#1) The fact that you're a woman AND in the military is a HUGE plus in my book. So you volunteered and because of that I have a slightly less chance of getting drafted. If only they let gays volunteer but I digress.

#2) Jury Duty (not strictly enforced IMO), paying your fair share of taxes, military conscription are all basic civic duties. Having kids (although good for society) isn't.

#3) As for why the military wouldn't cover birth control, thats just the government for you (inefficient), so go figure. Yes they probably would save more money in the long run to pay for the birth control instead of the child care costs and wasted training, yada yada yada, but these are the same guys who spent $500 for a toaster. I mean no offense (you being a government worker) but you should have seen that one coming. But off course some things just shouldn't be privatized, the police and military, FAA being those things-- I am not THAT libertarian.

#4) San is a dick. Yes, I agree more with the Republicans than the Democrats and agree with him a lot, but he can be a bit of a dick sometimes. I mean smart guy, makes good arguments and not always PC and deserves more respect than he gets, but still.

#5) Having kids is important to the survival of a population. So is military might. So as a comeback the next time someone hassles you for not contributing to society, you tell them "oh yeah, well I keep your kids' school from getting blown up by Islamic terrorists." In the world of cavemen, if a tribe didn't have an army another tribe would invade them, rape their women and kill all their children. What good is procreating if you can't build a safe nest. You know, theres a reason why the Amish are still around. And its not because their bible tells them to be fruitful and multiply. Its because they live within the United States border. Its easy to preach "turn the other check" when the US Marines have your back.

#6) I probably shouldn't be wasting so much time on slate and get back to my work I've been procrastinating on.

br6645:

I am childless by choice. A few years ago I requested in advance and was granted my vacation time so my husband and I could go to Europe. It was a trip we planned & saved for, and paid for in advance.

Then one of my co-workers started complaining that she couldn't get off a certain week because I was on vacation that week. She said it wasn't fair that I, a childless person, should be allowed to take off in the summer when school was out. Only people with children should be allowed to take off during the summer because of their children's school schedules.

This is the kind of mentality I have found is some, not all, parents. Just because some of us don't have children doesn't mean that we don't have lives outside of work or that we don't count.

All that basically tells me or anyone is that your coworker has her head up her butt. She thinks parenting automatically instills virtue and is using her kids as an excuse for sainthood. I mean, certainly being a GOOD parent is a goal worth striving for, but just giving birth doesn't automatically entitle you to claim superiority (exhibit A: my stepkids' mom. Go see Gone Baby Gone if you want to know what SHE is like). So I agree with you on that point, but don't make the mistake of tarring all parents with her brush. She's a selfish navel gazer, but not all of us are like that. And I would suggest that there are probably just as many selfish navel gazers in the non-parent world as there are among parents.

Fenbeast wrote: " ...found myself stepping into the shoes of Mom pretty much on the instant) I then came to understand exactly WHY those tacit benefits exist. Holy Cow, this is hard, is pretty much how I summed up the whole parenthood gig. Still do, in fact."

I was with you all the way up to this statement. Of course being a parent is hard! I don't have children, but I was one and even I know being a parent is hard.

But being a garbage collector is hard. Being a waitperson is hard. Being a pastor or priest is hard.

It was a choice to become a parent and you state that you wouldn't give that up for all the tax breaks in the world. Now that is the right reason to have children. But it still doesn't entitle a parent.

Neither tacit nor direct benefits should be tied to a choice simply because it's hard. There are those who choose to be unemployed and I'm sure that's hard too. I don't feel I owe them tacit or direct benefits for making that choice. Make no mistake, the conversation started out about direct benefits, but tacit benefits are irritating also.

I expect to hear the cacophony of voices saying "But having a child is different!" If they say so I suppose it is. But it's not to me.

In my first posting way, way back I tried (not too successfully) to make a point that every choice has its up-side. While getting birth control at the military pharmacy was a great benefit to me, the cost of not getting it could be much higher (and having to leave work every month to refill the prescription vice every six months cost my labor). As a childless woman I may not be contributing to the future tax base but neither am I using a lot of the current tax base. It depends on what a person considers sacred; having future tax payers or conserving current resources.

I look at this entire future tax payer issue sort of like unrestrained urban sprawl. Yes, growth brings in money, but infrastructure costs money too and if land is scarce or water is scarce then there is zero payback. The source of the income uses all kinds of other resources and costs money to support. Zero sum.

As a supervisor myself I try to even out the tacit benefits. I know people with children have things that must be done. It is as it is. But if a parent needs to take a day off for a sick child that needs to come out of sick days or vacation time. If a parent needs to leave early to pick a child up from school then I try to ensure the singles get a chance to go play racquetball.

I'd like to reiterate that I hear many coworkers moan about money going to welfare programs but they become belligerent if you mention their child tax credits.

I agree with many of the points made thus far, and disagree with several others. I was a graduate from a technical school in a computer field in 2001. I met my now-husband there, and we agreed that when we had children I would stay home with them. When we decided that we had built a stable enough financial life, we decided to stop using birth control. We planned that I would work until near the birth, then quit. However, life dropped several surprises on us, not least of which was our nephew, abandoned at our house less than a month before we found out I was pregnant. We completed gaining full custody less than two months before our (expected) child arrived, with unforeseen medical difficulties. The day before we got full custody, my company finally replied to my request to go part time by putting me on an as-needed basis, which means I only worked one day in those next two months because they wanted to cut costs. So with the unexpected cost of an extra child, extra medical bills, plus a lot less income I can fully say that I was very appreciative of the tax credit we received.

To continue giving our children the kind of good upbringing we believe will allow them to be productive members of society, we have moved to a smaller house in a lower cost of living area and my husband has found a job that will provide well for our present and future needs. I am grateful when his employer gives him the flexibility to attend some important happening in our children's lives, but we don't overuse it. I agree that an employer should not give preference to those with kids, but I have lived the proof that many companies will not honor a request for shorter work hours, even when they can cut your pay and benefits. In a perfect world, all employers would be reasonable.

As for the tax credit, although we do not rely on it, we certainly appreciate it. As a stay-at-home mom, I know for a fact that without significant retraining, or even another college degree, I will never regain the hourly wage I was making two years ago upon re-entering the work force. I take the tax credit as a kind of thank-you from the country for doing my best to raise up the next responsible citizens.

For those who may think I only had a child as a genetic imperative, I have 4 brothers and sisters who are all adopted. I love my nephew no less than my daughter, and if I found myself unable to bear another child, I would gladly adopt.

For those who think that the world is so overpopulated that those who have children is akin to committing a crime against the planet, I would ask what kind of standard of living do you expect in your old age? Taxes and SSI aside, it will be today's children who are your doctors and pharmacists, your waiter or waitress when you go out to eat, who are your beauticians, your optometrists, your mechanics. Today's children will grow your food and clean your water. Today's children will discover the cures of tomorrow, will explore new places, and hopefully make the world a cleaner place. If everyone were to stop having children today, then in a short time we would be living in the past, as the quest for subsistence takes precedence over the quest for knowledge.

I appreciate those who volunteer, those who serve in the military, and all those others who serve society in one way or the other. While I am certainly willing to debate the possibility of a tax credit for those kinds of activities, I think one of the big differences is the time differential involved in raising children. On the one hand, having a child means that to a certain extent you donate your next 18 years of life to a person, which is a bit more than volunteering at an animal shelter a few times a week. On the other, a parent is not likely to see any direct benefit from child-rearing, at least financially, for at least 22 years (allowing for college) and is far more likely to pay out more money over the lifetime of the investment than they ever receive. (Also, semantically, volunteer work is work done without pay. Wouldn't a tax credit negate this?)

A lot of good issues to address, Tryglyph. So I'll simply address one. You said:

"I would ask what kind of standard of living do you expect in your old age? Taxes and SSI aside, it will be today's children who are your doctors and pharmacists,..."

What a horrible reason to have children! I understand that I will not have any family to look after me in my old age. If I'm not prepared for that then I guess I'll have to throw myself on the "kindness of strangers." But it's my choice. You made one choice I made another. I don't expect a tax rebate to help me ease into old age.

Any number of events can reduce the number of doctors and pharmacists. That will always fluctuate. I simply think it's immoral to have children in order to ensure a supply of hairdressers.

Donating your time to raise a child is your choice. A very noble choice but your choice. That you don't see a financial benefit for 18 or 20 years is beside the point. As half of a childless family I pay for schools I will never use, libraries that benefit children more (I hope), parks and playgrounds. To subsidize you by giving you money back is hitting me twice.

As part of this society it is my responsibility to ensure the next generation has the resources necessary to flourish. I've actually spent a life of service, both in the military and as someone who pays taxes and cares that other people's children have schools and busses. But what I expect is not thanks but that those who are the beneficiaries do not give me the entitlement speech. It was the feeling of entitlement that kickstarted this entire thread.

I appreciate that you have made informed choices and that you have had the courage to care for your nephew.

But don't you see, Adrasteia? You chose not to have kids, and that's fine. But don't forget that since you do not have children, the people who will look after you in your old age will be MY children! They are the ones who are going to be paying the SSI taxes when you're retired. They're the ones who will become (eventually) the doctors who review your charts, the nurses who change your bedpan, and the insurance actuary who reviews your benefits... and since we've mentioned the military, at least one of my children will be on the front lines protecting our freedoms, too (he's enlisting in two months). So really you'd better hope I'm doing my job right!

Kudos also to Tryglyph. I know EXACTLY how hard it is to suddenly be landed with someone else's responsibilities on a moment's notice, but for it to be an infant when you're already expecting... WOW.

Adrasteia - I didn't say I had children specifically so that they could be doctors or pharmacists. I was pointing out the flaw in the current trend to see children as a liability to the earth (e.g. <link>

I deeply appreciate your service to our country, and was not trying to imply that you would be at the mercy of strangers in your old age. Many people who choose to be childless have deep and rich friendships that will nurture them throughout their lives.

As for paying taxes for services you do not use, many of my taxes also go to services I do not and may never use. I pay for the protection of endangered animals I may never see, for national parks I will likely never visit. I pay for science experiments that will probably never visit. If you were an ornithologist, I would likely pay taxes both for the protection of a bird and for your salary to study it, thus getting hit twice. However, I am appreciative of the tax money I do use (especially road maintenance) and regard that I don't use as a necessary part of living in the U.S.A. Instead, I use my vote to attempt to elect those who value the same things I value, thus spending my tax money wisely.

I do appreciate that there is a sense of entitlement in the hearts of some people. I can only hope that they will come to see their privileges for what they are, and not see them as rights.

Fenbeast - Actually, my nephew was 5, with the manners of a two year old. His mother also had him on 4 different behavioral drugs which she used in lieu of discipline. None of the drugs came with him, so we had to cut him off cold turkey. For over 3 years he demanded more time and attention than many babies, but we have recently turned a corner and are on our way to normalcy. Even with all the issues, we consider ourselves blessed with both our children.

For me, this is the biggest point of all, and the source of most of my jealousy - as a parent with obligations to children, it's pretty clear that I will lose out to those single folks with a focused eye on their career. I and my spouse simply cannot keep up with one child and another on the way.

I resent the fact that parents are forced to choose between career or family. The people who seem to "make it" in corporate land are those who have a stay-at-home spouse.

Frankly, I think we should all work less, single or not, because Americans seem to work a lot, in general. I don't begrudge singles for taking trips and enjoying life - by all means, do that while you can. I begrudge them for leap-frogging me because I cannot focus exclusively on my career.

I personally have no opinion on whether or not someone should or should not have children. But my question to you is this - if everyone felt like you, and stopped having children, how would the US keep going? Within 100 years, there would be no more America to defend.

You, personally, don't have to celebrate anyone else's choice to have children, but society does have a vested interest in someone doing it. If you can't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you.

Has it occurred to anyone that we all work too much? That if we're sniping over who has the right to actually go home at five that we ought to band together and collectively tell our employers where to stuff it?

Forgive me, but raising children is a damn sight more important than anything my company (or any company I've ever worked for) does. But then, I can think of a lot of things, like, say tending a vegetable a garden, or playing frisbee with a dog, that are more worthwhile than most of the crap we're asked to put our hearts and souls into 50-60 hours a week.

There is one very good reason to have a universal health care system: so we can walk out on abusive employers without fear that we, or our spouses, or our dependents will have to go without proper medical care.

It's also probably why corporations, despite being burdened with much of the cost of the current system, are reluctant to give it up.

Fenbeast, because I know what my choice means your children will be compensated for caring for me. And it's quite possible no one will need to empty my bedpan. Not all old people end up in nursing homes.

What you're telling me is I should pay now for a possible future return. I suggest that in this capitalist country I should be allowed to pay when I use the goods.

As I stated several times before the resources I or my non-existent children don't use should make up for the taxes they won't be paying.

I do hope you're doing your job right but that doesn't mean I should pay you to do it.

It seems to me what I really see at work here is that people with children can't comprehend that there are women out there who don't feel that compelling need to become mothers. How can we not want to answer that sacred and unselfish calling? I chose a different way to give. But I still don't feel compelled to pay you for your choice.

porkrind:

For me, this is the biggest point of all, and the source of most of my jealousy - as a parent with obligations to children, it's pretty clear that I will lose out to those single folks with a focused eye on their career. I and my spouse simply cannot keep up with one child and another on the way.

I resent the fact that parents are forced to choose between career or family. The people who seem to "make it" in corporate land are those who have a stay-at-home spouse.

Frankly, I think we should all work less, single or not, because Americans seem to work a lot, in general. I don't begrudge singles for taking trips and enjoying life - by all means, do that while you can. I begrudge them for leap-frogging me because I cannot focus exclusively on my career.

I appreciate this porkrind. But life is full of choices. There are other countries where having children does not mean less opportunity at work but that brings a whole new set of problems. I lived in Italy for four years. They are much more family friendly and take longer vacations but they don't achieve as much as Americans do nor do they have as much. It's all trade-offs. But we live in America and ambition is king. Our conservative, capitalist upbringing tells us that competition has made our country what it is.

As a childless married woman I didn't take any more trips than those with families. Probably less, because someone had to be willing to work the hours parents spent with their children.

I personally think it's simply irresponsible to think you can have it all. As noted in many posts here, my choice will bring its consequences. You choice has its consequences. I promise I won't begrudge that you have children to attend you in your old age and I don't.

I actually carefully considered whether or not to have children. One reason I didn't is that my mother was a stay at home Mom. It was great coming home from school and having her there to talk to. I wanted to work and didn't want my children to miss out on that. And frankly, if you have to carefully consider whether or not to have children you probably aren't the right person to have children :-)

Life is all about choices. I'm sure you would never trade the joy of children for a career.

dcsed:

I personally have no opinion on whether or not someone should or should not have children. But my question to you is this - if everyone felt like you, and stopped having children, how would the US keep going? Within 100 years, there would be no more America to defend.

You, personally, don't have to celebrate anyone else's choice to have children, but society does have a vested interest in someone doing it. If you can't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you.

Please forgive me for saying this is one of the silliest comments I've ever read.

1. Everyone doesn't feel as I do and never will. What about women who can't have children? Should they feel guilty about not supporting society? This is ludicris.

2. You haven't read carefully if you haven't understood that I understand societies vested interest in children. I support children in many ways, not the least through my tax dollars for infrastructure I don't use and through volunteer work I do. I absolutely do celebrate people having children! Other people's children are great. I just don't think they are owed tax advantages for having children.

3. I have not posted anything that implies people should not have children or that having children is somehow bad. I am only talking about entitlements for having children. Please read before posting.

Adrasteia:

As I stated several times before the resources I or my non-existent children don't use should make up for the taxes they won't be paying.

If it were a simple matter of the state providing for you and/or your non-existent children, such a calculation might mean something. But, most of the "resources" we use are provided by private enterprises. You pay taxes on the money you earn to purchase these resources, and then you pay sales tax when you purchase them, and then whoever makes money off of you buying them pays taxes as well. The fact is that children (or at least well-care-for, healthy children) and the resources they use are good for the economy and that's good for the tax base. I suspect that this is at the heart of the state's interest in encouraging people to have children.

Perhaps it shouldn't be so, but, alas . . .