Children

[rattymat]

Would you ever want to have children? Whether yes or no, explain your reason/s.
For those who already have children, what was your explanation of your decision to have them (this can include *unplanned*).

Additionally, how happy are you currently? Explain your reason why you are as happy or unhappy as you are.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Yes, I someday desire to reproduce. To fulfill the biological instinct, to teach, and to bond with another human being to a rare degree.

I'm generally "meh" happy. 6.5/10 Happy because I have hope for the future as well as because I'm decently comfortable with myself and where I'm at for the time being. Unhappy because of stress, work, sleep deprivation, and social interaction; which is to say the norm.

If you think it's relevant, my brother was born when I was 16 (now 24) and fits into the unplanned category. Glad the little bugger's around, since 1. he's the shit and 2. he gave me a practice run.

 

[Architect]

Kids are fun, they teach you a lot, and its overall satisfying to have them. They do change your life fundamentally and take a lot of work. I'm glad I had my one (an INTP paradoxically), I wouldn't have minded another. A little INFJ girl would have been cool

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

No, I don't wish for such an awful burden.

 

[Jennywocky]

For those who already have children, what was your explanation of your decision to have them (this can include *unplanned*).

I have two bio kids and one adopted kid, all in high school. while it complicated my life, I have never regretted this decision. It was one of the most important and fulfilling things I've ever done in my life, and it taught me a great deal that I might not have learned otherwise.

Additionally, how happy are you currently? Explain your reason why you are as happy or unhappy as you are.

I'm only unhappy because I'm not with my kids right now, and I wish we could have been closer over the years. (I suffered depression for a long time, unrelated to them, and that and the separation was hard on them.) I'm emotionally accessible to them now, but they're basically finishing their last time as kids and are about to enter the world. Hopefully things will keep improving.

I'm also happy because all three of my kids are people I can connect with in some way. The INTP is like a kindred soul, and I am so happy I can be there for him and encourage him, since I was very alone in life at his age (no one understood me); he and i can finish each other's thoughts, I always get where he is coming from and vice versa. The INFJ, I adore, and we both are fiercely autonomous; and my younger son despite being ESFP seems to be the most artistic and we share a few things in common that I don't with my other kids, so we can still relate.

Considering how I could have had some kids I didn't understand or relate to at all, I've been fortunate to have points of connection and have some pretty open/flexible children.

 

[Solitaire U.]

For those who already have children, what was your explanation of your decision to have them (this can include *unplanned*).

Additionally, how happy are you currently? Explain your reason why you are as happy or unhappy as you are.

I have no excuse for the first one...it was a totally unplanned incident. Still not even sure how it happened, as several anti-insemination measures were being utilized.

The second one was kind of sort of half-assed planned. I think our rationale for having another was along the lines of why people decide to have two dogs instead of one. "If he has a playmate, maybe he won't bark all day long, and maybe having company will distract him enough so he won't be distracting me all the time."

My oldest is almost 11 now, his brother recently turned 8. I don't know about 'happy', but so far I'm extremely content with parenthood. It has its associated hassles of course, but it also has its rewards. No regrets whatsoever. Simply put, my kids are fun and interesting to be around. The whole 'family dynamic' thing is somehow...comforting, though I wouldn't exactly describe it in traditional 'warm and cozy' terms.

But IDK...I suspect the worst is yet to come. Ask me again in 4 years or so when they're teenagers.

 

[Jennywocky]

But IDK...I suspect the worst is yet to come. Ask me again in 4 years or so.

Mua ha ha... yes, the alternate spelling for Armageddon is P-U-B-E-R-T-Y.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

... it taught me a great deal that I might not have learned otherwise.

Could you tell me what you have learned so I can have that knowledge without having children first?

 

[Solitaire U.]

Could you tell me what you have learned so I can have that knowledge without having children first?

That knowledge is not vicariously interpretable. It must be experienced to be understood.

 

[rattymat]

I'm also happy because all three of my kids are people I can connect with in some way. The INTP is like a kindred soul, and I am so happy I can be there for him and encourage him, since I was very alone in life at his age (no one understood me); he and i can finish each other's thoughts, I always get where he is coming from and vice versa. The INFJ, I adore, and we both are fiercely autonomous; and my younger son despite being ESFP seems to be the most artistic and we share a few things in common that I don't with my other kids, so we can still relate.

Out of curiosity, is your ESFP your adopted child? I ask because having read everyone’s comments on here (and another forum), people’s children seem to turn out as the same or similar type as their parents. I was wondering how much this had to do with genetics and conditioning.
Also, I think it makes sense to me why your ESFP would be good at art. At least I know ISFP’s are known to be good artists, not as certain about ESFP’s but it’s only a letter away right?
I know that Solitaire U feels that the experience children offer in terms of learning is not translatably describable, but perhaps others feel that they can at least elaborate to some extent about how children have helped them learn? What areas have children developed for you?
Well, I feel like I have more comments and questions to make, but I will subside for now.

 

[Architect]

having read everyone’s comments on here (and another forum), people’s children seem to turn out as the same or similar type as their parents.

This has been my observation as well, which led to my thread about the possible genetic basis for type.

I was wondering how much this had to do with genetics and conditioning

From what I've seen of children close to me both in the womb and out, I believe it's genetic.

 

[Jennywocky]

Out of curiosity, is your ESFP your adopted child? I ask because having read everyone’s comments on here (and another forum), people’s children seem to turn out as the same or similar type as their parents. I was wondering how much this had to do with genetics and conditioning.

Actually, I see a lot of variation between parents and kids, when I've been on different forums. And I have nothing in common type-wise with any of my grandparents, cousins, parents, or sister... I have one N cousin, and everyone else is S and very unlike me, I'm the changeling child. So I feel like I won the lotto that my eldest is an INTP.

My ESFP is actually my bio son. My INFJ daughter is the adopted child. Better yet, she's of a different nationality.

Also, I think it makes sense to me why your ESFP would be good at art. At least I know ISFP’s are known to be good artists, not as certain about ESFP’s but it’s only a letter away right?

I think the ISFPs can become better because they're more prone to actually be alone and focus on the art. My son had to develop the ability to spend time alone before he really started to get good at art.

The INTP is actually talented musically, but it's almost like a building of competence for him -- he likes expanding his ability, not necessarily trying to do something artistic per se.

I'll answer the rest later, I'm still thinking...

 

[DreamMancer]

Children?

Not to hate on those who do want, of course.

But me? I'm a card carrying member of VHEMT.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

That knowledge is not vicariously interpretable. It must be experienced to be understood.

If she truly learned something she would be able to tell me what it was. Otherwise, it just sounds like a make believe justification that feeler types often use. You know, those kind where they expect you to understand something that they can't explain logically and it usually turns out to be bullshit. Even if I had children I still doubt I would understand what you were talking about unless I was not being honest with myself and tried really hard to feel like I learned something.

If she was simply referring to the experience of having a child then that doesn't sound like very useful knowledge at all. It's only good for raising a child or perhaps telling others how to raise a child.

If one of you can't prove that having a child is beneficial for a middle class guy living in the US, I'm just going to assume it's all bullshit and you are all just at the mercy of your biological programming.

Also, this wasn't a personal attack or anything... This is a common issue for me and I want to analyze it.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

But me? I'm a card carrying member of VHEMT.

"Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense."​

It's a noble cause, but isn't it pointless when the number of people breeding effectively cancel out every single one of the movement's supporters? I think it should be a philosophy, before a movement, until there are enough supporters to achieve the goal.

 

[DreamMancer]

"Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense."​

It's a noble cause, but isn't it pointless when the number of people breeding effectively cancel out every single one of the movement's supporters? I think it should be a philosophy, before a movement, until there are enough supporters to achieve the goal.

Indeed, it represents a truly Sisyphean task. But as the Brits say, we've all got to do our bit now, haven't we?

As an alternative, I suppose we could try running around in circles, to confuse the baby-delivering storks:

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

If we die out, won't another intelligent species eventually emerge?

 

[DreamMancer]

If we die out, won't another intelligent species eventually emerge?

'

Wait, what?

"Another"?

You mean there's already an intelligent species on earth?

Show me where

 

[rattymat]

"Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense."​

It's a noble cause, but isn't it pointless when the number of people breeding effectively cancel out every single one of the movement's supporters? I think it should be a philosophy, before a movement, until there are enough supporters to achieve the goal.

A philosophy makes it even less effective. There is nothing being 'cancelled' out. By partaking in the movement, you are one less person contributing to the increase in population. Doesn't matter if more people are reproducing than not, if any one of those people in the movement decided it was pointless and reproduced, it would increase the population. That's simple mathematics.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

'

Wait, what?

"Another"?

You mean there's already an intelligent species on earth?

Show me where

You know what I mean right? Another species that's just like we are; intelligence is relative.

 

[DreamMancer]

A philosophy makes it even less effective. There is nothing being 'cancelled' out. By partaking in the movement, you are one less person contributing to the increase in population. Doesn't matter if more people are reproducing than not, if any one of those people in the movement decided it was pointless and reproduced, it would increase the population. That's simple mathematics.

I don't disagree with your analysis, but it's worth pointing out that VHEMT is basically a joke, not a movement.

I don't plan on reproducing, but I also harbor no illusions about the ultimate effect of my decision on the survival of the species. It's a personal, ethical, and lifestyle decision, nothing more.

I just like trotting it out because my and my partner's decision is often considered bizarre by many other couples - many of whom have already planned how many kids they want, what gender, etc - that suggesting that we belong to a movement of non-breeders causes even more of a shocked reaction. I was also curious to see how people here would react.

 

[DreamMancer]

You know what I mean right? Another species that's just like we are; intelligence is relative.

Yes, I do; I was attempting (apparently without much success) to channel Douglas Adams:

Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy lies a small, unregarded yellow sun.

Orbiting this at a distance of roughly 92 million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea..

We could update it to "iPhones" now.

To answer your question, yes, since nature abhors a vacuum we could probably expect some other lifeform to take our place in the food-web upon our extinction.

Personally, my money's on octopii.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Why octopi?

 

[DreamMancer]

Why octopi?

Because they are highly intelligent organisms, have very well developed sensory organs, and a specimen weighing hundreds of pounds can squeeze itself through an opening only a few inches wide. Plus, they have eight arms to hold you. Why not root for them?

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Do you think they could evolve fast enough to take over before other land mammals do? Perhaps all of the left over monkeys have a better chance...

 

[DreamMancer]

Do you think they could evolve fast enough to take over before other land mammals do? Perhaps all of the left over monkeys have a better chance...

Assuming there are any more primates, since we are killing off our evolutionary cousins at an astonishingly fast rate.

On the other hand, my poor old octopii have to deal with acidifying oceans.

Maybe I want to change my bet; I'll go with some kind of bacterial species. Say, the ones that can survival in extremely high heat temperatures in undersea volcanoes. I'm pretty sure they'll make it through whatever mother nature throws at them.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

The bacteria will probably survive but they won't become anything like us anytime soon. Not that time matters, that is.

EDIT: Well, it could matter. There's time for some huge disaster to happen that will kill off all of the bacteria. They will just have to develop on a different planet in that case.

EDIT 2: I've already made a post about these things but I found a better video on them and it seems relevant:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H0E77TdYnY

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Indeed, it represents a truly Sisyphean task. But as the Brits say, we've all got to do our bit now, haven't we?

As an alternative, I suppose we could try running around in circles, to confuse the baby-delivering storks:

A philosophy makes it even less effective. There is nothing being 'cancelled' out. By partaking in the movement, you are one less person contributing to the increase in population. Doesn't matter if more people are reproducing than not, if any one of those people in the movement decided it was pointless and reproduced, it would increase the population. That's simple mathematics.

Sure, doing what you can is the practical thing to do, but it contends with the impracticality of the movement succeeding in its goal of human extinction through abstinence. At the end of the day, it depends on what behavior and ethics you value. I see that you're already aware, DreamMancer.

 

[Meer]

No, no children, ever.

I don't want them to burden me, I don't want to screw them up, and I think procreating is unethical in general.

I'm still going to donate a bunch of sperm.

 

[skip]

Would have liked, yes. Currently pretty happy.

 

[Solitaire U.]

I just like trotting it out because my and my partner's decision is often considered bizarre by many other couples - many of whom have already planned how many kids they want, what gender, etc - that suggesting that we belong to a movement of non-breeders causes even more of a shocked reaction. I was also curious to see how people here would react.

So it's a fashion statement. Growing a mohawk would probably be more effective.

 

[Polaris]

Never wanted children, never thought I could relate to them. As a child, I avoided other children and stuck with the grown ups. I enjoyed their conversations.

Funnily, children seem to gravitate towards me....if in a room full of people including children, the children will eye me out for some time and then pounce on me after prolonged and careful analysis.

I usually end up on a sofa somewhere with the little critters all over me, asking me countless questions, touching my hair, sitting on my lap, etc. Same goes for animals. My best friends cat is a rather shabby and traumatised male, extremely people-shy. It runs and hides when people come over. However, when I come over the cat comes running and meowing towards me.



I see small babies sometimes now, and there is something that stirs... I think if I was to have a child I would do the sperm-bank thing. Take my pick, preferably from an above average intelligence specimen with musical/artistic tendencies.

Not asking for much, am I?

But echoing Skip, I'm pretty content. It does not matter if it doesn't happen, and if it does...well...it would be a blessing from....I don't know. At the age of 42 the chances are pretty miniscule....

 

[Lot]

I would love to have children. They seem like quite a burden, but all my child having friends love their kids. My reason for wanting children, is to pass my knowledge to an other human being in a more intimate way than being a teacher. Also there are some religious reasons for me to want children.

I've been told that children can teach you humility, patience, and unconditional love. I wouldn't know, being that I don't have kids. As far as teaching what one learns from having kids without experiencing it. There are many things in life that you just can't really get until you experience them. You can know things about rock climbing, but when you actually rock climb there is a much deeper understanding you obtain from it. Same with sex, or so I'm told. You can be told about ice cream, but you don't understand it until you have it. I would say a person that eats it, just might understand it better than a person that's read about it. Also, life lessons are very personal and particular. My mother and father told me so many things about life, that I just couldn't comprehend, or even fathom, until I lived them.

I'm not super happy right now with life, but I am happy being single and childless right now. I have trouble not being a prick to my cat, no need to put a children and a lady into it. Although I'd jump at the chance to be in a relationship. I must be pretty selfish.

 

[Jennywocky]

If she truly learned something she would be able to tell me what it was. Otherwise, it just sounds like a make believe justification that feeler types often use. You know, those kind where they expect you to understand something that they can't explain logically and it usually turns out to be bullshit. Even if I had children I still doubt I would understand what you were talking about unless I was not being honest with myself and tried really hard to feel like I learned something.

It's possible that you would never understand it, certainly; but there are just some experiences in life that you can dissect but that doesn't mean you understand them. (Kind of like when you dissect a cat to figure out what a "cat" is... you might see the parts of a cat, but you don't really grasp the experience or presence of a cat.)

If you can ignore any rational objections you have to the movie, "Contact" shows one example of this where Elle is a searching rationalist who thinks the religious crap is all mumbo-jumbo and everything is reducible until she has an experience that she cannot analyze, explain or justify... she could only experience it and interact with it... and afterwards she finds herself mocked by people who "don't get it" because they never had such an experience nor wanted to.

Anyway, fine -- maybe you can't accept that kind of thing, but my experience with parenting and marriage was similar to what was being described: You can understand a lot of the mechanics of such things, but it's very different from experiencing it for yourself. I was very smart and very wise (in terms of being discerning and being able to recognize good and bad patterns in such relationships, etc.), yet was blown away and learned a great deal in my relationships. There are just feelings and convictions and attitudes that arise / can give insight just by being involved.

For example, I never really understand how a parent could just willingly die for a child until I became a parent. I don't think I was capable of dying for anyone until I became a parent, but now it's not even really a question -- no matter how good or bad my relationship is with my children, I wouldn't think twice about doing it, I would just walk into the face of death in their place. I can't explain that or how it works (although I make up lots of possible stuff like, "parental instincts," etc... it just doesn't really explain it, though).

I also didn't really understand what it felt like to be attached to someone inexplicably. Everything in my life was such a rational conscious choice; but feelings of attachment and love that I didn't really ask for came to bear in those relationships.

I learned what it meant to delight in another person without regard for myself; I learned that my rigid analyses and black and white flip-switching logic didn't really work as well with kids, all of whom are different in the specifics and thus need specifically different approaches. It also became important to allow flex, so that they could grow; the rigid philosophy of my life would have choked them to death, I needed to be more compassionate, address their hurts even when irrational, and so forth. I became more accepting of people in their weakness.

With that and marriage, I also learned "values." Values really didn't have much place in my life before, but I grew attached to things just because I was attached to them. It didn't have to be logical. They were just suddenly important to me... and in part because I had chosen to MAKE them important. What we invest in becomes important to us.

This is why discussing and trying to understand things without any vested interest is sometimes a waste of time; investment changes you and builds the connection.

Does any of that make sense? I'm hoping you can at least follow the ideas, although I think you only get it once you experience it. It's like someone trying to describe the taste of "chocolate" to someone who has never had it or anything comparable; they might be able to get an idea of it, but it's not like putting it in your mouth and savoring it for the first time.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Jenny, that was a beautiful post.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

@Jennywocky
Yes, that was a very good post. I will now proceed to dissect it...

Well, I see children all the time and I was one not too long ago so it's not like I've never experienced what a child is like. I've also had to teach little kids karate before so I sort of get what everything else might be like.

I'm downloading the movie atm and will tell you what I think of it.

That's exactly what I think it's all about, feelings and emotional attachments. Personally I don't want to be like that, it's like a weakness. I don't want to be attached to someone so much that I would give my life for them. Even though my life is more than likely going to end eventually, I'd still rather savor every moment of it than just give it away. Besides, If I'm dead, how am I going to appreciate my child's life? If I live and they die I'll eventually get over it and continue with my life. I'm not the type to get emotionally scarred. A couple of my grandparents died a few years ago and I don't even care. I've got a large family so I've got a few grandparents left which I'm more emotionally attached to, but still, I won't be upset for long when they die. Am I cruel? Perhaps, perhaps I am.

Why don't you just not MAKE them important by not having them? jk

Yes, I get what you are saying. Although that chocolate example isn't good in this case because like I said I know what a child is. I've seen children, hugged children, taught children, punched children, kicked children, thrown them across the room, and listened to them ramble on about legos and their new 3DS game. I think that's close enough to parenthood for me to get it. Lol.

 

[Lot]

Jenny, that was a beautiful post.

Agreed

 

[DreamMancer]

So it's a fashion statement. Growing a mohawk would probably be more effective.

Not really. As I said, my decision to not have children is a personal, ethical, and lifestyle choice. Hardly comparable to a funny hairstyle.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

I watched the movie and it was actually pretty good. At the very end there was proof that she wasn't hallucinating though. Her camera recorded eighteen hours of static even though only a minute passed on Earth. It wasn't a mystical experience or anything, they just need to put more people into that machine to demonstrate that it is a vehicle to travel through space.

 

[nanook]

i hope my sisters three kids maintain the best from our bloodline (some good and rare and important traits there) and the least of our insanity.... still, i feel a little left out. but i just can't live the life of a family father.

 

[Jennywocky]

Yes, that was a very good post. I will now proceed to dissect it...

ROFL!

Darn, but we lose a lot of good cats that way.

I'm just going to say up front that I don't expect you personally to possibly change if you ever became a parent. I'm just saying I happen to be a person who did, and I'm aware of the possibility of things in this life that one can study and rationalize but maybe not really "grasp" in their totality until they are experienced. Not everything can be taught by a book.

But again, just because I have had this experience doesn't necessarily mean you would have the same one.

Well, I see children all the time and I was one not too long ago so it's not like I've never experienced what a child is like. I've also had to teach little kids karate before so I sort of get what everything else might be like.

I think that can be helpful. We've all been kids, but it's very different than being a parent of kids. the concerns and needs are very very different. And I think teaching kids is a better example, where you've been interacting with them; but I still equate that with being at best an aunt or uncle. It's one thing to oversee kids in one role for a few hours at a time, another thing to care for them 24/7 where they are entirely dependent on you and you can't fuck it up or they're impacted permanently by it because you are their provider, caretaker, affirmer, protector, role model, you name it. Ever tried to hide in the bathroom just for a moment's respite and had kids trying to shove things under the door or talking to you the entire time, and you just! can't! get! away! and you're not legally supposed to get in your car and just drive to Florida? Well...!

Anyway, that's a very different situation -- kind of like doing the National Guard thing every few weeks versus being in Restrepo and having your friends gunned down next to you in a trench and wondering if you'll live to see the next sunrise.

I'm downloading the movie atm and will tell you what I think of it.

lol! Well, I didn't expect that. If you can get the Director's Cut, go for that, it's a little better. It's not a perfect movie, but I'm just referring to the end scene in the hearing.

That's exactly what I think it's all about, feelings and emotional attachments. Personally I don't want to be like that, it's like a weakness. I don't want to be attached to someone so much that I would give my life for them. Even though my life is more than likely going to end eventually, I'd still rather savor every moment of it than just give it away. Besides, If I'm dead, how am I going to appreciate my child's life? If I live and they die I'll eventually get over it and continue with my life. I'm not the type to get emotionally scarred. A couple of my grandparents died a few years ago and I don't even care. I've got a large family so I've got a few grandparents left which I'm more emotionally attached to, but still, I won't be upset for long when they die. Am I cruel? Perhaps, perhaps I am.

I appreciate your honesty, and I'm glad we can discuss it so openly. I just see it as a choice that I don't expect everyone to make. I did make the choice to have children, knowing it would probably change me, and it did; and I don't regret it, but sometimes it's very odd looking back at myself at 20 and wondering if I would ever recognize that person. It was a very big decision for me, looking back. And I've been hurt, and not everything has worked out the way I'd have liked it to, and there's a few things in my life right now that really stink because I made that choice... but at the same time, I just love my kids and glad they're in the world and I like who I am now.

We just choose what we want in life, and then hopefully we made a choice that we can value later and not regret.

Why don't you just not MAKE them important by not having them? jk

Totally rational. Valid decision. If it's what you want, then that makes sense to me.

Yes, I get what you are saying. Although that chocolate example isn't good in this case because like I said I know what a child is. I've seen children, hugged children, taught children, punched children, kicked children, thrown them across the room, and listened to them ramble on about legos and their new 3DS game. I think that's close enough to parenthood for me to get it. Lol.

Well, see above -- I think it's different when they are entirely dependent on you and you don't get an escape. But come on, you've never seen, hugged, taught, punched, kicked, thrown, or listened to chocolate?

I watched the movie and it was actually pretty good. At the very end there was proof that she wasn't hallucinating though. Her camera recorded eighteen hours of static even though only a minute passed on Earth. It wasn't a mystical experience or anything, they just need to put more people into that machine to demonstrate that it is a vehicle to travel through space.

Yeah. I actually felt like it was a bit of a copout -- I like movies that are more ambiguous. But they did have proof that her experience was real.

I thought Jodie Foster did a great job with the role, and a nice example of a Rationalist female. I really related to her in spots, especially when she was in the machine and trying to observe and test and frame her experience and understand what was happening. That's very much what I would have done too.

 

[soymilk]

not the biggest fan of kids but i think that journey might be an enjoyable one someday....now, being a human incubator and giving birth is another story.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Well, see above -- I think it's different when they are entirely dependent on you and you don't get an escape. But come on, you've never seen, hugged, taught, punched, kicked, thrown, or listened to chocolate?

I've seen it, that's about it

 

[Sorlaize]

no, kids are a huge responsibility (not very fun!) and there are enough children you can try to be an influence / role model to already-- that's how I see it. A great many children are already badly raised. Don't want to sound like a dick but, that view makes a lot of sense to me. I'm usually very critical of traditionalism. And well, the world is overpopulated too..