...from reading all these letters, but at the moment, the only thing I have to add is a question:

When did Salon start linking to amazon as a place to buy reviewed books, instead of Powell's? That's not a change I can say I'm pleased with.

In my experience, men have more of a desire to breed than women. I am a woman who has decided, after great thought and consideration, to not have children. I am still single in my late 30s. Why? Because every man I've dated wants children. Biological children, babies that some of them thought they could force me to breast-feed, after they had, of course, worn down my resistance to having babies. One man had horrible genes, and quite frankly I thought was pretty selfish to want biological children--they would almost certainly inheirit his medical problems, which would lead to an early death. But "must have babies of their own seed" is drummed into their heads somehow. I know more women who DON'T want children than I do men who don't.

As for the article--anyone who says they'd obviously raise "the thing" is not one who should be having a baby. A baby is a person, not an object.

To the people who think children are born just to give you unconditional love: you've got a major reality check coming up. There is no guarantee they're going to love you, not the way you want. They are individuals, and they have free will. This is a stupid reason to have children.

To the people who think that having children ensures you won't be alone in your olden years: you've also got a major reality check coming up. There is no guarantee that your kids will take care of you, want to take care of you. There is no guarantee they will be alive. This is also a stupid reason to have children.

Kids do not necessarily mature you, make you grow up, make you happier, or bring you closer together. It's a crapshoot. Conversely, you can be mature, grown up, happy, and close to your spouse WITHOUT children.

I don't hate kids--I just don't want to raise one. I've known this since I was 8 years old; two years ago, at 35, I had a tubal ligation. I have grown weary of men who think it's their duty to "convince" me to breed. There are more ways to help the future than having a biological child.

I enjoy being an aunt; I can turn them back over to their parents, and be the cool aunt the kids can talk to about the hard stuff they can't/won't talk to their parents about. I volunteer at the local teen center with at-risk teens, who relate to me. I give back to my community that way--by trying to be there for teens that, for instance, the parents no longer want aroudnd.

In addition, I am a citizen who routinely votes FOR school bond issues. My neighbors have kids that I know, and I want them to have a good education. Even the kids I don't know--they're the future generation. Yeah, sometimes, I get annoyed by constantly raising taxes for schools, but mostly, I consider it the price of living in our society, and one that's not terribly onerous to bear.

I really think you should only have a kid if both you and your partner are absolutely, unequivocally, totally sure. "Convincing" a reluctant partner cannot be the right thing to do. If you regret not breeding in 8, 10, 15 years why not adopt, or mentor a child? No one mentions that as an option, ever.

Off-topic, but what are all these new parents planning on telling their kids about climate change, anyway? "Sorry, honey, this is your problem to fix... we could have done something, but were more worried about our bohemian life choices."

Why is it so hard for breeders and non-breeders to live and let live? For Christsake, you people sound like opposing religious sects or something.

This article brought up some excellent points about the decision (or not) to have children. As the author points out, this is not a debate that even existed 40 years ago. Why does this bother so many people? Where is all this ire coming from?

Obviously, some people are very fulfilled by having children. Others are not. Some people feel the emotional/social/psychological/biological tug to pass on their genes and provide love and protection to a child, and others have other outlets to fill those needs. Some people, like the author, are somewhere in the middle. There's no need to beat people down for not having the same needs you do.

...I was interesting in reading a male perspective. Too bad he had to be a Neanderthal. Let's recap what we've learned:

Larry is worried about losing their "family line". Um, Larry, Piper isn't a Smith and it's awfully patriarchal to assume that the kidlet would be one.

Larry enjoys having his major life choices made for him by a woman, through a process of nagging and whining.

Larry views children as the ultimate iPod.

Larry would consider leaving a wonderful womsn that he loves because she cannot be "convinced" to give up her body and chosen life to do something that she doesn't really want to do.

In short, I've learned nothing useful to apply to my own situation. I've only learned not to hook up with Larry.

The ugly truth is that while Piper has only a couple of years to make this decision, Larry has something like TWENTY or more years to think and re-think and re-think and analyze what he wants to do about procreation.

Piper is actually dead on the money here -- Larry has the option to change his mind, much later on, and marry a 27 year old girl with peppy ovaries. Women have a use-by date -- men do not. (OK, actually they do, but it's like 80.)

Reading between the lines, I feel that Piper doesn't really want to have kids and Larry probably does...much later on in life. So that's probably how it's gonna work out.

Another little reality check: a guy who waits EIGHT YEARS to decide you are worth marrying is already revealed himself as very, very ambivalent. It doesn't take an adult eight years to decide if you are "the one" or not.

I hope Piper is OK with all this, because she seems like a very cool lady. Otherwise, it's the same old ugly truth as always.