Children as insurance?

[RB TexLa]

Yesterday during a conversation with some people at starbucks my fiances and my decision of not raising children came up. One lady that was at the table gasp and asked "who is going to take care of you when you get old." She brought this concept into the conversation. I told her that our retirement planning and insurance purchases will provide for us when we are older. I then asked her if that is why she has children. I also asked her if she had informed her children that they will have to bear this financial burden as well as the emotional burden of taking care of them?


Do people actually have children with the thought that they then no longer have to plan to provide or plan for themselves in later years should they become sick?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. yes

actually, this was traditionally the case. My mother once told me that the sole reason she had me was so someone would be there to look after her when she got old. BTW, I'm not-my older brother is looking after her-but I know for a fact that this reason for having children is one that goes back in my family to my grandfather's generation, and probably earlier than that.

In many parts of the world, such as India and China, boys are desired because it is the duty of sons to look after elderly parents. This cultural practice has had interesting results-difficulty in China of enforcing the one child rule and in India of abortion of female fetuses to the extent that now there is a significant decrease in available women for marriage.

I, too, chose to not have any children. One reason, I think, was because I didn't want any child to think they HAD to take care of me when I get old.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. We're happily "uninsured".

We decided not to have kids and have never regretted it. A highly overrated hobby.

[Dora]

9. Please explain for me....

Why is it that some people who choose not to have children speak critically of those people who do?

"A highly overrated hobby."

WTF? Do you want to piss off all the parents here on the board who take their parenting seriously?

In my life, parenting is not a highly overrated hobby, but an adventure and a calling. Going to sports bars to watch "the game," spending $140 to swing a stick at a ball on a golf course, scrapbooking, karaoke... these are highly overrated hobbies, IMO. Not parenting.

[NJCher]

13. consciousness

Why is it that some people who choose not to have children speak critically of those people who do?

Not having children is one of the best things you can do for Mother Earth.

Sorry if you're offended by the way the poster put it, but that's the bottom line.




Cher

[SmokingJacket]

15. Well, by that logic, mass suicide is even better for mother earth.

Just saying.

[fhqwhgads]

20. weeeellll...

...i suspect that at best, "mother earth" is neutral on the subject.

SmokingJacket said:
<<"Well, by that logic, mass suicide is even better for mother earth.">>

[Dora]

18. Not having children...

Not having children is a personal choice, just like having children is a personal choice. I would never dream of telling you, or the poster who I was actually addressing, that having children is just the best thing and that you should consider procreating. Why? Because it's not my business.

The original post that started this thread contained a question regarding child-having as a retirement safeguard, and the particular post that I replied to made a pissy comment equating child-having as a hobby. There was nothing in that post about overpopulation concerns or environmental issues.

Your implication that I am less environmentally conscious than you are because I've chosen to have a child is nothing but bunk. You don't know how we live, you don't know how much we consume/spend, you don't know whether we have a toxic waste dump in our back yard, and none of that is relevant to this thread... because, IIRC, is about aging, retirement, and parents' dependence on their children.

"Sorry if you're offended by the way the poster put it, but that's the bottom line." :eyes: No, honey, that's not the bottom line, that's your opinion. I repeat myself: The original poster said nothing about Mother Earth. (She, by the way, is probably hoping that Her children would shut up already and help Her out.)

[NJCher]

19. I don't care how you live, American lifestyles are environmental disasters

Your implication that I am less environmentally conscious than you are because I've chosen to have a child is nothing but bunk.

Hi, honey sweetie baby. Actually, you are less environmentally conscious than I because when I was a mere 13-years old, I read about the impact of people in a capitalistic economy on the environment. I chose not to have children and I did it deliberately as a way of respecting Mother Earth.

We really don't need any more humans on this earth. They've now screwed it up so bad that the quality of life is very poor and in fact, nature is showing us its effects (Katrina). Don't worry: if you didn't get it via Katrina, another nature show will be along shortly to open your eyes.

To the other poster: mass murder is over the top. At any rate, the net effect is humans are dying and they are dying because of our abuse of the environment.

Cats, Not Kids. :)




Cher

[Dora]

21. Say what?

1) Because you once read a book at 13 does not make you more environmentally conscious than me. Does the fact that I was reading books at 4 make me more literate than you? No, it doesn't, because it's not relevant to this moment. I'll paraphrase from my earlier post: You Don't Know Me and thereby don't have the wiggle room to judge my environmental impact.

2) You stuck your nose into a thread by posting an argument not relevant to the issue I brought up. Me: "Parenting is not a hobby." You: "Having children is bad for the environment."

:eyes:

I am confident in asserting that there are brazillions of childless singletons who consume, drive, spend, and do more damage to the environment in one weekend than me, my husband, and our baby could do in a year. Being kind to the environment depends on far more than having or not having children. So, I'll ask you to back off the parents, sister. I'm a parent, I'm proud of it, and I'm not going to take your shit just because you read a book once.

[Jo March]

37. Dora, I agree with you on the consumption issue

I have 2 kids. I would like to have a large family but realized that we could only afford 2 and could only mentally, physically and emotionally handle 2. So, we have 2 kids.

Since I have a family of 4, I have learned to conserve, recycle, reuse and reduce. It holds down our costs and our impact on the local landfill. We shop for used items and we recycle.

I do notice childless couples or childless folks who do, as you say, "more damage to the environment in one weekend" than my little family. They drive gas guzzlers, throw away recylcable items, and buy all kinds of new and better stuff constantly.

Being childless does not make you better for the earth than me.

Being a parent is the most important thing in our lives. It is NOT a hobby. I find that characterization quite insulting.

[Dora]

46. Thanks, I was beginning to think I was crazy for thinking like I do. n/t

[Jo March]

72. Nah. It still amazes me how much prejudice there is still - on both sides

I tend not to judge folks for having kids or not having kids. I think that it's none of my business, really. What gets me is that some folks feel superior if they don't have kids and some folks feel superior if they do. Craziness.

But for someone to reduce what is the most precious thing to me - being a parent - to a "hobby" is ignorant and insulting.

Live and let live, I say.

[Dora]

75. It's hard not to be a zealot sometimes.

I understand where my dueling partner is coming from, but that doesn't change my stance at all. It's not about the environment, and it's not about having kids or not having kids. We all have a certain amount of self that's invested in wanting others to be like us.

It's important that we know ourselves, and to nurture and build on our individual values. When we recognize how those values improve our well-being, our self-esteem, and even the lives of those around us... well, I believe it's a default reaction to want others around us to have those values too.

I'll use myself as an example. I used to be zealously anti-television and mass media. We don't have TV, and for a time I was vociferous about the evils thereof. Even today, I still have my soapboxing moments. But I had to clam up my daily rants because people I love dearly watch TV and they enjoy watching TV and they're not going to stop watching TV just because I believe that banishing TV has improved my life a thousand-fold. For some people it's cigarettes, for others it's dairy, and for others it's consumption and the environment.

So, y'know. Our little house of three puts out only two bags of garbage a week (and that includes disposable diapers, gasp), and we garden, and compost, and recycle, and thrift, and carpool, and walk, and use mass transit. I know where Cher's coming from, but I'm not going to tolerate the "I'm more conscious than you" attitude, especially when I work so hard to control it with my own pet issues.

Live and let live, amen. Have a nice day, Arnheim!

[Jo March]

78. You too, Dora! nt

[NJCher]

48. bottom line hits you upside the head again

Because you once read a book at 13 does not make you more environmentally conscious than me. Does the fact that I was reading books at 4 make me more literate than you? No, it doesn't, because it's not relevant to this moment. I'll paraphrase from my earlier post: You Don't Know Me and thereby don't have the wiggle room to judge my environmental impact.

Reading the book is irrelevant; what is relevant is the resulting action.

The resulting action is that I chose not to have children because I realized their impact on the environment in a capitalistic society.

No, I don't know you--and the more I read of you, the more thankful I am of that--but I know enough to know that regardless of how you live in our American society, you're causing an environmental problem. It's systemic.

Since my realization at age 13, I've worked consistently part-time to bring about the needed changes to a society like ours. The other part of the time, I work in jobs like teaching. I've sacrificed full-time employment to do this. I can say I've brought about many laws that have made our environment better. Can you say this?

Your so-called creativity and higher calling is something anyone can do. It's called breeding and it's inherent to the species. So you can stop dressing up a pig, "sister," because most people see through it.

Form of creativity. Please. Go paint a picture. And use environmentally friendly paints, if you would, please.




Cher

[Dora]

55. You are so proud of yourself.

I never said anything about a higher calling. I said I felt called to parent. If you're incapable of making that distinction, then I wonder what you're doing in the classroom.

And why do you continue to address things that I say in other posts but have not said to you? I have problems with our capitalistic society too, including, yes, consumption levels and rampant waste. WTF does that have to do with your red herrings?

You're a teacher. That's great. Three out of my four parents were/are teachers. I hope you're kinder, more compassionate, and more open to discussion in the classroom than you are on this thread.

Bully for you for your self-sacrifice. Perhaps you don't get enough gratitude from thoughtless consumptive breeding people like me so on behalf of breeders everywhere, allow me to say, thank you for your efforts on our behalf. I hope it hasn't caused you too much pain.

Oh, and the feeling is mutual.

[Der Blaue Engel]

71. Are you for real?

Or are you just posting flamebait? The Earth could use less hateful people, so I'm glad you didn't procreate.

[bleedingheart]

27. sadly the overpopulated earth is also a symptom of compassion

if the world food and vaccination programs would halt today, the world population would start to decline.

Take for instance natural disasters like the Tsunami and the aid crisis in Pakistan due to the earthquakes, in the past if a nation could not sustain itself and its people...the people perished. Feeding people in overpopulated areas so that they can continue to overpopulate is really odd logically....

Look at China, they are trying very hard to reduce if not maintain their population at levels they can sustain and yet they are criticized for it. Granted some of their methods may seem barbaric, but they are trying to solve a problem...overpopulation.

Now as a bleedingheart liberal, I can't abide the idea of letting anyone die or starve...but I can see how human compassion has created some problems we have not yet come to terms with.

[Fescue4u]

32. Whats the point of Earth

If noone is around to enjoy it?

"Actually, you are less environmentally conscious than I because when I was a mere 13-years old, I read about the impact of people"

So, I take that you plan to leave Earth soon? Or are you so greedy and petty that you demand to continue living on Earth and continuing to damage it?

[NJCher]

49. it doesn't all revolve around you, you know

Sheesh.




Cher

[Fescue4u]

53. Mankind is part of nature to.

And call me egotistical, but prefer that mankind survive, even if it they do pollute to a degree.

[ellie]

47. Hey Cher!

I, too, decided at a young age to not to have children because of the environmental ramifications. Of course, I also came from a family of eight children, and saw first hand how wasteful we were (this was before the big push on recycling). Apparently my brothers and sisters feel the same way because only one of us has children, and there is only one, and he is 23.

[phylny]

59. Do you recycle all that soiled kitty litter, or toss it in the trash onto

GASP - Mother Earth??

Just askin'....

:)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. A "calling"? Who made the call?

Or, if you prefer, what made the call? Is it like a call of nature? What language was it in? Is it like a "calling" to be a doctor, an artist, an auto-mechanic? Why did you take the "call"? Is your "calling" more noble than someone who has a "calling" to swing a stick at a ball on a golf course? If you believe it is, why?

I guess my wife and I had a "calling" to be childless.

We do have two cats who are cheaper to feed, clothe, and educate and are easier to herd than kids. They also have less impact on the deteriorating environment in an overpopulated world that mostly lives in abject poverty to feed, clothe, and provide goodies for overstuffed Americans.

[Dora]

43. I'm not sure we're communicating very well.

My problem was with your mean-spirited snark equating parenting to an "overrated hobby." What's your problem?

Just because I've had a child, that doesn't mean I think I'm better than anyone else, whether or not they have children of their own. If you feel defensive about not having children, it's certainly not because I've had one of my own. Maybe your family gives you shit about it, but I don't care. That still doesn't make it right for you to criticize me, or any other parent, simply because I've chosen to have a child.

Tone is difficult to judge on these boards, but I sense that you're being a smartass. Nonetheless, I'll address your question regarding my "calling." Yes, I felt called to parent. I realized it when I was a teenager and considering what I wanted from my life. I wanted nothing more from my life than to live it creatively, and I saw pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting as one of the most creative things a woman (and man) could do. And even though I knew I really wanted to parent, I waited until I was 35 to have a child because there was more I wanted to get from my life. It's a calling for me, yes, and it's a calling that I answer to every day.

You should be glad I take my parenting more seriously than a hobby, because there are countless parents out there who do approach parenting like it was a hobby, and they're messing up their children, and it doesn't take long before those messed-up kids become messed-up adults. And those messed-up adults live in your town too.

What relevance does your cat ownership status have? None. We have cats too. Again, it's irrelevant.

And you never answered my original question.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. I have a "calling" to be a "smartass".

How dare you denigrate my calling. Are you saying that being a smartass is less valuable or uplifting than being a parent? It takes a lot of work and thought and sacrifice to be a smartass. Not to mention creativity.

I'm delighted you're a responsible parent. As you say, there are sure a lot of folks that aren't. But, what does "responsible" mean. Will you take "responsibily" if (God forbid) your child turns out to be an arsonist? A murderer? A Republican? Will you then say, "We were lousy parents."?

What I was making "snarky" comments about was the cult of parenting as a noble ideal. The idea that having and rearing a child conveyed automatic sainthood on parents. Much as "he's a veteran" (I am) conveys some automatic stature to a political candidate.

[Dora]

74. Say What? II

I didn't denigrate anything or anyone - I simply expressed a suspicion that you were being a smartass: what's more, you claimed it proudly. I've made no value comparisons between smartassedness and parenthood. Being a proud smartass myself, to do so would be self-defeating. I hope our son learns the finer art of smartassedry - it's a good tool, both for offense and defense, and is best used with a touch of compassion for those on the receiving end.

Responsibile is as responsible does. Time will tell how responsible a parent I am or was. And as far as claiming liability for poor parenting goes... I'll be happy to do so when my son is an adult. My mother once apologized to me for choices she made when I was a kid. It was one of the best things she ever did for me, and for us. That apology made her not just a parent, but a person, and it helped me to understand that all people are flawed and make choices that they may someday regret.

Yeah, I love being a parent... so what? That doesn't mean I think I'm a saint. You made that up to justify your inane accusations of nobility, cultism, etc. You might as well be talking to yourself, or to your cats.

[Fescue4u]

29. by that logic. You and everything about your life is a hobby

Good thing your parents had nothing better to do eh?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. One of my parents' hobbies was sex.

Which it is very hard to imagine they were indulging in to produce offspring.

Life is life. Call it a hobby, an avocation, a "calling", or fried okra. Romanticizing childbearing is similar to romanticizing becoming an accountant.

[Fescue4u]

54. Thats fine. But I put a value of life at more than a hobby

Otherise why so upset at the war in Iraq?

Otherwise who cares if 2,000 "hobbies" are lost?


"Romanticizing childbearing is similar to romanticizing becoming an accountant."...

Sorry thats going to be one of the,umm, strangest thought Ive ever heard expressed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. So, not having children is equated with "not caring".

Semantics is what drives you to be upset about Iraq? Why is raising a child on an already overpopultaed world better than fishing? Or, accounting? Or, writing? Or, collecting marbles?

How does having kids help the 2000 GIs, or 10s of thousands of Iraqis killed in Iraq? Please fill me in.

[Fescue4u]

61. Why would you say such a thing?

You've made unusual conclusions that I find strange.

Far be it for me to explain the conclusions you've drawn

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. I answered your question. Care to answer mine?

I care about what happens to the people of Iraq because I care what happens to anyone.

You seem to believe that having children (let's face it, most people have sex because they enjoy it rather than aching for children) makes one more caring, responsible, loving, humanitarian, etc.

So, tell me how that works. Two people frolic in bed. 9 months later out pops a little replica. And, miraculously, they care about the 2000 dead GIs in Iraq. Just what is it about parenting that leads to that exalted state?

[Fescue4u]

64. Huh what?

I cant keep up with your tangents and strawmen.


I suggest you resume to your hobby

[newportdadde]

58. My son is more then a 'hobby'.

Playing EQ was a 'hobby', gardening is a hobby. Saying having a child is 'just a hobby' is pretty damn cold. Why the snarky comment?

A hobby is something you start and stop, participate in as a whim and then leave it as quickly. Being a parent is so far beyond a hobby, I've never had a hobby that came with so much repsonsibility or rewards as being a dad. I've never had a hobby I would lay my life down for.

When you find a hobby that shouts out 'dada! dada!' as you climb the stairs and gives you a hug full of pure love just for you and you giving one back just for him then let me know.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Well, I'm glad you're enjoying it so much.

You're a saint and a wonderful human being. Hurrah for you!!

[Fescue4u]

65. I Sense a Troll in the room

or someone with deep issues with their upbringing and/or parents.

[Arugula Latte]

77. Tierra -- How do you know?

Tierra, you don't have children, so how can you say it's a "highly overrated hobby"? I think if you ask most parents, including myself, we'd say that parenthood is by far the most significant and profound experience of our lives. Having kids is the best thing I've ever done by a huge margin. Nothing else compares to it for me. I realize you were being slightly facetious by calling it a "hobby," but, believe me, raising kids is the farthest thing from a "hobby" imaginable.

[elehhhhna]

3. sheesh I hope not.

we've sacrificed about 675K in gross income staying home raising the kids so far (hubs for 5 years, me for 4) and I'm not including the expense of 3 years in daycare in between (probably another 25K pre-tax ). If it's about money, you're better of NOT having them.

[meganmonkey]

4. Remaining child-free provides one with the ability to save a lot of money

for old age that would have been spent on the child/ren. Not that 'saving money' should be the sole reason not to have kids, nor does money make up for the emotional benefits of having your kids to take care of you, but it sort negates the argument of children as 'insurance'.

[Igel]

24. And when you save all the money,

and find that nobody else your age or younger has had children, you realize that money's pretty much all you have. No food. No electricity. No repairmen when your roof leaks. Unless you're entirely self-sufficient (with others of your age cohort willing to take care of you when you're ill or infirm) until the day you die, of course.

The next generation is our insurance policy. Always has been. It's a mercenary and selfish reason for having kids, though.

Meaning, of course, that most of humankind in the course of history--and today--are mercenary and selfish. But nobody ever said that traditional cultures aren't mercenary and selfish in many respects.

[meganmonkey]

30. ????

Er...I certainly wasn't saying no one should have kids because they cost money, if that is what you are implying. I would never presume to make judgments about other people's decisions about having children.

I don't think that those people who choose to remain child-free are threatening the continuation of the species right now.

I think I may be missing something here.

:shrug:

[BlueIris]

5. Sad.

Why, oh, why do I still meet so few people who consider what they have to give to the children they "want" to raise before getting them? It's always me, me, me. The idea of "having a baby," "having a family," never what they as parents can provide for that family, at least emotionally. And then there are the even more sick, purely material reasons, like the issue addressed in this original post. Future parents of the world: please knock that shit off. It makes you look like assholes.

[Skidmore]

6. This is nothing new, but has been practiced throughout

history. Do you think people always had retirement plans, SS, or health insurance? Those safety nets were the byproducts of the labor movements in the 20th century.

Aside from this, I believe we have a responsibility to our elders, unless, of course, the family dynamics were extremely dysfunctional. I don't like it that we warehouse our elderly and the culture views them as inconvenient and a nuisance.

[pitohui]

39. prior to the 20th century ave. life expectancy in usa not much above 40

you can't compare pre and post 1930 ways of doing things

i could work and save my entire life and live literally in a cardboard box & i cannot save sufficiently that i could have paid for even one of my elderly relatives, i'm esp. thinking of the one who was in a home for dementia for over 2 decades, her costs were more than my entire lifetime income and my husband's entire income combined

where does responsibility to our elders begin or end? it is impossible for an honest person in a legal profession to get the kind of money needed to support our elders in many of these cases, modern medicine and modern health care costs have changed the rules

i can't support my elderly parents financially, nor am i physically strong enough or properly trained in medicine to support them in my home when they need it

i don't like it that we "warehouse" our elderly either but the alternative is euthanasia, while euthanasia is the option i wish for myself if/when i develop symptoms of dementia, it is not a choice i feel comfortable making for others, that sort of leaves a huge class of people who to remain alive must be "warehoused"

about half of all people over age 85 have dementia, it is not something rare that won't ever happen

if ppl are having children to get their money in old age, i don't see what choice the children have but to separate themselves financially from their parents, the child in that scenario can't earn enough to save the parent but can spend enough to destroy her own family's future

[Skidmore]

51. These are your choices.

Sometimes I think we have become good as a nation for rationalizing why it's okay to be only responsible for me. I do think we have a responsibility to our parents and to our children. People in nations with per capita incomes much less than the per capita income in America manage to find a way to show respect for the contributions of their parents in their lives. I just think this culture has set itself up to reward self-absorption. Perhaps everyone can stand to make do with a little less.

[pitohui]

66. now that is just rude

what part of the cost of her dementia care was more than the entire lifetime earnings of myself and my husband did you not understand?

i think it's terrific that you have no dementia in yr family & hence no knowledge of how expensive and difficult the care is, i am not in position to be so blithely cruel and naive


making do with a little less indeed, that is just offensive, i went w.out health insurance or care for myself for 15 years, i am getting older too

must be nice to be one of the elite who never gets sick and whose older relatives don't either

the fact remains that a normal honest working person does not have $10,000 a month to spend on a nursing home for just one of his elderly victims who develops dementia -- and we had several such in our family

[atommom]

7. I think that has been the tradition in many families.

I've been told that a few decades ago in rural Kansas, it was expected that the youngest child would stay and care for the parents. I've heard of similar expectations in other cultures. My own parents were always clear on that subject ... they didn't want to burden their kids. But the kids were always happy to help out when needed.

[SoCalDem]

40. In Kansas farm communities, that was why there were more than a few

houses on the same farmland.. When "kids" married, Dad/Gramps built them a little house on a few acres of the family land. They worked the farm side-by-side with Mom & Dad & Gram & Gramps.. as the elders faded, they were cared for in their own homes by the younger family members, usually daughters or spinster sisters who lived with the family.

Trading houses was not out of the ordinary either. By the time the elders were bedridden, the youngers usually had a growing family, so they might move into the "big" house, and the elders would move into the smaller,quieter houses. They had meals cooked and brought to them, and someone usually stayed with them at night..Country doctors still made house calls.

[atommom]

42. Those were different times, to be sure. As long as the family

was living in harmony, the closeness was probably a good thing. (Choosing a mate whose parents you could live with was even more important in those days! :P )

[cmd]

8. My best hope is that my kid marries a very rich man

Frankly, I never expected to be rich or "cared for" by my children. I don't expect to get an inheritance or leave one. Should I begin to worry about those things now?

[LeftyMom]

10. That just sounds like a bad idea

What if the kid has health or family issues that make them unable to care for you, or worse yet what if the kid passes on first?

If relying on the kids is one's sole plan for thier old age, they'd be up shit creek.


I have no idea why people plan to have kids, having only a surprise baby at the moment, but I've never heard the "kid as retirement plan" argument from anyone about thier own family, though I have heard it as a really lame argument against childlessness. Obviously those people lack math skills, kids are expensive, it'd be much easier to start putting money away during one's childbearing years, pay off the house a bit sooner, etc.

[No Exit]

11. Heh. Yeah, some fools actually think that.

And in former times, it was actually done. Something I know of that is related, but not exactly the same: I asked my mother once how her parents were able to give all 7 of their children some form of higher education. She said her parents paid for her oldest sister to go to college, then the oldest sister went to work and paid for the next child in line, and he paid for his next younger brother, and so on down the line.

Nowadays, any parent who has gotten as far as the teenage years begins furiously saving for old age--if they haven't already begun.

Many of us will be so relieved when we are finally rid of the little tykes, we won't want to call them for any kind of help.

[Bunny]

12. I didn't have kids so they could take care of me.

But I understand the emotional need of believing that someone will be there for you when you are old and/or infirm. I'm single, and do not expect to remarry, so there's probably not going to be a husband around to help me.

I don't expect my kids to personally take care of me, in fact, the last thing I would want is to be a physical or financial burden to them. I assume that they will have families and worries of their own to tend to.

I expect (and hope) that they will love me enough to see that my care needs are met, in a way that I'm able to afford. I hope they will monitor my care to see that it is adequate and free from abuse, and I hope they will visit as often as they can. And I think that's really about all you can ask of anyone.

[Orangepeel]

14. I've had this thought ... but it wasn't financial care

I'm childless by choice and will be able to take care of myself financially in my old age.

But I have thought on occassion (usually when my mother is having a health issue), that it would be nice to have someone who cares about me to make sure that I have a way to get to the doctor, the nursing home isn't letting me rot, etc.

I'll have the money to pay people to take care of me, but no one to ensure that those people are doing so adequately.

It isn't reason enough to make me have children, but I don't think that it is necessarily a selfish idea. Cycle of life and all that.

[FooFootheSnoo]

16. kids are too expensive

to have them just as an "insurance" policy. I hope I'm never a burden to my child. But, I don't think I would be out of line expecting her to help me out when I'm old and feeble either.
I plan on taking care of my parents when they are old. I know they didn't have me just because they wanted someone to take care of them, but I'm here because they sacrificed a large part of their time and money to take care of me. I figure the least I can do is help them out when they need it. I've worked in a couple of nursing homes and I noticed that the patients who got the best care were those who had a family member that visits frequently and advocates for them. It wasn't always the patient's children though, sometimes brothers, sisters, and nieces and nephews.

[Frustratedlady]

17. I considered it an honor to care for my parents.

I also cared for my mil and would do it again. None of them asked, I just assumed the task and they were grateful.

As for having children, care in my old age never entered my mind. We had children because it was a pledge of our love and devotion to each other, as well as to carry on the family lineage. Our children, grandchildren and g-grandchildren are one-of-a-kind gifts.

Children should never be considered as chattel. They are miniature replicas of their parents--good and bad traits included--and the love they give in return for their being is indescribable.

[patcox2]

23. This is natural, normal, and part of the essence of being human.

The idea that we must all be completely independent individuals is the modern and artificial aberration.

The idea that your family consists only of a couple and their children, and then only until the children have kids of their own (the nuclear family) is the abberation (I'm gonna spell that word a different way until I get it right).

Our society is so focused on greed and individualism, the celebration of me, the definition of self by ones aquisitions, that the notions of "community" and "interdependence" have become somehow negative values. Thats perverse

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. Reverence of extended family and even non-family. Village life.. that

is the way it used to be.. and still is in many cultures.

[patcox2]

33. Yes; at certain stages of life we are dependant, at others, obligated.

We all start out and end helpless. In the middle, there is a period when we can support not just ourselves, but also those in our society who need support. The young and the old and the sick and those who just aren't as strong.

In a modern, social welfare state, we have created a similar system, those who work and earn wages, pay for the support of those who cannot. It may be more efficient. But its alienated, community is lost, even though the effect is the same. That alienation is what allows the terribly self-centered anger and selfishness evidenced in so many posts on this thread and in the tax threads today. Thats one of the main appeals of the republican party these days, too, appealing to that selfishness.

If we lived something more like a village life, where the personal interaction with and knowledge of the plight of those we support is present, that attitude would be less prevalent.

[Igel]

26. Some do, most don't.

But most of the people near retirement age--with or without kids--are counting on their kids, or others' kids, being their insurance.

It's called Social Security and entitlements. Some (erroneously) believe that when they hit 65, all reliance on the next generation ceases. Others invested in their kids, who'll be, presumably, productive members of society, producing the goods that many seniors need, bought of course by the taxes the same kids pay.

And if your kids take care of you, great. It shows gratitude and love, if they can swing it financially and emotionally. My brother took care of his paternal grandmother when she couldn't live by herself. It made her life much, much happier and more pleasant for years, and she couldn't bear the thought of being institutionalized; she went into a nursing home when she could no longer remember how to speak English and not pee, and died a few months later. By that time, she couldn't remember where she was if she closed her eyes for a few seconds.

[Fescue4u]

28. I've never heard that line of thought before

That kids are insurance against poverty.

Heck, if you saved all the money you spent on kids for 20 years, that would make a damn nice retirement fund.

Anyway. I do think when you are in your twilight years, it would be nice to look back and see that when you are gone, your now grown children are having children of their own, and your wisdowm and philosophys are living on.

[Gormy Cuss]

31. I have a friend who says this

He and his wife have no retirement funds at all. He and his wife have spent the last twenty years scraping every spare nickel to keep their kids in parochial schools and now university with the notion they were doing the best for them. They've even moved down the property ladder to pay for schooling. Me, I would have sent my kids to the pretty good public schools in his area but that wasn't the choice they made. While he tells them they're his retirement plan, he really means it as a wish that if the parents need the help, the children will be willing and able to provide it because they have more lucrative careers than their parents.

[Missy Vixen]

34. Yes, they do

>Do people actually have children with the thought that they then no longer have to plan to provide or plan for themselves in later years should they become sick?<

It probably sounds like a good idea, but rest homes around the country are full of parents whose kids won't even visit, let alone take care of them in their elder years.

We're not having kids; there is a host of reasons why. We both love children, but prefer not to be parents.

Julie

[grasswire]

35. I had a retirement plan

I put him through college, made his home, bore his children, catered to his every need for a couple of decades. He's now getting married this month to his third younger wife whose children will inherit his family wealth while his own lovely biological children have been cut out of any assistance from him. He refuses to even help his daughter with some medical care, while the children of the "new" wife were just treated to a $7,000 vacation.

Don't count on anything from anyone.

[pitohui]

38. only if they're silly

of course their children are not going to take care of them, no one can afford to support their own household and pay the ridiculous nursing home costs on top of that, it's more than their child's entire monthly income just for the nursing home

ask yr friend next time if she knows anyone in a nursing home & if she has seen a bill lately & if her children have that kind of income!

all she will do is force her children to relocate to another state to hide their assets & households from her when she starts tearing their marriage apart w. her financial demands

[triguy46]

41. So, it is good to become a burden on your children?

No self responsibility? I'm currently dealing with this, was prepared to buy long term care insurance, actually filling out the forms and was stopped by this AUTOMATIC disqualifier "If you have had ANY form of cancer in the past two years, do not complete this form or apply for Long Term Care insurance." That applies to me, had kidney cancer this summer. So now facing the inability to insure myself as I see necessary. I'll figure out something, but will not place this on my kids backs.

[freestyle]

44. I asked my mom to get long term care insurance.

I am her only child, and I fully plan to have a place for her in my home should she be no longer able to live in hers, but I know I would not be able to bear the financial burden. It was a difficult discussion, especially since she is not old and quite healthy. But,watching my grandparents spend all their assets on health aides was a lesson to the family. They now live at my mom's house and almost all of their income goes to the caregivers. Luckily, we could prepare a place for them.

Children should be prepared to provide some level of care for their parents, but expecting anyone to take the whole burden is just unfair. Children are not insurance. Insurance is insurance, and in some enlightened future it will be available to all.

[triguy46]

45. good suggestion.

I initially thought "I'll just save my money and invest it, who needs another insurance scam." But then did the math. Buy it and buy it young, you have a very good probability of needing it. Shop around, be sure to buy the inflation coverage.

[seabeyond]

50. my father is finacially set to be taken care of, my hubby parents

are not only financially set up to be taken care of, they have what home, when and how. i am in fourties, and already we are set up to be taken care of when we get old, regardless of teasing my boys in time, they will have to change my diapers, wink.....

no this is not the reason i, my father or my husband or his parents had kids.

[SoCalDem]

52. Bottom line? No amount of planning can prepare for the unforseen

Life is a continuum, and the child often becomes the parent. Some do it better than others, and some not at all. It just depends on the family dynamic.

We always joked with our boys.."We TWO took care of you THREE guys for the first 20 years of YOUR lives, so surely THREE of you can take care of the TWO of us during the LAST 20 of ours".. Our wise guy son always chirps in.."How will WE know that 20 will 'do it'"..

None of us knows what our "end years" will be like.. Personally, I would not want to be a burden on any of my kids, but it's not for ME to decide that. If I am incapacitated, and they want to care for me, I am willing to accept their help. If it's too much, and they need to put me somewhere, I will not make them feel guilty, and will go willingly.

I am hoping that the "end" is quick, but no one knows what's ahead for them..

[DiverDave]

57. Geez, I can't believe some of you people.

Have kids for old age?
I'll just go to the outhouse, after I get the ice from the ice man for my cold box.

Have kids, don't have kids, it makes no nevermind to me.
Because I like to think of myself as tolerant of other peoples choices.

However, the holier then thou attitudes from some of the replies is just not right.
Look, I have kids, not for my old age (altho I think that grandkids would be a cool thing) but because it was MY choice.
If you don't have kids, well I think your missing out, but that is YOUR choice.

Lets not put down folks for the choice they made.
Oh, and as a hobby? This dad thing is a GAS.

[RB TexLa]

67. Wow

That kind of went in a few directions. I think I was more set back by the lady gasping at how we would take care of ourselves without children. Everyone there was put off by this, those that have children and those that don't.

Thanks to those who responded, very interesting.

[BiggJawn]

68. Yep, right along with having a LOT of sons...

To help you with the milkin' and the threshin', and driving the teams when it's plowin' time...

IOW, a relic of a past culture.

But I seem to recall OTHER cultures consider it bad form to stuff granny in a home instead of making her a comfy little corner by the stove. How many generations live in your typical 400-sq-ft flat in Osaka or Kiev?

So, don't be so aghast, I think the idea of not expecting your kids to change your Depends when you're senile is uniquely American.

[Mabel Dodge]

69. I have worked with senior citizens for over 20 years...

and I can tell you that overall having children is a really bad insurance plan. I have seen too many seniors supporting adult children and raising grandchildren. I have seen seniors physically and mentally abused by their children.

Based on my experience, money in the bank really is the only thing that will make your golden years truly "golden".

[kineneb]

70. if that was Mom's plan, she goofed

'cause she is helping us out now, instead of the other way around. We are part of the middle-aged poor: Hubby lost his tech job in 2002 at age 55, and now is on dialysis. I am glad we didn't have kids, the chances of them inheriting some of our health problems was just too high. As to planning for old age, I have difficulty planning for next week. We have no insurance, savings, etc. Those all had to be spent down to get Hubby medical care now.

[SiouxJ]

73. That's the most selfish reason for having kids

and I hear it all the time too. I would never dream of bringing another human being into the world with expectations that they must take care of me because I did so. I wasn't raised that way. My parents have never asked me for anything (they are in their 70's now) and have always saved and insured themselves so they won't become a burden to me. They would hate that! I know other people who see their kids as a bank account that they paid into and now they want their return. I just think that is a selfish, greedy way to be and I respect my parent so much more for not being like that.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

76. I have had that conversation..

with friends.

I decided very early on (even before high school) that I would not be having children. When I have made that known to people, I have had many question my choice based on exactly what you describe: Who will take care of you when you are old?


My reply is always that that would be a shitty reason to have children.