The Ongoing War on Women: Conservative Lawmakers in 2012

Throughout history, there has always been an ongoing war on women and in the U.S., it's currently being led by religious conservative lawmakers, known to us as Republicans. I'm not drawing a line in the sand, but looking at one that was already drawn, long before I got to the beach. If you ask many people, they will tell you there are only two parties in the U.S.of A: Republican (Conservative) and Democrat (Liberal). There are members of each that see their political party of choice as 'right' and the other party is automatically 'wrong'. Therefore, they have drawn a line in the sand and refuse to step anywhere near that line, instead pointing fingers and calling names at the people on the other side. Lovely, isn't it?

I was raised Catholic, but before long, found my way to a frame of mind that is friendlier and more at peace with my beliefs and inner workings. Each person in this country has a right to choose a religion or to choose no religion. But some Christian-based lawmakers are not content with the separation of Church and State and want to enforce their religious beliefs on the citizens of a supposedly secular nation. I, as non-Republican and non-Democrat, and a woman, have a HUGE problem with this, as do many people I know, male and female.

In the news recently, there are many things that go against the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are many Republican lawmakers aiming to criminalize abortion, to deny access to contraception, to basically punish women for wanting to make choices about their procreative life. I'm going to provide links to these articles, briefly explain them and let you fume on them with me.

IN THE NEWS:

• States are passing "personhood" bills to say that life begins at conception and to give rights to fetuses. This law, if interpreted strictly, could have unintended consequences: bans on contraception, criminalizing rape victims and convicting women suffering miscarriages as guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Obviously, one may say, no one's going to take it that far. But then, what is the point of decreeing that a fetus is a person? It is simply a matter of religious agenda, meant to hamper the right of a woman to choose. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/us-anti-abortion-senate-idUSTRE81F29920120216 
• Oh and apparently an amendment was made to the Oklahoma personhood bill that says masturbation "shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child"  What fresh hell?! Oh, and don't even think about putting your aborted human fetus in food either, because that's in the bill too, even though there's no reason to believe it's ever happened. <smacks head>

Here's an image I created to explain how I feel about personhood bills:

When an sperm and an egg combine, you get a zygote, which will possibly develop into a human, but not necessarily so. To say that it IS a human is to count all your eggs before they hatch, which the old adage tells us NOT to do.

• In Virginia, a bill was passed, and will most likely be signed by the conservative governor, that says a woman who wants to receive an abortion MUST have an ultrasound. Since many abortions are done within the first 12 weeks, most women will be forced to have a probe inserted into their vagina, whether they want to or not. Pretty close to rape, actually. That's right. A woman who chooses to have an abortion is going to be penetrated whether she consents or not. Some of the supporters in the article seem to indicate that she was already penetrated once and that's why she's pregnant, so she lost the right to complain about this penetration. But they just want these women to have 'more information'. According to a study: "Weitz summarized her findings in 2010 when she said that “women do not have abortions because they believe the fetus is not a human or because they don’t know the truth.”  The only reason for this bill is to emotionally blackmail a woman and make her feel guilty. The creators of this bill assume that a woman can't comprehend what a pregnancy means. I'm pretty sure these woman know full-well what a pregnancy entails.... hence abortion. Basically a woman will be penetrated against her will AND have to foot the bill for the medical rape. Way to punish women for a choice YOU wouldn't make. The link to this horrendous bit of news. 

Original link here. March is actually scarily close to the one above, but February is detailed below. So half of this is already true. And all of it is f-ing scary/ridiculous/asinine.

• This next bit is a link to how the GOP bitch-slapped women 3 times in one day: (1) ZERO women were present during a hearing on religious freedom and contraception and one woman who DID want to speak was denied because "she wasn’t “appropriate or qualified” to discuss the topic at hand.". (2) Female attendees of a conservative convention were scolded for dressing "“frumpish” or “like two-bit whores. (3) Rick Santorum's billionare backer, Foster Friess, said that women stuck aspirin between their knees as contraception. WAH?!?! Yeah. From the article: "So there you have it: modern women being told by Republicans that they’re not qualified to talk about their own sexual health, are dressed like “whores” and probably need birth control because they’re so slutty. And this is just in one day."
  Here's the video of that asshat: 

And here's the woman the GOP refused to let speak. BOOYAH!

 These three articles/links above are just a small sample of the infuriating amount of punishment being bestowed upon women as part of a religious agenda that has crept into our supposed secular nation. I say 'supposed secular nation' because with so many politicians emphasizing their religion and creating laws that focus on the sexual beliefs of THEIR religion, it is clear that these individuals cannot separate their personal religion from their duty to their constituents to represent them and create fair laws for a nation of people of varying backgrounds.

Other infuriating articles: 

• Female Fox Pundit indicates that women in the military should 'expect' to be raped and also uttered the phrase "raped too much" as if there is a certain number of times that rape is acceptable. LINK HERE.
• A bill has been proposed in New Hampshire to prevent cops from making arrests in domestic abuse situations when they haven't witnessed it. So the cop may see the scene of the crime, but have to leave an abused woman (and children) with her attacker, so the cop can go get a warrant. LINK HERE.

This kind of shit is infuriating. Especially when it happens 'all at once'. It's easy to react when you hear about this shit, bit by bit. You can contact people, lawmakers, ruffle feathers, speak up and let your voice be heard. But to have so many stories appear in such a short time period makes me want to scream. I know that I already have SO many rights in this country and that it has taken YEARS for us to get here. But there are people working to turn back the clock on what has been accomplished. How can we champion for other countries to treat women better when our standards are dipping?  How can we call ourselves a great nation when we are allowing religious zealots to make policies that affect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don't live in Oklahoma, Missisppi, Virginia, New Hampshire or some of these places featured here. But dammit, I KNOW that some idiot will be bringing this crap into my home state before long. We have to fight this. Fight it in your state, let your voice be heard. Contact your lawmakers and let them know how you feel before, during and after this issues come to light.

As a woman and as a human being, I believe every woman should be able to make a choice about her body and it's ability to bring life into the world. 

I do not believe that women only have the option of 'motherhood' or 'spinsterhood'. 

I do not believe that a woman is a whore because she has sex as frequently as men. 

I do not believe a woman is a bad person for choosing to have an abortion. 

I do not believe that men are more qualified to speak on women's sexual health than are women. 

I do not believe that lawmakers have a right to bring religion into the political arena and label it 'right' and any deviance 'wrong'. 

I believe that a woman has a right to be a mother, give up a child for adoption, have an abortion, or do any combination of those actions in her lifetime without judgement or condemnation of her character.
I do not believe a woman should ever be subjected to rape, nor made to feel that it's 'expected'.

I believe that outlawing abortions does not stop abortions but puts women who still seek abortions at risk. 

I believe that women need to stop being punished for our body's capabilities and our decisions that do or do not conflict with biology's unregulated abilities.

I believe this war on women, our bodies, our choices, our access to necessary or desired health care and medicines, this hatred and demoralization, this religious zealousness, this persecution of women NEEDS TO END NOW.

I believe that men who support women's choice are much needed allies in this fight. We love you for standing with us.

So, are you going to stand back and let religious lawmakers legislate the hell out of our bodies? Or are you going to SPEAK UP?

P.S. Here is a link that give more info on the hearing in which women weren't allowed to talk about their sexual health. The article states that moderate and liberal Catholics are now okay with the HHS saying that Catholic institutions not having to foot the bill for the medical things they don't agree with.




OFFENSIVE STUFF BELOW. DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE OFFENDED. DUH.

       Personally I believe that if Catholic institutions want to continue to deny medical coverage for things they preach against, they shouldn't be allowed to claim to be an equal-opportunity employer and instead admit that they DO discriminate on gender (no female priests allowed) AND sexuality (this includes sexual orientation and a woman's choice to do IVF or have any bit of control over her sexual health). BUT I figured that didn't belong in my little bold list above, since that is more tongue-in-cheek than serious.
      Oh and here are some facts on abortion. I personally like the info about FACE: Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances. 

FACE makes it illegal to intentionally use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with individuals obtaining or providing reproductive health care services. FACE also punishes anyone who intentionally damages or destroys a facility that provides reproductive health services.

Something that always bothers me is the pro-life people out there harassing people walking into clinics. If you REALLY wanted to make yourselves useful and practice what you preach, go down the street and learn about fostering or adopting the children that exist NOW that you claim you would care for if the women at the clinic weren't aborting them. Although, and this sounds terrible... I'd rather abort a fetus than to have it end up adopted by some religious zealot that harasses people. BUT because I'm a responsible person, I want to continue to have the right to make decisions in regards to MY body and my life and not be subjected to religious persecution because I don't believe these lawmakers have a right to control my uterus. So those religious lawmakers... they can feck off anytime now! >=P

     So, on a level of '1 to 10', 1 being "not so offensive" and 10 being "Dear Lord, burn this heathen!" how offensive was that? ;)

Book Review Time!!! "Two is Enough" and "Complete Without Kids"

Last month I finished reading:

Two Is Enough: A Couple's Guide to Living Childless by Choice

by Laura S. Scott  


I didn't take many notes on it but I do remember is that it was statistically driven off of surveys and essays and interviews. As a single woman, I thought it lacked information about the Childfree Single. One thing I definitely took away was someone's comment about how being CF (or as we like to call it: IOD...Independent of Dependents) allows a person to travel NOW instead of waiting until retirement. That person recalls visiting Greek ruins and being saddened to see elderly people unable to make the climb to the top to see the grandiose ruins they had traveled to see. To me, an ardent traveler, that is really sad! Life is meant to be enjoyed NOW, not put off.

I also remember that the book was more positively driven than not. Often times chosing to be CF/IOD seems like a struggle, constantly having to prove to people that we aren't crazy and that we are making a VALID CHOICE. So it's no wonder sometimes a CF/IOD person can get defensive or angry... if someone is telling you that you don't know what you're doing with your life, just because he or she chose something different. I've gone through the stages and will continue to, depending with whom I'm speaking. Of course, we need to be able to vent our frustrations with ignorant people or bad parents, but at the end of the day, you get more flies with honey.

So, the above book was a good read. It was geared towards CF/IOD (IOD is the agreed-upon, created term my friends and I developed) and also those who are considering the CF choice. I think it's very important that children are seen as a CHOICE. If we continue to promote it as a CHOICE and not 'just what you do', we are encouraging people to be more responsible for their own decisions. (Of course, religion does often get in the way of proactively preventing pregnancies... but that's not the theme of this topic).

________________________________

And tonight was a CRAZY Friday night. I just finished reading: 

Complete Without Kids: An Insider's Guide to Childfree Living by Choice or by Chance

by Ellen L. Walker

 

I did actually take notes on this book (as I will for the other 5 or 6 CF books I have checked out!!! I have a lot of reading to do!)

 

This book didn't sit as favorably with me. The author drew too many conclusions and made assumptions that I found unnecessary. She postulated that so-and-so would have been a good mother had she met someone. She postulated that a Japanese exchange student probably went on to have kids because she probably felt awkward being one of 2 childless females in a room of 50 at a Church retreat. I found these assumptions detracted from my enjoyment of the story. 

I'll now refer to my notes and provide page numbers where possible. Excerpts or ideas from the book will be in italics and my notes will be in plain text.


p. 48 'Suzanne' expresses sadness when she sees families portrayed in movies as being happy and having intimate connections. The idea of missing out eats at her.  - Of course the movies are going to portray things as perfection! Movies set unrealistic expectations for the audience. That's why you have to take everything with a grain of salt. And I'm saying this as someone who is involved in the film industry! Unless the story has to do with a dysfunctional family, you won't see that as part of the storyline. Or, the film shows happy happy happy to set up the meltdown and the return to happy happy. It's just like when I watch a romantic comedy, I know it's outside the realm of normal. 


p. 52-53 Having it all: career and mothering leaves a woman stressed and not present -  This I agree with and find important to mention. We lost our own war with feminism. We felt the need to prove we CAN do it all, work AND be mothers. But to what end? Mothers who have guilt and aren't able to be everywhere at once? Spreading themselves so thin between career and parenting that they lose themselves? TANGENT: On a photo of an Italian female government representative Licia Ronzulli who brought her baby to the voting session... I saw SO many mothers responding to it with pride about how women can do it all. One woman wrote "I'm a mother before I'm a woman". I was flabbergasted. You couldn't be a mother without being a woman first, biologically speaking alone. And you shouldn't be losing your identity into your children's lives. Luckily I saw a commenter write that it (bringing one's infant to work) was feminism fail. For more info on this situation....go here. Basically, as a mother, you are held to the impossible standard of having to prove that you are superwoman. And if you don't happen to measure up, you are in for a world of guilt.


p 66-67 "Having Fun and the Fear of Losing Youthfulness" - I don't like this section of the book. It's too short and I feel it misses the point and misconstrues the issue. It seems like the author is saying that CF people avoid maturing and are just all about fun AND that they have a fear of growing older. I don't know if this was meant to be implied, but that's how I read it. TO ME, I find that many parents have children because of the (subconscious) FEAR of how to fill the next 60+ years ahead of them. It can be daunting to think of all the open roads before me, but I'm grateful and excited, especially because I have several Childfree/Independent of Dependent friends to join me. The author seemed to imply that CF/IOD people are free from responsibility or care and don't need to grow up. This is a falsehood. Having children doesn't make someone mature or responsible. It can be a motivator for someone to become that way, but not everyone NEEDS to pop out a kid to realize they should get their life in order. I'm sure the author did not mean to imply that we shirk responsibility, but that it might appear we do.


Three Categories as developed by the author: Childfree by Happenstance, Childfree by Choice or Childfree by Circumstance - I'm a little fuzzy on the difference between Happenstance and Circumstance. To me, they represent the same thing, but the author seems to imply that Happenstance means a person just never ended up with a partner during their fertile years and that Circumstance is for people that wanted to have kids but were infertile. I don't know if the distinction is as I've surmised or that it's clear enough. In Laura Scott's Two Is Enough there was a category for those who ended up CF because of their partner's strong choice and their ability to be okay with not having kids. I just found Walker's categorization to be a bit fuzzy.


p 68 Selfishness - Some childfree people are happy to admit they are selfish, but I have a hard time doing so. I think all humans are selfish and it is a survival instinct. Parents are not selfless for having children... it's just the group they protect is bigger, so they are selfish for a larger group of their DNA. It's the same as if I'm out with friends and there is an open table at a bar... I'm looking out for the good of my group and will try to get that table for us and let others fend for themselves. My group is where my loyalties lie. And we all know that people have selfish reasons for procreating: wanting someone to care for them in old age (RIGHT!), wanting to have the experience of being a parent, etc. I think less focus needs to be put on selfishness/selflessness because it doesn't seem relevant to me. Just because I don't have a small family group to care for doesn't mean that I don't extend good will by other means, such as volunteering or caring for my nephews. I don't like the idea of selfishness even though some people are happy to lay claim to it.
       Ah, now I see my notes more clearly... I wrote that the author didn't cover the selfishness topic well enough because she didn't mention how it can be selfish to have children for the wrong reasons and that the section basically only said CF people didn't feel guilty for having so much free time. 


p 71 Sometimes the differences become isolating and we can be left out by mothers/parents because we seem to be dis-trustworthy and we have to makes steps to show we "accept kids" - This makes me bristle. I understand the author is saying we need to have a little give and be ambassadors for the Childfree community. I selectively do this with people I care for that have children so that they know I'm not hateful of their kids. I'm very vocal about my choice to be IOD and it can be offputting to mothers. But, yes I make it a point through my actions to show them I can be around their child and not shrivel into a pile of ash. But I won't go too much out of my way. I did go to a friend's party for her 1 year old boy and it was at a Children's Museum. My mom and I even took the birthday boy around for a bit but he was hungry and I couldn't help him. He just wanted his mama! So I relinquished the crying birthday boy. But he was cute in his little vest and hiking boots! See?! I went to the party and spent time with the little one because I WANTED to, not because I felt it was my duty. I care for the little guy and his parents are wonderful, so of course I want to be there for them and celebrate. My choice to stay an aunt doesn't mean I don't want to celebrate and spend time with kids! In fact, I really like having kids around because I like to teach them it's okay to be goofy and just enjoy life! I do this with my nephews and I've done this with all the kids I've nannied or as a camp counselor. It's my way of spreading silliness and joy. Letting kids be kids and take their joyful attitude into adulthood with them. Life is meant to be enjoyed and that's something I like to promote. Something I'm ABLE to promote because I'm not focused on my own children, but can be there for others. So, I guess, the author has a point, but it still threw me off. It made it seem like 'we' have to make the parents feel comfortable and they don't have to make us feel okay. But it is give and take. Each CF/IOD person feels differently about how much they want to be included with parents and kids, and it's up to them to indicate it. Okay... moving on... ;O)

-I agree with the author's section about how our time is OUR time. The evenings and weekends are our leisure time, not filled with the children's activities or catering to what the kids need. That's one of the benefits to my IOD Choice... I can fill up my time in ways that make me feel like a happy and fulfilled person, without being distracted by the needs of children. That can be a BIG struggle for parents, but as a CF/IOD person, I'm very happy with this benefit. This doesn't make me feel selfish, but motivated. I have many projects that I chose to do with my time. Writing this blog is one of them. IT WORKS FOR ME. Everyone should be free to make this choice.


- I like the inclusion of the section on Singles, since the previous book didn't touch well enough on it for me. IF I ever choose to look for a partner (my projects are my loves right now), I would only date another CF/IOD-minded person. I don't have a desire to be a stepmother. As much as I realize that there are children out there that need love and fostering, my decision to be childfree includes children biological or not. The idea is that my life isn't leading towards mothering, no matter where the kid comes from. So, I have to be content to contribute by volunteering. It's much easier on the wallet and less time-consuming ;)


p. 119 - Healthy lifestyles and kids as a motivator to stay healthy - I find that to be a bit misleading. I'm sure there are unhealthy people who don't have kids. The author even mentions one. But she also mentions that because of more free time, Childfree adults are able to use that time to do activities such as healthy cooking and fun exercises like skiing or running. The author also mentioned a study that showed parents consume more fats, saturated fats and sweets and salty snacks that Childfree people. The idea of providing a healthful diet for children is a big scary thing for me. I have a hard enough time making sure I eat enough of the right foods during the day. I'm not up for the task. I can understand how parents can go for the easiest route... when I have my nephews for the weekend.... well, it's not all healthy food. I DO always have fruits and veggies for them. Their parents live on an organic farm, so I know a concerted effort is being made to raise these kids on real food. And that's a big deal!
     I agree with the person on page 121 who says that personality is the driving factor to a person's healthy or unhealthy lifestyle, rather than whether or not they have children. I think kids can act as a motivator sometimes, but I also agree with the fact that parents are more susceptible to disease, not only from contact with their children, but because being a parent can be stressful, leaving parents with less time to sleep and recharge their body. I enjoy the fact that I can respond to my body's needs and get extra sleep when I need it. (I sleep a LOT... it's just how my body is!) Actually yesterday I was able to stay home from work and I thought about the fact that I wouldn't necessarily have been able to recuperate (including my 3 hour nap) if I had a child to care for. Being a parent is a 24/7 job and I'm happy I work in a different field! ;)


p 126-7 - EXPENSIVE! - "Families that make $70,000 a year or more will spend $260,520 to raise a child from birth through age 17, and this doesn't include college tuition, which can add up to $150,000 more for a four-year education. - OUCH! Well, I know I'm not in that tax bracket AT ALL. I work three jobs and would be lucky if it totaled to 30K. So, no, having a child is not financially an option for me. BUT, what IS an option for me, is to save money for my retirement and save money for my travels. In fact, $5 is going into my travel savings fund for writing this blog post. Because I have my goals and my priorities, I'm able to attain what I want. Some people DO want to spend obs and gobs of money on rearing children. Good for them and best of luck to them. But I hope they'd be just as willing to wish me well on MY goals. Often times, people try to place importance on the idea of raising a family and any other use of one's time is seen as frivolous. I disagree. I think it's more important to identify what makes YOU happiest and how you can attain it. Living up to someone else's standards will NOT make you happy. 


p 130 - The author mentions one interviewee said parents are often reluctant to travel for business while Childfree people are able to do so and might look forward to it. - I saw this in action. I happened to have taken off a month from work so I could travel for a GREAT flight deal, visit friends and family in six cities (not something parents can do!) and while I was sitting in an airport, biding my time, I couldn't but hear a frustrated mother on the phone berating her kids or husband for not remembering a dentist appointment and calling the dentist to reschedule. From the airport. A mother's work is never done. Mothers are important people. But sometimes I feel they LIKE it! How many of you have mothers that can be described as 'martyrs'? I know my mother gripes about how much she has to do for us, even now. But sometimes, if they relinquished a bit more control and ASKED for things to be done... well, maybe their children and husband might step up to the plate! I know that's a bit utopian, but if a woman never asks for help and only gripes about not getting any help... it's not really a healthy environment for anyone.


Another idea mentioned by the author is having kids means you may likely have to work a job you don't like because the children have financial needs that can only be met by a steady income. - This is a frightening reality. We don't know which way the river flows. Look at the economic downturn of the past recent years. How many parents lost jobs? You can bet most of them had to take jobs beneath their pay level just to keep food on the table. I can't imagine how stressful that must be. See above, where having kids is EXPENSIVE! As a single person, if I hit bad times, I can move into a home with others. You can't really do that if you have a large family. Well, many immigrants do it, but that's a different story. But working an unpleasant job is one of those 'sacrifices' parents make for their kids. It's something for people to consider when looking at their options. You don't HAVE to choose to sacrifice things you want because society tells you it's how you mature and it's the next step. You can look at your life and what you want to do with it. So if you choose children or no children, you know you are being true to yourself. 


p 130-131 The workplace oftentimes punishes those who don't have children with more chances to leave work (sick kids), more money (single moms), no discounts on health insurance as compared to those with kids, etc.) - There are a number of reasons that parents seems to have advantages over people like myself. The main difference is that in my department, most are salaried people, while 5 of us are hourly. So right there, there are a number of differences that aren't quite fair. I won't go into it because it's specific to my situation. I do know that it generally isn't balanced treatment and changes need to be made. Just because I don't have to run off to pick up a kid from school doesn't mean I wouldn't like to leave early as often as the others who still get paid. 


p 132 Tax breaks. - Grrrr. I don't understand why tax breaks occur. Why are people being rewarded for having kids when it's because of the increase of the population that more services are needed? Why don't I get a tax break for NOT having kids? My taxes pay for public education, but I don't have any kids that benefit from it. (My nephews are homeschooled.) I think there should either be more options across the board (I volunteer a LOT) or there shouldn't be any tax breaks. It just seems like a lop-sided, goofy, unfair system.


p. 137 The author wondered at the idea that since many childfree people will end up in retirement homes, we'll still be surrounded by the elderly who will talk about their children and grandchildren and will NEVER escape. The author hoped that by the time she retired, there would be a childfree retirement home! - HA! Yes!


p. 142 - The author talked about the need for growth in terminology. 'Childless' is used by some people who wanted but couldn't have children and they, and parents with children, may take offense to 'Childfree' while those who like that term are proud of their choice. - This situation was part of the inspiration for the title of this blog. I wanted to be able to refer to my lifestyle that doesn't contain children without referring to children. I'm not a 'non-BMW owner'. Independent of Dependents or IOD seems to be a tax term to refer to our chosen lifestyle. I like it and I hope it catches on. For three reasons, 1)CF also stands for Cystic Fibrosis 2) IOD sounds like IUD which is a method of birth control. 3) My friends and I can lay claim to it! ;)


p. 146 - I REALLY liked the paragraphs on 'purpose'. To me, that's a very important theme. My life is IOD because that's how I feel I will best attain my purpose in life. To me, it's all about encouraging people to research this decision, the most impacting decision on their life, and to make a well-informed, heartfelt decision that is true to that particular person. 


p. 149 - Having children doesn't make for a happier marriage. In fact studies show that happiness in marriage goes down with the arrival of the first child and increases when the children are gone. - I know it sounds like we are making that up to promote a baby-free agenda, but get the book and check it out for yourself! To me, it makes sense. Having kids isn't easy and adds A LOT of stress into a couple's life. It changes everything for them. Sometimes it works out well and sometimes not so much. You can't depend on an outside thing to make you happy. 


p 151. - The author suggested nation-wide people abstain from sex for a week and see how it affects the population. - I really hope this was said in jest. Even I, as a non-parent, am well aware that many parents often go for more than a week without sex. So there goes that idea!

So... in conclusion to this very long book review on "Complete Without Kids", even though I took issue with the way the information was presented (based on a few interviews with unnecessary conclusions/assumptions), and even though I disagreed with things that were presented, I can tell from my own report that it does actually present the Childfree Life as something to be considered. The author would present her life and show how it would be different if children were involved. And for some people that would be welcome. It's just a matter of REALLY examining the choices thoroughly. 
         As presented in this book, half of all pregnancies (in the U.S.?) are accidental. We as a society need to give our youth more information on how to stay safe and be well-informed and MAKE A DECISION. As technology and life options continue to progress and expand, so too do the messages we send to our youth, the emphasis our society puts on life choices and how to make them.

     As always, I want to send out a reminder those parents that may read this (if you have, your kids must be busy ;) ).... Those of use who are Childless, Childfree, or Independent of Dependents, just want you to know, we are living our lives the way we want to. We chose what's best for us in our individual lives. It makes us happy. And we wish the same happiness and fulfillment for you in your lives. So please, don't freak out the next time we say "No, I don't have kids". I'm sure we can still find something to talk about! ;)

PEACE

A Childfree World?

     The interesting thing that I hear some non-Childfree/Independent of Dependent (CF/IOD) people indicate is that NOT replenishing our population is a BAD thing. With the world population set to surpass 7 BILLION people I fail to see what is so important about upkeeping these staggering numbers. A good number of the global population does not have access to clean water, sufficient food or health care and these are people who will be procreating for not utilizing contraception.
     The above article states:

 "Over the next forty years, nearly all (97%) of the 2.3 billion projected increase will be in the less developed regions, with nearly half (49%) in Africa. By contrast, the populations of more developed countries will remain flat, but will age, with fewer working-age adults to support retirees living on social pensions."

The argument I have heard is related to that last fact about less working-age people in developed countries. The article also points out:

"Although the issues immediately confronting developing countries are different from those facing the rich countries, in a globalized world demographic challenges anywhere are demographic challenges everywhere," said Bloom.

     So while it may be tempting to turn a blind eye to areas like Africa, you can see from the data that it will be responsible for half of the world's expected growth. In my personal factless opinion, (yes, I'm basing this off my perceived knowledge and would be interested to see solid research)... one of the reasons the African continent is affected by staggering numbers of HIV and pregnancies (and therefore orphaned children with HIV) is because of religious missionaries (Catholic? Christian?) that condemn the use of contraception. It creates a disconnect for the people in their daily lives. I do know of a friend that was working with the Peace Corps in Niger and was involved in a group instructing women about their personal health and contraception and from what I know, my friend was touched by how well-spoken these women were and how they took hold of the knowledge given to them.
    That project is very much in line with Bloom's call to action in the above article:

"We have to tackle some tough issues ranging from the unmet need for contraception among hundreds of millions of women and the huge knowledge-action gaps we see in the area of child survival, to the reform of retirement policy and the development of global immigration policy. It's just plain irresponsible to sit by idly while humankind experiences full force the perils of demographic change.""

 To me, it is foolish to think that as a population we need to keep procreating in order to 'meet our needs'. There needs to be restructuring in many areas to accommodate for the population be it larger or smaller.

Sometimes I wonder if those against contraception are afraid that the film "Children of Men"  from 2006 will become a reality. The film's summary: In 2027, in a chaotic world in which humans can no longer procreate, a former activist agrees to help transport a miraculously pregnant woman to a sanctuary at sea, where her child's birth may help scientists save the future of humankind. Yeah, this isn't likely to happen. But the fatalists that are against the use of birth control seem to think it will.

     To me, birth control is a use of technology that allows people to be more responsible in choosing if and when to bring more humans into this world. There is an example of this in Brazil.

     Basically, the government subsidizes the cost of birth control in Brazil, leading women to have less children in their families as of late. This can be an important step in breaking the cycle of poverty and preventing children from living without access to basic needs. The article states: "Despite having the most Catholics in the world, 80 percent of Brazilian women of childbearing age are using some form of artificial contraception" 
      This is very intriguing because the Catholic Church strongly opposes the use of contraception in any form. People are often very susceptible to the ordinances within their religion so for individuals to go against the expectations of a religious institution is very telling. My opinion is that many religions are out of touch with women's rights due to their patriarchal nature. Women are not just here to produce offspring for men but some religions seem to think so. Yes, I suppose many women do want to have children and therefore play into that part of biology but there are those of us who do not feel the biological urge and that is our prerogative. There comes a point in a person's life where they look at their religious upbringing and they look at what they want their life to be and they find an answer.
     Reproduction issues are not just a matter of religion but can have some political basis as well, as we see in China.  China has been known for it's 'one-child policy' which limits the number of children that a couple can have. But there are a growing number of couples or individuals who do not have children in China. This is sometimes for financial reasons or in cases of individuals, for lack of partner (whether by choice or situation). Of course, all the reasons to stay Childfree in Western nations must be true as well throughout the world. 
     At the end of June, this article detailed some reasons that a growing number of U.S. couples are staying childfree. The beginning of August showed that many NYC women are Childfree-minded as well.   From the June article: "...Nearly one in five American women now ends her reproductive years without children, up from one in ten in the 1970s." 
      As a childfree woman, this makes me happy. NOT because I hate children and think no one should have them (not true at all) but because these articles and facts show me that not only nationally, but internationally, men and women feel more freedom to follow what they know is right for their lives. With the use of technology and resources, we have access to others like us who support and understand this lifestyle. The propensity to procreate is reaffirmed daily in movies and advertisements and personal lives and interactions with parents who evangelize on the benefits of kids. Parents have all the reinforcement they need in other parents but childfree people need reinforcement as well.
    Childfree people are aware of what children are like. We all have been children, we all have been around children. If you are a responsible parent, we respect your decision as long as you don't force it upon us. My wish is that having children is seen not as 'the next logical step' but as one possible result of a well-thought out decision. I know what is right for me and even if I could be a good parent, if it is not what will make me happiest, it is unkind of people to encourage me to procreate. I never encourage them to get rid of their children with the adage "You'll change your mind" that so many childfree people hear from parents. I hope that with time and discussion, people will be allowed to make a decision and let others enjoy the happy result of theirs. I also hope that more children that need parents will be adopted into loving, caring homes. I am thankful for those people that can open up their hearts and homes to children that are in need in this world. To me, that is a sign of a wonderful parent... to love a child that isn't biologically yours but to love and provide for them as though they are. 
     Nia Vardalos, one of my favorite creative souls in the world, along with her husband, Ian Gomez, adopted a little girl, and is a proponent and a spokeswoman for an organization: Help Us Adopt. Adoption to me is a better option than fertility treatments because instead of spending gobs of money and years on fertility treatments, you could find a blessing in a child that needs you immediately. Humans are the only creatures that go through such lengths to extend our genetic makeup, yet we see videos and news all the time of animals that suckle and care for young that are outside of their species. I have chosen a childfree lifestyle because that is what works for me but I heartily applaud with all my heart and soul the wonderful people who can look past their DNA and/or the desire to birth their own baby and make love for adopted children a part of their lives. Peace.

In case you missed them... articles listed above:

• World Population to Surpass 7 Billion in 2011; Explosive Population Growth Means Challenges for Developing Nations  - Science Daily - July 28, 2011

• In Brazil, Women's Changing Roles, Attitudes Leading to Smaller Families  - PBS News Hour - Aug 30, 2011   

• In China, having children is no longer a given   - Los Angeles Times - Sept 02, 2011

• The No-Baby Boom  - Shine on Yahoo - June 28, 2011 
  
  
• We Say No to Babies and Yes to NYC: More city women are taking a pass on the Mommy Path  - New York Post  - Aug 2, 2011