Hacker News Reader

Comment by gtaylor | Hacker News Reader

> That still doesn't change the points I've made, in that it is a huge tradeoff in lifestyle and one must be clear about that.

This is the case for many life decisions. I don't see how this is a helpful addition to the conversation.

* Move to another state? There will be big life implications.

* Change careers? Ditto.

* Go to college?

* Go _back_ to school?

* Spend loads of free time hacking away instead of getting out of the house?

* Travel a bunch, perhaps at the cost of rapid career advancement?

* Take a huge pay cut to work on something you enjoy?

All of these (and more) will limit you in various ways, but gift you with different experiences. The same is for kids.

It sounds like you don't want kids. That's cool, I'm glad you know what you want. But no need to hype up this decision to have kids or not as scary or some kind of albatross. It's just another decision with pros and cons.

View on HN

> It's just another decision with pros and cons.

I can understand why some people here are so sensitive about this particular topic. Anyways, no, it is definitely NOT the same as any of the decisions you mentioned above. Having another HUMAN BEING is a commitment of ginormous proportions. You are responsible for raising a kid, for being there when they need you the most, through teenage phase, and (luckily? hopefully?) have good relationship as adults. All the while, supporting them financially and emotionally until they land on their feet. And even then, the parental bonds of love and care are never truly severed...you are connected to that person for your whole life. Tell me one of those decisions you mention above that are similar to this. Its absolutely a huge decision, and all of this must NOT be discounted, especially when young people are attempting to make a decision.

Also, one more really really important point about all the decisions you stated is simply: you can choose to change your mind about a decision you make, but not so with children.

> It sounds like you don't want kids. That's cool, I'm glad you know what you want. But no need to hype up this decision to have kids or not as scary or some kind of albatross.

No, its not hype at all, as I've explained above. And despite all the cons I still have an open mind about it. But please don't try to convince people its all flowers and unicorns. Give them the pros and cons and let them make the decision.

But please don't try to convince people its all flowers and unicorns.

Oh my! No way! More like tantrums, stinky diapers, strongly curtailed freedoms, opportunity costs and grey hair and/or hair loss.

But I can count at least 12 other "irreversible" life choices a person could make that will lead to more or less similar results. So, there's that.

Each person needs to make this decision for themselves, but once you do, you are in it for the rest of your foreseeable future. If you can't make that kind of commitment, for whatever reason, stay the -eff away!

Can you provide us a list of those 12 other irreversible life choices that you can count? I am genuinely cuious to know what other such life choices are there that I need to be careful about.

"Irreversible" life choices, in no particular order:

* Getting convicted for an offense with "mandatory minimum" jail time - e.g. dealing drugs to minors.

* Driving drunk, crashing and getting fully paralyzed - 'coz "driving drunk" is a choice.

* Having unprotected sex and living with HIV - for the rest of your days.

* Getting college/higher education, on a student loan, in a field that does not/will not pay at a high enough rate to payback the loan - good luck discharging that.

* Doing any high-risk physical activity with a >50% chance of serious bodily harm/injury. (Death is OK, by this metric!)

... logically refute all of the above and I'll give you the remaining 7 :P

I don't think this list comes anywhere close to having a baby. None of the items have a 100% probability of causing irreversible life choices. For example, the choice of performing a crime may not end up in conviction, the choice of drunk driving may not end up in a crash, one may not get HIV even after having unprotected sex, one may be able to repay the student loan even after choosing an unoptimal field, etc.

But having a baby has a 100% probability of altering one's schedule for the rest of the life!

But having a baby has a 100% probability of altering one's schedule for the rest of the life!

Sure, but you can put your kid up for adoption if you are so deeply affected. I mean, Steve Job's biological mother did, so it is not really a 100% thing.

Let us take it case by case.

Case 1: Have a child. Take care of the child until the child is an adult. It has an irreversible effect on one's lifestyle and schedule. Even after the child has grown up, the parent and the child are still emotionally bonded to varying degree.

Case 2: Have a child. Put the child up for adoption. Once the child is adopted, two cases emerge.

Case 2.1: The adoption lasts life long, thus being irreversible by definition.

Case 2.2: The adoption is reversed, thus bringing the biological parent back to Case 1 and thus facing the irreversible effects of Case 1.

Thus, in all cases, having a child has 100% probability of having life long effects.

I am honestly unable to understand if you are arguing for argument's sake or if you are genuinely trying to make a point. I think most people would agree that issues like having a child or putting a child up for adoption has a 100% probability of serious irreversible effect on one's schedule, lifestyle and emotions than something like high-risk physical activity which has less than 100% of probability of such an irreversible effect.

I think I've made my point :-)

All of the choices you mention are considered as harmful by society; in contrast to having children which is considered good.

The criteria was "reversibility", not societal acceptance.

Also, "having children" is not "considered good" by society in 100% of cases. We'd never have Roe v Wade if that were the case. I think you are building a bit of a straw man there.

I don't see how Roe v Wade contradicts the claim that "having children" is "considered good". Roe v Wade is about abortion, i.e. a situation that applies to unwanted pregnancy, something we are not discussing in this thread. When we say "having children", I thought it is understood that we are talking about planned/wanted pregnancy with planned parenthood.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com