We've come a long way, baby. Until a few decades ago, it was widely assumed that a woman would marry and, soon after, the stork would arrive with a special delivery.
Today, there are many more choices - or more openness. To have a baby out of wedlock. To have a baby without a father. To have a baby and return to work. To have a baby and give up work. To have fertility treatment, and then a baby (or not).
Or, as the report goes, to not have a baby at all. Which is, of course, their choice. I've known a few couples who intended to never have children. I also know adults who were children in such arrangements. As long as they realize their marriage also covers the possibility of having a child, something that might happen even if they don't want it to, I have no problem with it.
There is a lot more in this report which invites commentary. Feel free to read it and share your own insights with us.
Wow! I'm so glad you're okay with my decision about my life. Now I can sleep at night!
ReplyDeleteOL, Some of the comments from that news article were very thoughtful. One commenter posted some of the more economics/social factors/cost of living, that do factor in such a decision. Having a child, especially more then one is a financial risk. Even a historical note in there about single women, not being old spinsters, but rather helpful aunties.
ReplyDeleteI think it is wrong to question why a woman doesn't have children, and as one commenter put it why is there a double standard and why don't we question men. Then in response noted it is that woman are the ones the get pregnant. The burden is ultimately on a woman to ensure that the father is equally committed to sacrifice his resources to the child/children.
Is it much as a choice, or is it that men can no longer be consider reliable?
I get my fair share of comments for having more then what society accepts, no likes have co-workers insisted he should get 'snipped'. It's a no-win situation.