Should you have kids just to take care of you when you are older?

[Sir Dookface McFerretballs]

1. So, I've noticed a lot of boomers, specifically, over the years that have said they had kids so they "have someone to take care of them when they are too old to take care of themselves", or purely to "keep the family name going".

2. On the opposite side, I've noticed more Gen Xers and Millennials that have said they would only have/had kids if they "could give those kids a better life than they had". (and as a side note this reason was also one of the more common ones among the "Greatest Generation" a.k.a. the Boomer's Parents.)

3. Then, younger millennials and even zoomers that have said bringing kids into the world in its current societal/economic state would be "cruel and unusual punishment" to the kids.

What are your thoughts on these three different reasonings?

[Kobs]

Should you have kids just to take care of you when you are older?

If you do they'll shove you in a home and let you die there while YOU gave them everything while they were growing up. You'll be a nuisance to them they will not have time for you

[GunsForBucks]

My father married someone 30 years younger to take care of that stuff. Certainly didn't need us kids ha ha ha.

I would have though. Almost took care of my Aunt <his sister> but she wanted to be in Florida

[Raelic]

Publicado originalmente por GunsForBucks:

My father married someone 30 years younger to take care of that stuff. Certainly didn't need us kids ha ha ha.

I would have though. Almost took care of my Aunt <his sister> but she wanted to be in Florida

Mine moved to Japan and married a younger nurse. LOL That's why I'm only concerned with my mom. My sister has a more affluent life, but I'm ready if something happens.

Also, my girlfriend's family lives in India, but that could happen too.

[Volfogg]

Publicado originalmente por Raelic:

Publicado originalmente por GunsForBucks:

My father married someone 30 years younger to take care of that stuff. Certainly didn't need us kids ha ha ha.

I would have though. Almost took care of my Aunt <his sister> but she wanted to be in Florida

Mine moved to Japan and married a younger nurse. LOL That's why I'm only concerned with my mom. My sister has a more affluent life, but I'm ready if something happens.

Also, my girlfriend's family lives in India, but that could happen too.

My parents have been together for over 40 years. Being the youngest child, I feel somewhat responsible for 'em and I'm usually not a responsible type. It's sort of mutual agreement - they don't bother me, I don't bother them, but if my presence is required, I can spare some time.

[Grendalcat]

If you have kids to take care of you when you are older, it's like flipping a coin.

Probably half of the old people I know, their kids are helping them.
The other half, their kids ignore them. Or worse.

[Not Big Surprise]

Publicado originalmente por GunsForBucks:

Publicado originalmente por Not Big Surprise:

you don't need a child for two people to love each other

childbearing is neither necessary nor sufficient as an inherent show of love



also you're kinda ignoring couples that can't have kids

Perhaps you don't realize this post is about having children and why.... IDK maybe that's why I bring up the kid thing?

and i'm bringing up the fact that you don't have to have kids, since it's relevant, and not having kids at all is actually part of the discussion

Publicado originalmente por Grendalcat:

If you have kids to take care of you when you are older, it's like flipping a coin.

Probably half of the old people I know, their kids are helping them.
The other half, their kids ignore them. Or worse.

you can heavily influence this supposed coin toss, though

[aqua star]

Having kids has always been a tipping scale for me. At one point in my life I've wanted to have kids, but along the way I have questioned a lot of some "things." Firstly, I don't want to wish to place a burden on them to take care of me. Secondly, having kids is a lot of finances, I'm not sure if I'm financially stable to take care of my kids. And thirdly, my mental stability, I'm not sure if I'm in a good mental state to take care of kids. I mean somewhere in mind I know I can, but in another part of mind don't think I would be a good enough parent. And, with the current state of the world right I don't think now is a good time to have kids.

[GunsForBucks]

Publicado originalmente por Not Big Surprise:

Publicado originalmente por GunsForBucks:

Perhaps you don't realize this post is about having children and why.... IDK maybe that's why I bring up the kid thing?

and i'm bringing up the fact that you don't have to have kids, since it's relevant, and not having kids at all is actually part of the discussion

snip

But it had nothing to do with the point I was making. I think you are being a bit oversensitive in thinking I "mean something" by saying that .... I didn't

All I was saying was that deciding to make a child is an act of love.

I did not say other things were not acts of love or something.... just calm down.

[Sir Dookface McFerretballs]

Publicado originalmente por 240p enjoyer:

you should have children period.
to purposefully not have children is the most selfish thing you can do.

One could also argue that having kids is the MOST selfish thing someone could do. Especially if they aren't mentally stable or loving parents.

For example, some drunken meth addict redneck couple with half-a-braincell between them would be terrible parents and their kids would likely just end up being a burden on society and likely have a terrible existence.

Kids take up resources and tax dollars more than people that didn't have kids.

So which one is more selfish in this case?

[Tiberius]

Publicado originalmente por Sir Dookface McFerretballs:

Publicado originalmente por 240p enjoyer:

you should have children period.
to purposefully not have children is the most selfish thing you can do.

One could also argue that having kids is the MOST selfish thing someone could do. Especially if they aren't mentally stable or loving parents.

For example, some drunken meth addict redneck couple with half-a-braincell between them would be terrible parents and their kids would likely just end up being a burden on society and likely have a terrible existence.

Kids take up resources and tax dollars more than people that didn't have kids.

So which one is more selfish in this case? :SafeForWork:

Ofc they deserve tax money. Kids and families are the foundation of every society

[Dom]

Publicado originalmente por Sir Dookface McFerretballs:

Publicado originalmente por 240p enjoyer:

you should have children period.
to purposefully not have children is the most selfish thing you can do.

One could also argue that having kids is the MOST selfish thing someone could do. Especially if they aren't mentally stable or loving parents.

For example, some drunken meth addict redneck couple with half-a-braincell between them would be terrible parents and their kids would likely just end up being a burden on society and likely have a terrible existence.

Kids take up resources and tax dollars more than people that didn't have kids.

So which one is more selfish in this case? :SafeForWork:

Yet a big portion of child benefits that are meant for the child don't actually go towards that child but towards the bad spending habits by the parents. Or alcohol. I think this is actually a rather big issue that isn't talked about.

None of the payments and benefits have helped stop the reducing birth rates because getting a child isn't really a financial problem. Otherwise wealthy people would have many of them but we can see that the wealthier a person is, the less likely they are to have children.

In any case there should be encouragement that families are self-sufficient before having children. Just like a lot of things in life cost money, so does raising children.