It occurred to me, while reading Smith's story, which I found touching, that this dilemma might actually be a man's equivalent to a woman's dilemma of trying to "have it all..." i.e., satisfaction in career, marriage, children, etc., although most men consider the career a given.

The dilemma for a man seems to be discerning whether he cares more about keeping his wife, i.e., the girl/woman he married, or having children whose job it would be to change the girl/woman he married into their mother. Empirical evidence-- and just plain anecdotes-- says he can't have both.

Most of the comments from husbands/fathers and other men that I have read on Salon's Broadsheet have complained-- often bitterly-- about losing their wives when they gained children. I'm not sure who complained more... those men with both wife and children, or those with only one or neither, but either way, it should give more women pause before agreeing to have children with the guys they married.

Ironically, Smith does sound like he'd be a great father, and that any changes for him might be welcome...

but what seems even more ironic to me now, while writing this, is the degree to which so many men complain of the changes that motherhood wreaks upon their wives, from whom motherhood usually exacts a much greater cost. Sure, having children changes absolutely everything for a couple, but not as much as a husband's or boyfriend's disapproval of the mother his wife has become does. Smith doesn't sound like that kind of guy... but he seems worried about it.

A thoughtful article, by a funny guy, who seems like a really nice person.

My experience, after the same kind of angsting, and after deciding to have kids, is that on a bad-to-good scale of 0 to 10, being a parent is all 1s and 9s. Before kids, my life was a nice steady 7. Parenthood is fantastic and awful. Kids make you a better person, bring out your worst impulses, give you a foot in the future, let you reexperience childhood, connect you to a fundamental (truly, primal) human experience, and drain all your energy.

Thanks for such a great piece of writing, and good luck with whatever you decide.

is to realize that the urge to procreate is only that, an urge. It's simple biology that doesn't care for you or your happiness, just genes seeking to create more genes. It's mindless, meaningless, and amoral. It simply is. Seeing a child as a parasite is no more or less accurate than seeing it as bundle of joy from heaven.

Don't let reason be undermined by hormones and chemicals. If you don't want kids, don't have them. Once you view this decision from the evolutionary perspective, it's much easier to simply be rational, remain childfree, and enjoy your finite life before it's too late.

This author could have been my husband, and Piper could have been me, 4 years ago when we got married. Our feelings about having children were, in a word, ambivalent. Neither of us could make up our minds at all as we headed into our mid-30's, but we were aware that time was limited. We had a house, a good income, a stable and loving relationship, everything that a kid could need to grow up feeling safe and secure and loved. So rather than actually make up our minds, we just left it up to fate. I went off the Pill and we went on about our business. If it was meant to be, we figured, than it would happen, and if not, then that was fine too. After about two years we had just about gotten to the point of accepting that we were infertile when I started feeling a bit weird and, sure enough, I got those two pink lines. Of course, terror ensued. But to our mutual great surprise, when our child arrived, we experienced true joy and a depth of love that neither of us had thought we were capable of. Aside from much lost sleep, we've truly never been happier - but would that also be the case for this author? I can't answer that. And to be honest, had we not ever gotten pregnant we'd probably still be pretty happy and comfortable with our lives. My husband would still be working instead of staying at home with a kid, we'd be making more money and not putting any of it into a college fund, we'd still be going out to dinner and seeing first-run movies and going to the theater, and we probably wouldn't be driving a Volvo baby tank. Now we're considering a possible kid #2, but will probably leave it up to fate again. What the heck - it worked the first time, right?

Long story short - I suggest you don't bother making up your minds. Just stop trying to prevent it from happening, and let the chips fall where they will. You're probably capable of being happy whatever the outcome.

How about an article about the many many many American couples who'd like to have children but can't imagine having the financial ability to do so? I wish I was in this dude's position, with that stylish New York DINC lifestyle that is so incredibly fun and amazing that he can't imagine messing it all up with kids. He represents a minute (and continuously shrinking) percentage of the population. Congratulations.

Now, how about talking to the dual-income families who, despite working every waking moment, can't afford to buy a home, can't afford to have children, can't afford to take a vacation, and can't afford to have $10 margaritas in the East Village? The ones who can't have kids because they don't have health insurance? You know, those ones? The ones who are actually facing an actual problem?

These would be the people I could relate to. I would actually like to have a child. But our financial position is so precarious, I'm not sure we could manage it. And what would I do about work? Taking away one of our incomes would put us frighteningly close the poverty line. But who can afford child care? This article did nothing but break my heart. These people have what I so desperately want.

This continuous string of stories about priviledged people living charmed lives is really getting old. I understand that every person's personal problem, to them, is the biggest problem in the world. But in journalism, perhaps a little objectivity is called for.