your statements… I beg to differ. My wife and I are child-free, and we love to dote on our canine companion, but we don’t care for her out of some altruistic sense of providing sustenance with no thought to what we get in return. We have her for selfish reasons. Which suits her just fine! Dogs are utterly and transparently selfish, within the general patterns of pack behavior. So its a mutual thing.
BTW, she was never afraid of loud sounds until she had to live through a major earthquake (6.6, epicenter 10 miles away), dodging things falling from shelves. Now she needs (and gets) reassurance when something triggers those memories.
“Child Free”? Children were once seen as a blessing of god, and now they are a pest to be avoided, because they stand in the way of a career, or one might not have the patience to raise a child.
There are both religious and Confucian answers to this type of thinking, but it would have to start from the simple idea at the heart of American individualism: replace the idea that “I am a person independent of all other people and it doesn’t matter what is my gender” to the biological fact that we all have parents and belong to a family that stretches back to the past, and that “no man is an Island”.
Let’s look at realism for a sec. If you don’t have the patience for children… don’t have them. A child should not grow up with a parent who can’t stand to be around them simply because of the moral need to procreate.
I believe that children are a blessing. But some people were not meant have them and those people have a right live their lives.
Or because the company of children has the same effect on a person that the company of lawyers, hipsters, or mimes has on many other people.
Thanks for these furry fridays, Bridget!
I’ve had an adult life full of children and pets. At one time my 3BR ranch had us, three and sometimes four kids, all their friends, as many as three dogs at one time, as many as five cats at one time, and a succession of all sorts of other creatures. We found room in the house and in our hearts for all of them and the animals were one of the best socializing influences on the kids. We put the last dog that the kids grew up with down in August of ’07 and swore that was it for dogs; you become so attached to them and it hurts so much for them to have to go. We had three of the four cats that were born under our bed on Nov. 27, 1997, with us and they moved to Anchorage with us in Oct. of ’10. We lost the two boys within a little more than a month this winter. The calico is with us still and doing OK though the vet thinks she has the same lung tumor that killed the boys. I’m not going to have it biopsied or do elaborate, painful, and expensive cancer treatment on an almost fifteen year old cat. I’m just going to keep her as happy and as comfortable as I can for as long as I can and try to return the unconditional love that she and all the other animals have always given me.
And then on Mother’s Day, we got an eight week old Bloodhound puppy that we’ve named Daisy, and despite your proposition, this one is a kid substitute. All the kids are grown and gone, all the old animals of their and our youth are gone or soon will be, so we’re starting over with just us and Daisy. Obedience school starts Monday.
As Hounds love strong personalities who understand what everything’s about, and are not wusses, I predict a very well-balanced, happy dog.
I hate to sound all grown-uppish and all, but I’m going to anyway. I didn’t even think about having kids until I was 35. from your picture, I’d say you were MAYBE 25? (or you’re aging well!)
so all I’m saying is, never say never. it’s good that you know your mind, but remember that your mind may change due to events you have no control over. you just never know.
ok, lecture over!
Animals don’t grow up to be serial killers because animals are born serial killers, you insipid mush monkey…. :: ))
Dogs, depending on breed. Pit bulls love to kill. Terriers love to kill. Beagles, not so much. They only really kill by accident (they play rough).
Cats, on the other hand, are only truly happy while torturing something to death!
(Or knocking stuff off my dresser in the wee small hours)
Sorry, but I get a little creeped out with individuals who treat pets like people and people like animals. Obviously, you have the right to do whatever you like with your life. But whenever I hear women (and it’s always women, because you never hear guys say these things) who speak this way about pets, it strikes me that they are somehow trying to justify why they don’t want to have kids. So if you don’t want to have kids, fine. But don’t treat pets like people. They are animals. I figure feeding them and housing them and taking care of them have their own rewards. But I treat pets as, well, pets. I can’t really gush over them or coo over them or, heaven forbid, dress them. Treating them like little kids is, well, just creepy.
I realize ecological concerns don’t count for much in this forum, but I’ve got the Mexicans mad at me for trying to keep them from further overpopulating our country with their foolish overbreeding (efforts which Obuma sabotaged this very day), so I might as well annoy you readers while I’m at it.
I considered overpopulation a menace as a teenager in the ’60′s and decided never to have kids. As the decades have gone by, I’d like to think I’m wiser now (you know the one about not having a heart if you’re not liberal at 20, and not having a brain if you’re still liberal later).
Anyway, I’m glad I never had kids (that’s your cue to declare “I’m glad you didn’t have kids too!!”).
No, I don’t want humans (or any race of humans) to go extinct (I’m white).
But it’s clear to me a whole lot of people aren’t fit to be parents, and should NEVER be pressured into becoming them. I honestly like to see happy children with loving self-supporting parents.
But I prefer the company of dogs and wild places. Zero regrets. No offense intended.
There’s something wrong with you. No offense intended.
Oh, so you did the arithmetic and realized that the overpopulation boogeyman is a complete fraud?
Speaking of pets;
Why doesn’t somebody take the strays that are occupying the White House and Congress to a good home?
Scared of thunderstorms? These mutts tremble at the sight of a Constitution.
Workplaces are almost never suitable for dogs, and despite what reaction you think you get, it doesn’t diminish the disrespect you show fellow workers when you bring an animal to a place of business. Your dog belongs at home.
And despite your proclamations to the contrary, you do probably treat your pet like a child far more than you would want to admit, clothing them as in your first picture serving as proof positive.
I agree 100%! My husband and two of my children are allergic to fur-bearing animals. I mean serious, asthma attack, imminent death allergic. No one should be bringing their pets to work.
Work where? Because entry into my privately owned place of business – my private property – means you play by my rules & preferences, not your own. Dogs welcome, guns welcome, tobacco prohibited, shirts required, active debate encouraged, profanity optional.
So wait, that dog is going to pay your social security? Of course not, how silly of me, my kids are going to pay so you can dress up some dog and play house 40 years from now.
My thoughts exactly. Aside from everything else, children are a public good. Younger people are a pre-requisite for caring for older people. Not saying people must have children or be ostrasized, but it is in general a good idea. Most folks I know who say they aren’t good with children underestimate themselves- it isn’t about being good with children but helping to create a responible and caring adult. Unfortunately, the folks who are really bad with children seem to have a lot of them while the foks with some self reflection and understanding of their own flaws shy away through an overabundance of caution.
It goes way beyond social security, which, let’s face it, won’t really be there for the author or anybody else under, say, age 50. The children of today will be the ones that keep society functioning in almost every way at a time in the future when the author and her cohorts will be too old to do so. From picking up the garbage to performing the surgeries they will need, and perhaps most importantly, to go into harm’s way and block the ever present factors and forces that will cause society to decay and disintegrate. Indeed, the very lasting of our culture and way of life, not to mention the survival of our seniors to enjoy a long and fulfilling life even when virility is gone, is utterly dependent on having children. Utterly and absolutely. It bears noting that if our culture fails to provide these children, another will do it for us, and that will happen before the author and like aged individuals have shuffled off. In the end, whether they like to admit it or not, the biggest reason behind most of their childless lifestyles is selfishness.
Of course, the old “childless is selfish” canard.
Has it occurred to you that:
1) Endless growth in a finite place (planet) is absurd — at some point further growth is not only self-destructive, it is impossible — in other words, it’s the ULTIMATE Ponzi scam, with nature itself left holding the bag.
2) If someone is selfish, having children is no guarantee that will change.
3) There are plenty of unselfish things to do in life besides having children.
Of course I have, and you missed the point. In addition, yours do not address the issue. Item one is far from being a danger at this time, and then only in the presence of unchecked growth and if we remain confined to present circumstance. It is also not relevant as it assumes unchecked growth, which is certainly not a good idea and not implied whatsoever in my post. Item two is irrelevant. Item three is true, but beside the point. I challenge you to find a majority of those childless by choice peoples who are so because they chose to pursue selfless goals – goals that ensure the future for both them when they are old and future generations. There are some I am sure. Finally, the society with more and more individuals choosing not to have children for whatever reason is de facto committing cultural suicide. That much is certain. All that being said, I have yet to meet any person who has chosen to be childless and stated any reason other than that they are choosing to save those resources for pursuit of their own pleasures. Of course, all will all grow old enough to pass beyond ability to maintain the society that we will then depend on to be safe enough for us to live out our days in relative peace and fulfillment, and those ‘childless’ people will be among them. Except that the burden will fall in far greater measure upon the children that were produced than it did upon them. They are counting on it.
Most left-wingers & right-wingers agree on one thing — the Earth is not even close to being overpopulated — IF (!) the world simply adopts their preferred economic system. As proof they’ll triumphantly announce red herrings such as “Everyone on Earth could fit in Texas with lots of room left over!” — as if that negates the evidence of ecological collapse all around us.
To reinforce the illusion, the media tell us all about rich MTV bimbos & their moron boyfriends while blacking out ecological reality — like the rapidly metastasizing catastrophe of Fukushima. Hardly anyone has even heard of “spent fuel pool #4″ — and I doubt if you have until I just mentioned it, not that it likely means anything to you anyway.
As far as “committing cultural suicide” — you presumably mean the West (i.e., white people) needs to get in a baby-making race with overbreeding 3rd worlders. But that would simply make us as self-destructive as they are. SERIOUS immigration enforcement AND making foreign aid contingent upon MANDATORY birth control would be the sane alternative, but again, left-wingers & right wingers (for different reasons) oppose a sane alternative.
I agree that most childless couples are selfish. So are most parents — in the real world people become parents for all kinds of selfish reasons:
—–they feel “empty” inside,
—–they want to perpetuate their genes & their name,
—–they expect tax breaks & all kinds of other subsidies,
—–they want control over someone else,
—–they want to multiply their own race, religion, or whatever,
—–they couldn’t be bothered with birth control,
—–etc.
You ought to be glad some people aren’t parents, or the world would be even more overcrowded for your own children. The world they inherit is going to be really ugly if humans keeps multiplying. REALLY ugly.
Straw man, Pat. By your argument, if I surround your town with police and starve everyone inside forcibly, that’s evidence of overpopulation.
Not only is there more than enough food currently being produced every year to easily feed every man, woman, and child in the world, but there’s plently of fertile land in Africa to easily support many generations more of Africans using modern farming methods. On the other hand, primitive farming methods never, ever produce enough food for everyone all the time anywhere on earth no matter how small the populations because you’re ALWAYS one month of bad weather away from starvation. You could slash the world’s poplation to 1 billion and keep primitive agriculture, and millions would still be starving. Slash it to 100 million, and people would be starving. Slash it to 10 million, 1 million–100,000 people in the entire world, and with primitive agricultural techniques, starvation would be a constant threat. By your logic, this means that no matter how few people there are in the world, the world must be overpopulated, so the only solution would be to have a human population of 0.
Too many people on this planet, huh? So when are you going to off yourself to save us those resources for the rest of us? Why are you so selfish by continuing to live?
Wow, how original!
Seriously though, do you really need this explained?
“Boom-bust” cycles (rapid population growth followed by a rapid die-off) are common in some species, and humans thougout history have gone through them too.
Birth control could prevent that.
No need to kill people.
Excuse me, Blowfish. I do not have children, have worked my entire adult life, and saved for my retirement, knowing I will never see a dime of Social Security, I have worked hard to make sure I don’t have to depend on anyone else. So to hell with you and your child/slave/ concept. If you want to have kids so they’ll take care of you when you’re old, that’s your right, don’t worry, I’ll never take a dime from your kids nor do I dress my dogs in human clothes. Jerk. Whoever said they were surprised at the obnoxiousness of the comments on this post was right on. We all get to live our lives as we want, as long as we don’t hurt others. This is America still, last time I looked.
Actually, you wll. If you plan on eating, having gas, having your house and car repaired, having electricity and medical care in retirement… you are depending on your contemporary’s children. Without enough children, you will be forced back to work in a failing economy until you die. It’s that simple.
And because only thoughtful people even think about it, by taking that thoughtful person out of the gene pool, the idiots gain a big advantage! They don’t really give copulation the least bit of thought. Many don’t seen to be aware that babies are made that way!
OMG! Is that what’s been happening to our sciety?
We’re DOOMED!
Just as people without children pay for 18+ years of schooling for you loin droppings. I guess we can call it even.
Did you attend public school, Miss Anthropy?
Every white woman under thirty I’ve ever known has told me they are not interested in having children. Every single one. (oh okay, I admit there was one exception). They all think they are unique and special in this regard but they are like every other white Western girl. It’s a massive, universal social effect; then after thirty or so they all start complaining about ‘where are all the good men.’
as for this line: “Being a good pet parent does require time, energy, and money.”
Do you realize how silly you sound, lecturing us that pets aren’t kids, then calling yourself a pet parent. We see right through you, honey.
Unless you engaged in unnatural acts you are not a pet parent. You are a pet owner. Learn the difference before you write any more drivel like the above. After writing that they aren’t your substitute children you gush on exactly as if they were.
I say this as a childless career woman who owns multiple pets which I never take to work, never travels with unless it is a by car and never dress up in cute costumes. I also never holds them on my lap because their tummies are upset because dogs are stoic by nature. Fussing too much over an ill dog can upset them worse because their instinct tells them to be alone because the pack turns on a weakened member.
There you go. Bringing knowledge, reason, and experience into this goofy discussion.
Paranoid dogs come from paranoid owners.
Paranoid cats are a gift from God.
I am 65. I have had multiple pets (dogs & cats), and three kids.
The pets have all died, one by one. This was painful at first, but, after your first childhood dog dies, the next dog is just the dog. You bond with him, but you know it is temporary. You are already planning his replacement even while he still lives.
The kids are married. I now have two wonderful new sons and daughter in-laws, and a much expanded family. I have two grandchildren and one on the way. If all goes well, I will have likely three or four more grand kids. If I am lucky, I might see some great grand kids.
So, I had pets and I had children. The two are not incompatible.
The kids are the gift that keeps on giving. And, if you are healthy, you will have many decades of “child free” living after the kids grow up. They only really need a lot of your time for about 20 years.
The pets are just memories.
Perfectly said.
Conflating animals with humans is something no sensible animal would do!
The article is creepy; just as seeing older women totally wrapped up in their dogs or cats as substitute children is creepy and very, very sad.
Don’t even get me started about the selfish generation who will expect our grandchildren to care for them them as well as us in old age when they didn’t lift a finger to create and raise the next generation.
A friend of mine pointed out the difference between kids and pets a while back: You’ve never, ever seen a sign posted in your neighborhood saying, “Lost kid!” with a phone number to call if you find him. Let’s hope you never do, although I’m not sure I’d bet on that anymore.
“Pets are not substitutes for kids, and I don’t know anyone who views them this way.”
Ever been to Seattle?
…Which dovetails nicely into confirming all the other observations about women waking up some day after their 30th birthday and freaking out about having kids. They never believe you when you warn them about it, either.
Isn’t that the city with more pet owners than parents? Seattle is becoming as creepy as San Fran. As for Bridget Johnson not suited for raising kids, that just means she doesn’t have the self-sacrifice in her bones. You need to admit your flaws before you can fix them.
Furry Fridays? Please, no.
I am allergic to anything with fur or hair and I know quite a few people like me. As a child my pets were all fish, reptiles or amphibians. These days I am delightfully pet free and spend a lot more time with the people in my life. I usually don’t get serve allergic reactions when in the presence of dogs and cats, but I can never relax around them like other people can. Let’s all agree that work places, restaurants and shopping spaces are for people and leave the animals at home.
Punishment for animal cruelty…. I agree there should be some and in children it should be a cause for intervention, but in a society where it’s easier to kill one’s kid than kill an animal I think there are other penalties. Kill a human fetus and Elizabeth Warren will give you a standing O. Kick a puppy and you’re akin to Ted Bundy. That is a sad society.
Read P.D. James’ novel Children of Men for great insight on kids/children.
All that being said… to each his won vis a vis animals…. animal ownership teaches a lot of valuable lessons in compassion, hard work, etc.
Once one realizes that ‘pets’ (do we call them ‘pets’ because we pet them? I think we need another label that’s not so patronizing), especially cats and dogs, are mammals and so are we, the distinction between pet owner and pet parent dissolves. As it should. It’s just semantics anyway.
All mammals have a limbic system, we all feel emotions. Human emotions may be more complex but so what? Some people complain that we project human traits onto our pets but they don’t understand that it’s the other way around. Humans are animals too. Humans also have something extra, but for purposes of actual ‘relationships’ between humans and their pets that doesn’t matter.
Humans are manipulative. So are dogs and cats. They’re just a bit less subtle about it.
No, we don’t need to coin a brand new word to replace, ‘pet’. The English language is not yours to change. Verstehen sie?
I wanted children but it was not to be. I lost my little girl dog 3 weeks ago. My husband & I and Wee Laddie, our little terrier, mourn our loss every day. Bridget, pay no attention to the naysayers in the comments. I look forward to your posts on animals. It’s unbelievable that you could get so many nasty posts from PJM readers announcing an upcoming feature on animals. I think they’re just taking your comments about having children too personally. Love of animals is deeply satisfying and rewarding; it’s something for us to celebrate and share.
and yet you wrote ‘pet parent’ …
“Being a good pet parent does require time, energy, and money.”
To make others believe you when you state that pets are not substitutes for children, a good start would be to never, ever, refer to oneself as a “pet parent”. I think the author just noticed that normal people are making fun of her, and is trying to camouflage herself. I’m not buying it.
I’m not gonna get all mushy and stuff…
I’m a senior now…on my 10th dog..besides shared ones….
Samuel Clemins said it best…
“I have no use for man nor boy who has never had an understanding with a pup.”
Pet parent?….Nahhh….it’s a dog….that title covers everything….from companionship, tail wags, happy dances….dog….
Now wasn’t that easy?
Pets are animals. If you keel over in the house dead, eventually, they will come over and have a snack on your exposed flesh. Sometimes they do it to living people, who are too drugged to wake up. They won’t call 911 to get you help.
Some cultures eat these animals as delicacies and they aren’t wrong to do so. The fetishizing of animal companions as ‘little people’ is creepy and weird. Misplaced maternal feelings is all it is.
To each his or her own, ever hear about children murdering their parents?
If you get ‘et by your pet dog or cat you will become the best human companion they ever had!
;^D
People eat dead people in desperate situations (Donner party, plane crash in the mountains, etc.).
The Donner party did not commit cannibalism.
There are far more instances of dogs found starving beside their master’s corpse than otherwise.
On the other hand, Sweetie the Cat is eyeing me rather hungrily from across the room. There is no sentimentality in cats, I’m afraid. If it tastes good…
Why has every single accusation of “creepiness” and “weirdness” on this thread been from the very posters who come off as … creepy and weird?
I have this weird, creepy feeling that you push a Yorkie around in a stroller.
Cheer up! Here’s a picture of dogs surfing:
World Record Dog Surfing
A pet dog or cat has what no kid has today.
Loyalty, love, gratitude and being a part of your family.
No adult children feel these things, selfish, self absorbed and just plain gone.
I live five miles from my son yet have not seen him in three years, he is too busy with his family and work he had to dump his parents to please his wife.
We might just as well have had no children.
There is nothing sadder or creepier than an individual who anthropomorphises their pets. Pets cannot replace a bona-fide child in a person’s life, but people do their darnedest anyway. Kissing a cat’s rat catching mouth or letting a dog who just cleaned his anus lick your ice cream cone is revolting to me. Sadly, I think I may be in the minority.
Pets and livestock can be great friends and assets in one’s life. I’ve raised and been around livestock as well as dogs and cats most of my life, but never considered them my ‘children’. If a person puts their pooch in a sweater because it is cute or baby talks to a pet, it is time for friends to schedule an intervention.
Actually, you are sadder and creepier.
If you had been following Furry Friday, you would know that Chi-Chi needs a shirt because she gets a skin irritation when her stomach touches grass, plus she gets cold when it’s below 68 F. And with her other pets, Bridget needs to keep her house cool. My first Chihuahua was a short hair and did need a sweater in winter. Small, short haired dogs do get cold, remember, they aren’t something found in nature.
Some of these commenters remind me why I’m an animal person.
Because they have stable, well-adjusted personalities, and you don’t?
I know plenty of people who view them that way. They usually refer to themselves as the “parents” of their pets. Or, as you seem to prefer, “pet parents”.
People who REALLY know that pets are not substitutes for children don’t use such terms. They know that they are pet OWNERS, and that there is no moral equivalence between pets and humans.
Um, that would be children. They are not clones.
Sad that someone – no, MANY people, think it’s perfectly okay and even normal to compare parenting with owning pets.
It’s farcical they you claim your pet gives you “unconditional love” in return for what you do for it. Do you not understand what “unconditional” means? Starve a dog. Beat it. Abuse it. It will become mean and vicious or snappy and frightened because it does not “unconditionally love” you. Its feelings for you, such as it has, are the very definition of conditional. You do lots of things for it. It is happy to see you.
Calling yourself a pet parent is absurd. You are not a parent. You’re not raising a child. Get over it.
You think that you’re taking some sort of moral stand by not having children. (Actually, chances are, when you are nearing 40, you will panic and try very hard to pop just one out.) Guess what? You’re not special. You’re not the exception. You’re the new norm–the new norm.
In pre-industrial societies, children were a retirement plan and a labor source to the poor. All the poor desired large families, no matter what culture, of economically desirable offspring. The rich wanted just enough children to cement their family’s legacy and increase its wealth. This meant that the poor in reprehensible societies murdered many of their daughters (in most cultures, a daughter would become part of the husband’s family) or sold them into slavery. The rich–well, they often murdered both sons and daughters, to make sure they didn’t split the inheritance too much.
In industrialized societies, there is less of an idea of familial growth among the rich, and to the poor, all children are an expense. (Unless you’re on wealfare, and then they make you money again!) So in really reprehensible societies, many children of both genders are murdered. And in simply selfish circles, children are just avoided altogether. These people congratulate themselves as not bringing an unwanted child into the world–while not facing the fact that their very desire not to have children is a grave moral fault, though not as terrible s murdering children is.
The only industrialized people segments who have children at or above a replacement rate are the religious. Religion is, in fact, the only force that counters the obvious material encumberance that children are in the modern world. Sure, most athiests, agnostics, and indifferently irreligious people reproduce–but at such low rates that in a couple hundred years, the human race would be extinct. In fact, they are assuring their own extinction. World population is still increasing, but it’s just coasting on longer life expectancies at this point. Europe, the least religious region on Earth, will start shrinking in population within the next 15-20 years–and there is not “bottom” in sight. Japan’s felt the inch for some time, and it will only get worse. We do have a budding population crisis, but it’s called demographic collapse, not overpopulation.
The religious will win the culture wars, if for no other reason than because the religious will be the only ones left standing. The reason for religious people reproducing at replacement rate or a little higher even in postindustrial countries depends on the religion, but the reasons that are exclusive to the religious are not part of the absurd list that the “childfree” promulgators like to put out. Religious reasons include a sense of duty, a belief that the role of the individual is fulfilled in the family, a belief that children are blessings, a desire for a sense of continuity between the past and the future, and simple altruism. (The last is why those “childfree” nutcases never adopt the “unwanted children” they rave on about while people who already have 2, 3, 5, or more kids of their own do.)
I’ve gone through far more suffering than most people have for their kids–for my two, I’ve endured at least seven miscarriages (I refuse to test until I’m over 6 weeks pregnant now, because I just don’t want to have to know if I’ve had another). And I’m still trying. I don’t want to live through my kids. Goodness knows I don’t look to them for validation. I expect to leave them a legacy, not for them to support me. (Who even thinks that way anymore?) And I expect them to be tremendously expensive and potentially heartbreaking. But I want children out of love. That’s it, plain and simple. I can’t even say that I’d rather my dead children to have never lived at all than to have lived so briefly–who and I to wish even the merest flutter of a heartbeat out of existence? Yes, we may adopt, too–older children, from the forster care system, if I ever feel that I am skilled enough as a parent for it. For now, I’m still trying for more of my own.