Monday, July 30, 2012

Risk vs Reward of Having Children

Perhaps this wouldn't be the case...


According to a recent Pew Research Center Survey. . . fewer people, across all age groups, consider children to be an important part of a successful marriage.
Only two decades ago the majority of Americans considered children vital to a good marriage. Today, kids fall near the bottom of the list — behind shared household chores, adequate income and housing and a happy sexual relationship.   GMA American Family

If this weren't the case:



Share/Bookmark

11 comments:

lisleman said...

 FYI - I mentioned this short educational exchange on my post today - not looking for anymore biology but I wanted you to know.

CaliforniaGirl500 said...

I could be wrong but most of us experience "biological changes" of one sort or another through the years.  Women tend to have raging hormones during menses, menopause and baby lust.  Men?  They didn't invent Viagra for no reason...

lisleman said...

 not sure I follow - out of sight out of mind?

CaliforniaGirl500 said...

Are you telling me that, at fifty, you don't have a biological "something" going on down there?

lisleman said...

 I don't know if I would ever understand this but biology while interesting has been a little too messy for me.  Not that you would but I can't imagine having my mom tell me that I came about because her bio-alarm went off.  Does the thing have a snooze button???

CaliforniaGirl500 said...

If you linked to the sites, there is an element of apples and oranges to the logic of my logic.  However, if you read what I wrote to DJan, it did come on the heels of hearing a couple of talking heads go on about people not having children because they are so expensive to raise.  

Kids are priceless but perhaps we know better after we've had them.  I didn't want children either.  They didn't interest me.  Then I hit 30 and BOOM my bio clock went into overdrive and I was calling my husband home mid-day after taking my temp...just like in the movies.  Weird.  

CaliforniaGirl500 said...

Well, MY children had better take care of ME, that's all I can say.

Oh hell, we'll all end up as soylent green anyway.

CaliforniaGirl500 said...

I heard on the news or some morning show or SOMEWHERE on TV that many couples are deciding not to have children due to the cost of raising them.  It landed in the middle of a discussion about the middle class etc.  

When I had my children, my husband and I believed in the "zero population" theory of only duplicating oneself.  Therefore, we had two.  

While there are plenty of children/people in the world, too many, I think it's sad to decide not to have children if you want them but cannot afford them.

DJan Stewart said...

A very interesting report. I wonder what it might mean. There's no danger of us running out of kids... :-)

Nancy said...

I wonder what this is going to mean going down the line. I wonder how families will adjust in the future to caring for an aging population without children. Or just an aging population! (Not that having children means you will have someone to care for you in your old age...)

lisleman said...

Isn't this an apples and oranges comparison?  (BTW more kids should eat apples and oranges)  Kids are priceless.

Christina

Christina
by Cole Scott