No need to worry about feminism's ideas propagating. Feminists voluntarily die off without leaving progeny.

Face it, men MAKE women have kids. Women left alone to decide for themselves do what is best for themselves- only.

I want three kids. Since I despise conservatism and only conservatives have three kids anymore- that leaves me one choice- go elsewhere.

I've read many of your posts, but this one may be the most totally divorced from reality, even sanity, I've ever seen. Congratulations on surpassing yourself.

It's getting pretty dreary from a purely economic perspective. Couple that with a aggressive consumerist bent among younger people who would rather own a $700 cell phone than up to date car insurance and you can see why younger people don't want to have families.

At least they're being honest with themselves.

People absolutely should not have children if they don't want them.

I spent my college years babysitting for a family with two preschoolers and more money than sense. The kids shuttled from full-time nanny to me (the fill-in evening/weekend babysitter) many times per week so Dad could work and Mom could go to "the club" (and play tennis, work out, play golf, have nails done, get a facial, etc.), have dinners out, go to concerts, and whatnot. The kids were lonely and screwed up, and probably got time with their parents once a week. I asked myself many times why they even bothered. They were obviously not interested in their kids and would rather be anywhere than at home.

I have much patience for people scraping by and having to work long hours just to live. But those who choose it in order to have a nice car and put their kids in ever increasing hours of childcare... what's the point? These people should have stayed childless.

I agree with an earlier poster. We do not have a shortage of human beings on the planet.

Actually, it seems education is the best contraceptive in the world, not feminism. In countries where women have access to better and higher education, the birth rate drops. A quick look up of "fertility" and "education" on google comes up with numerous studies, especially interesting are the regional case studies, such as in Latin America. I presume no one's arguing that uneducated women are better mothers, or that motherhood should be encouraged by reducing a woman's education. (Ok, nobody but Focus on the Family: http://www.boundless.org/2005/answers/a0001241.cfm)

I won't argue with your assertion that it's men that force women to have more children than they'd like, it's not so much the case in my neck of the woods, but there are definitely areas where that pertains. Where you and I diverge is over who's being selfish: the women who don't desire additional children, or the men that do? As I see it, and numerous surveys have borne this out, women aren't thinking so much of themselves when they opt out of further childbearing. Many women decide against additional children in favor of spending their limited resources on the children they already have. Women reportedly want fewer or no children in order to focus on their relationship with the man in their life. A number of women opt out of having more than two children because of concerns over overpopulation. The only thing interesting I see in these responses is that you hear the exact same things from men as well.

But if we're going to consider the benefits to the woman opting out of additional or any childbearing, how about her lifespan? Childbirth is risky business, even in the West. Then there's the hit her career takes. Having a child means less income over the course of her lifetime, a factor I'd think of in terms of the increased financial burden on any partner in the picture and costs to previous children. Furthermore, we're not neccesarily talking about wealthy female executives, the majority of women are in the lower wage rungs and have little legal protection over child based discrimination, which still happens. Her family, eager father included, may be getting by all right without a child, but what would happen if she lost her job over getting pregnant?

At any rate, Brightstar, you don't need a woman whether conservative, liberal, domestic or foreign to be a father to three children. Adoption is a reasonable, ethical option that takes a tragedy and turns it around. Or is the matter less about having a family including three children than something else? Call me crazy, but myself and my mate don't understand the imperative that our child share our DNA. (Our current, first, last, and only pregnancy was a bit of a happy surprise, we're getting sterilized when it's over, and otherwise we would have adopted. If we decide to enlarge our family later, we plan to adopt an older child, probably a girl with a cleft lip from China, as I was born with a cleft lip and can't understand the treatment they receive for it.) Or think of it this way: does your family have any history of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, schizophrenia, hypoglycemia, Tay-Sachs, Downs, autism, dwarfism or so on? If so, then it's not as if your particular DNA is above average and especially vital to propagate. The sword cuts both ways, we're both badly hypoglycemic with average medical histories in our family, our DNA isn't anything special either.

With the population as it is and resources thinning for everyone, I'd rather think in terms of all of us being human than one or two being my "blood" and everyone else being "them."

What hollow meaningless lives people who don't have children lead. How sad for them.

I know you liberals don't really understand this concept, but children do not emerge from the womb holding $700 cell phones and a penchant for wrecking the environment. It's called RAISING children, which includes passing on your values. By not having any kids, you guarantee that your feminist, tree-hugging values will be shared by that many less people in the future. However, if you have four kids, you could teach them all to be passionate environmentalists, the whole family can recycle and do earthy projects for the betterment of man, and you and your mate can be the matriarch and patriarch of a long happy line of people working to further the ideas of conservation and green living. Overpopulation per se is not as big of a problem as most of that population being wasteful and not caring about the planet --- adding people who can educate others about the importance of said ideas will be a boon to the planet, not a burden.

And by the way, I have never heard such a stupid statement as "if you have ANY history of ANY diseases ANYWHERE in your family tree, your DNA is worthless and it is selfish to pass it on rather than adopt." Do you realize how many geniuses and important people would not have been born if their parents made the "intelligent" decision to stop having kids, or have none at all due to a family history of disease?

All of the environmental reasons given not to have kids are false, and symptomatic of a type of despair unique to the left --- you guys don't believe you can successfully pass on your values, and you have such low self esteem that you just can't picture a long line of good people springing from you and your mate. Despite the scoffing at brightstar, he's entirely correct in that if these birth rates continue, feminism is not long for this world. That doesn't bother me, but I find it extremely odd that it doesn't bother feminists! You're all fooling yourselves that your pathetic community activism is a replacement for having your own kids --- your influence will die with you this way.