It is difficult to understate the importance of bringing only wanted children into this world, and that both parents agree on it. The cultural importance of this invention will be revealed in time, I hope.
"Kids" are going to have sex, we should take every opportunity to provide them with a means to do it as safely as possible.
1. Herpes. It's usually on the level of "slightly annoying" rather than catastrophic. Pretty much the biggest downside of having herpes is the obligation to tell sexual partners that you have herpes.
2. Things that die to antibiotics. Syphilis, Chlamydia, etc. You get them, you get sick, you get treatment, you get better.
3. HIV/AIDS. Treatment is much better than it used to be for this, but it's definitely still the scariest one.
Basically, getting tested regularly is probably enough precaution. You'd feel more regret over picking up an STD than putting too much effort into avoiding STDs, so it makes sense that people over-invest in this area (see also: hiring decisions).
Maybe I'm reading your comment entirely wrong, but this sounds ridiculous? What even is regular testing anyway? I should suddenly be just fine going on tinder or taking men from bars home and not require any condoms, instead just check myself every month and take a bunch of medication if things did go wrong? Or do you mean me and my partner can have sex in our monogamous relationship without condom but instead a regular checkup?
I see the first idea as a terrible idea, and the second as - while safe - a little excessive after the initial checkup when you both are ready for it.
That's not to say your partial understanding is not valid, it's just incomplete.
Not only am I adopted (thus not "wanted"), but neither of my children were planned and my wife and I initially couldn't agree. From my real world experience, and not speculation, it only takes one person to "want" a child, and biology literally has nothing to do with it. I'm also not angry, sad, or pained with regret; it's impossible to generalize how individuals will respond.
All of that said, I'm all for increasing the availability and effectiveness of birth control, and hope that children make their way to an environment of love and nurturing. So, what really can't be understated is the importance of parents and guardians being emotionally equipped to respond to those responsibilities in a way that is positive to all involved.
Your birth parents may not have wanted you, putting you for adoption. However, you were wanted in a different sense, chosen for adoption by whomever adopted you.
-shrugs- Don't know what point I wanted to make, just a thought
Instead, what may have happened are situations changed for the couple. Maybe a nasty divorce occurred, or one of the partners abruptly left the relationship for reasons? Or maybe the father suddenly died? Or lost his job (or she did - or they both did)? Or any one of those coupled with already having other children. Any one of those, and other reasons, could be the case. Had something like that happened late in the pregnancy, where a legal late-term abortion wasn't available or allowed, then adoption might be the only choice for the parent(s).
That doesn't mean s/he wasn't wanted by the birth parents, but that they instead (perhaps) loved the resulting infant so much that they decided adoption would give a better chance for life than keeping him/her. Maybe that was the wrong choice, maybe not.
Adult choices are rarely easy.
No one is attempting to cast aside unwanted children. We're trying to prevent conception from happening in the first place for people who are not ready. In this sense, there would be no need for adoption (optimistically speaking), because the only children conceived were done so with intent. It takes out the whole, "Oh crap, I'm not ready aspect," (again, optimistically speaking), because both parties would have had to agree that they were attempting to have children.
To reiterate, this is optimistically speaking. There are always instances where parties agreed but then realize mid- or post-pregnancy that having a child isn't for them for any number of reasons. Contraceptives won't fix that. I'm not trying to trivialize your experience nor your feelings. I just think that you're addressing something completely different.
So are you saying that, despite the effort, time, and money it takes for adoption, your adoptive parents didn't want you?
That doesn't make any sense.
While it might be true that your birth parent(s) didn't want you, there might be reasons why that is so; of course, I can't speak to that as I don't know your situation.
What I can say, though, is that my parents wanted me when I was adopted. I can't really say why my birth mother (let alone whoever my father is/was) gave me up for adoption (what I was told as a child, doesn't sit completely right with me as an adult - I'll never know the truth, though - and that's ok). But I do know that my adoptive parents spent a lot of time and money to keep me (I was a foster child before that, at 2 years of age). That and the rest of my life growing up makes me know that I was wanted.
Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting what you wrote; if so, I apologize.
No. I'm pretty confident that the "not wanted" statement was made in reference to the biological parents.
p(parents are generous/caring/loving | parents are the type of person to adopt a child) > p(parents are generous/caring/loving | parents bring pregnancy to term)
In addition, for adopted parents, we know that both parents want the child. Whereas with birth parents, we know that the mother wanted a child but we do not know if the father did.
I can think of many situations where this wouldn't be the case. Poor women in states with restricted access to abortion (requiring multiple visits to a clinic that's hundreds of miles away for example); women trapped in controlling relationships where leaving could be physically risky; teens who get pregnant for socially immature reasons and end up not wanting the child.
> That's not to say your partial understanding is not valid, it's just incomplete.
Thank God somebody who understands everything has shown up to set them straight.
Fear of it not being as reversible as it was supposed to be would be a pretty good reason not to use this one.
If you're married, with children, and looking for an alternative to vasectomy, that risk is lower in the sense that should the reverse procedure not go as expected, it would probably be less crushing than the same experience as a newlywed.
It's really rare to find anyone who merely wants to argue for it. Most either keep it to themselves or try to impose their morals on others.
"Morals are a good thing" whose morals, exactly? Let me guess, yours happen to be the correct ones?
Abrahmix religions and Hinduism generally disagree on several moral issues, such as how many gods may be worshiped.
/s (for "scottish")
Fast forward a few centuries and that (very practical) advice has become 'word of god' moralistic. Now with modern birth control we have better ways to avoid pregnancy than abstinence. But (unsurprisingly) the church's practical advice hasn't caught up with modern technology.
/"chewed gum" arguments?
Also regardless of political correctness, the US at least doesn't seem to have any problems ruining young people's lives in order to appease to religious groups demanding to dictate what consenting adults can and can't do to their own bodies.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/30/health/male-birth-control/
I mean, one would think that anyone with the minimum sense of logical thinking would understand that it is way easier to prevent 1 (as one, singular) single egg to get fixated in the uterus during the course of 28 days, than to prevent millions (as in > 1000000) of spermatozoids to be produced every single day.
But perhaps it's just me that actually looked at the obvious numbers...
And in any case, basic biology and the presented numbers still stand as the reality.
It also has literally nothing to do with the thread in question, which is discussing whether one should advocate for these kinds of contraceptives when they may increase the rate of STDs.
The side effects of female hormonal birth control are really bad for plenty of women.
I think you lack at least some grasp of basic statistics.
As for the 99%, just read TFA.
I can't think of many other situations in which (all else equal) a parent would choose to increase a child's risk of life-altering mistakes because reducing that risk would not reduce other risks as well. Don't tell Becky to brush her teeth; she might just fall down and break them out anyway.
Everyone's child is a special snowflake, but we know abstinence-only education is a failure at reducing unwanted pregnancy and STDs. What it doesn't fail at is increasing human misery by weaponizing moral choices about sex.
The original comment didn't encourage high risk behavior or say anything about ignoring the risk of STDs.
Personally I would preach Condoms over pills (although I freely acknowledge they can fail, and indeed suspect it's even more likely when teens are the ones using them).
Just like you can and should preach the value of abstinence and the consequences of sex to your teen while also teaching about safe(r) sex.
Otherwise: money, sleep, free time, dating pool shrinks significantly, peace of mind, ability to travel
> I don't know what kind of peace of mind you get by living for your own pleasure
> If you're not dedicated to raising others up, either your kids or in some kind of missionary work, then not really sure you can say you're living your life and are doing anything worthwhile
Are you unable to look at life through any lens other than your own? There are lots of different types of people in this world living a myriad of different lifestyles, many of which offer plenty of personal satisfaction, add real value to the world, and should be considered worthwhile. Having kids and doing missionary work might personally give you a sense of self worth, but that doesn't mean there aren't other paths to finding self worth/meaning that aren't just as valid. Your worldview is not the only one that matters.
Yes, having kids brings meaning to a lot of people's lives. It's certainly not the only way to lead a fulfilled life, though. In fact, with populations booming everywhere, I'd say it's a good thing that less people want kids.
I know of many people who DO have kids who are constantly bitching about how annoying it is to have kids. They smile through their teeth and say it's the best thing they've ever done, but it's obvious they're reading the script society has handed them while silently thinking "what the hell have I gotten myself into?"
Nothing wrong with not having kids!
The peace of mind that my non-existent children cannot get hit by a car or get cancer or get killed in Iraq or any of the myriad worries that are at the forefront of every parent's mind.
> On ability to travel: most people eat sleep go to work go to the bathroom and spend time with their families
I'm lucky to have a lot of opportunities by living in a first world country with a high salary and a strong passport. It seems wasteful to give them all up just to live like 'most people'.
That said, you may be surprised to learn you can live a pretty normal life with a child.
My wife and I made the decision not to have children a long time ago, and we don't regret it in the slightest. What we have found, though, is that our friends and co-workers continue to have on-going "problems" with their children.
Issues of sickness, parent-teacher and other school things, dealing with unruliness or other behavioral problems, the on-going costs of raising kids, finding daycare, time off for activities - or simply picking the kids up from school, having to get a more expensive (larger) car(s) because of having a kid (or more kids)...it just goes on and on, all the way through (and sometimes beyond) high school graduation and college. If the parents are lucky, the kid goes to college and moves away. But increasingly, that doesn't seem to be the case - we hear and see about many parents (friends, co-workers, and strangers) whose children stay at home, without a job. So they (the parents) continue to complain about that, wondering when their children will leave, or get a better education, or whatever.
It's gets tiresome after a while; it is also tiresome that you want to tell them about something you bought, or something you're doing or going to do (a vacation, higher education, a new job opportunity, or a business venture) - but you sometimes have to hold back, because you know that you're just throwing it in their faces that "this is what I have, and you don't because you're dealing with your kids".
...then there's the relief we've seen on our friend's and co-worker's faces when they (finally) say that their children have bought a house, and have moved out, or have a job, after graduating college or high-school or whatever; they look like a burden has been lifted from them (while at the same time a bit sad - I imagine because of their kids no longer being around - I can empathize with that).
It seems like children are a double-edged sword. Are there good times and good (great!) experiences to be had with children? Surely! I'll never know the thrill or excitement of teaching my child how to ride a bike, or use powertools, or how to code, or any number of other experiences (and there would be many). But with that loss, I also won't ever know the debt and trials children put parents through, the loss of time and energy, the fear when they don't come home on time.
I and my wife have chosen this; to say our life is abnormal because we came to that decision based on many discussions is to devalue our ability to make our own adult and independent decisions. Similarly, I can't honestly criticise someone for having children. All I do ask is to quit complaining about the decision(s) you made. Because that is the adult thing to do.
The fact is, just by the numbers, having children is normal. But that doesn't mean you should do it!
There used to be a time when we as a society valued things like self-control, discipline, and tradition. No more.
What you are alluding to here is a world where we are ruled by our emotions and our basest desires without the fear or potential for having to deal with our actions. To divorce sex from children is to misunderstand intimacy, the family, and the entire underpinning of our society.
EDIT: Yeah, I know conservative positions on HN are ways to make your Karma go down, but hey, that's what forums are for right, to have your opinions regarded as trolling instead of interacting with them, right?
Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man.
Seriously, we've had modern birth control for a century. Not only has society not collapsed but a whole number of hidden evils have been abolished (Tuam passim), and needless poverty avoided. It's our perfect anti-Malthusian weapon.
This is Hacker News in the 21st century. Tradition alone is a terrible reason to do things. I'm astonished that your comment seems to have been upvoted here.
Edit: I'm trying to keep it civil but I'm really disappointed not just that this appears on HN but it's sitting at the top of its thread tree not greyed out at the bottom.
Oh, and it's "alluding" not "eluding".
When such hardships are made optional by technological or social progress, most find new challenges to conquer but many regret their loss.
Birth control is old news in the Western world. But the cycle will repeat with new technologies. Suppose you're serious about fitness, you spend hours every week spinning and cross-fitting, and your abs are rippling. And tomorrow, a pill is developed that lets everyone be perfectly fit with zero effort. What do you get for all your hours at the gym? Can you imagine being bummed that everyone else is getting for free what you worked so hard for? That might give some idea what pre-birth-control nostalgia is like.
For a clear-eyed view of these less inspiring aspects of human nature, read Sapiens and Homo Deus by Harari.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
And it used to be that, in order to eat food, you had to work 12 hours a day under the hot sun, which was great because only the righteous could be fed.
Now anyone, even those born to a weakling family, can get a job as a software developer and spend time chatting on Hacker News, and still feed a family. It's shameful.
Many people do not want a family. We have a sizeable population problem and many unwanted children are already born into poor conditions.
Safe sex is important, but "self-control", implying denying oneself sex, is a choice you can make, but certainly most would not. The "tradition" in the past was (still is in many places) patriarchal oppression and to expect or TAKE sex, forcefully if necessary. Colour me unimpressed by tradition.
Despite those values it never worked for preventing children.
A lot of us here just accept that reality and are open to removing the human element from it.
What evidence do you have for this fantasy? The extremely high number of children per family/couple before contraception came along?
> There used to be a time when we as a society valued things like self-control, discipline, and tradition. No more.
Is that also the time when people died from rubella and mumps, or when women weren't allowed to vote? Usually an appeal to a bygone era is a secret yearning to go back to a time when the holder of that view had more power over others who now have equality.
> What you are alluding to here is a world where we are ruled by our emotions and our basest desires without the fear or potential for having to deal with our actions.
Yeah, because humans /never/ let themselves get ruled by emotions for the first ~100,000 years of history. /s
> To divorce set from children is to misunderstand intimacy, the family, and the entire underpinning of our society.
And yet, I (a man) had some lovely martinis with my poly boyfriend last night before falling asleep with him. Today, I'm being productive and contributing money to our gorgeous house, and contributing to both my local economy and my various levels of government by paying a decent portion in taxes. Tonight I think I'll spend time with friends and our lives will all be that much better for spending time together.
But please, tell me more about how my lack of child-bearing sex is ruining society.
I don't agree with the GP at all, but I think you're reading something that just isn't there.
By the way, we've been controlling our fertility since the sexual revolution which started around half a century ago. Since our society hasn't collapsed in 50 years I can assume additional and safer options to control our fertility won't bring a collapse.
No, no there has never been a time. People in the past were just big liars. People have always done whatever they want. The only difference today is that many people have the option of being honest about it