Should Women Who NEVER Want Children Remain Abstinent Forever?

I think a lot of people would disagree with you and also agree with you. I disagree with you in that I would like both a career and a relationship. And I try to avoid relationship drama at all costs and it seems to be going well for me so far. I also get a lot back in return from my relationship as far as emotional needs and desires go. Still working on the financial half of my needs/desires though because I am still in college.

My best friend however... *sigh* she has a great career and life going for her but she has a lot of problems with relationships. She definitely needs to give up the relationship part of her life because all it does is cause trouble for her and she fails to understand just why no man will put up with her. She is moody, bipolar, has extremely high standards, and can't turn off the flirt when she's around other men. At this point I don't think she even knows she does it. But I agree with you in her instance because honestly, all it does is bring drama to her world. She continues to persist though.

It all depends on the person. Some want relationships and family (or relationships and no family), some want only a career, some want both. It just depends on the person.

 

It is possible to have both a family and a career. Just if someone doesn't want
children, ever...it places a different dynamic on a relationship. It's rare that both
parties in a relationship don't want children. Usually that's a deal breaker when one
decides they never want kids.

Of course what is more common these days are marriages
that involve people who already had kids from a prior relationship and they don't want
any more with the new relationship.

 

My parents are friends with quite a few couples who chose to never have children. It's not that hard to find someone with the same values as you nowadays with dating websites and just websites in general that cater to people's values/beliefs. http://www.happilychildfree.com/ http://www.thechildfreelife.com/ http://www.childfree.net/ http://www.singlewithkids.co.uk/single-parent-dating/single-parent-dating.html etc.

Very true and there is nothing wrong with that. A lot of people have a limit on how many children they actually want to have and how many children they can actually physically care for. It's good to know your limits. My aunt has 3 kids and she married a man who also had 3 kids already. (They would have been the Brady Bunch if it weren't for the fact that there were 4 boys and 2 girls. lol! ) and obviously neither of them wanted anymore children. Although I believe my aunt had already had a hysterectomy for medical reasons at that point too so it wasn't even a real problem.

Still, if a person doesn't want children or doesn't want anymore children and their partner can't accept that then they probably shouldn't be together either. It's always best if two people find a person who has the same/similar values and both know what they want or don't want in regards to children. Communication is a key factor in these situations!

 

I'm single, middle aged..no kids.

Most of the women I meet who are single and around my age have
kids from prior relationships/marriages.

It's not that I never wanted kids, it's just having spent time in the military
I think it is not the right environment to raise children because of all the moves
and transfers to different duty stations. Kids often have to change schools a lot
and make new friends which tends to build resentment.

I don't feel as though I have missed out on anything not having kids...
I was dedicated to a career. Now that I have the time to have a family,
well realistically I'm too old. That's life, why get embittered about decisions
that seemed right at the time. Relationships don't always have to have an end
goal with the establishment of a family. Those are just societal pressures.

Not everyone is suited for family life, that doesn't mean you have to spend your entire
life alone.

anyway, I'm rambling...

To answer Makedde's question, asking what is the point of a relationship where
sex is not at the center...I'd respond by saying that most sex centered relationships
don't last very long anyway. There is still the companionship and friendship aspect to
things that endures much longer in a committed relationship.

 

I don't like abortion, I don't agree with abortion. However I realize that people who are pro choice are not looking at abortion the same way that I am. They just don't recognize the fetus as living. To them it's not murder or anything at all. I get that. And because I get that I don't go around claiming that they're all pro murder and anti life. It just boils down to differences of views.

 

I guess if you don't think there is a point then there really isn't. I would say however, that there are many forms pleasure a loving, committed couple enjoy other than the one that makes babies. Perhaps broadening some horizons might help a bit.

Also, please consider that even if you decided to 'take the plunge' with a loving committed partner, that form of sex can wane as age sets in and you sometimes need to get 'creative.'

 

Given her own proclamation in other forums here of her sexual orientation, I find it difficult to beleive that she doesn't already know this.

 

I just felt compelled to post because I saw something missing in the OP.
It is really the loving committed relationship that keeps things going and the willingness of each party to hold the other's pleasure sacred. Ultimately it ain't about the mechanics and what one can do compared to others.

 

Just a difference of views? Hmmm...it is MUCH more than that to the unborn baby who's life is hanging in the balance....it is very easy to be pro-choice if it is not YOUR life that will be ended.

 

It's very easy to be anti-choice when you're not the one dealing with the pregnancy.

 

I've dealt with plenty of pregnancies - including 5 of my own. FAIL.

 

SO this is a "nature is not fair and we must correct it" argument?

 

"THE pregnancy" not "a pregnancy". READING FAIL.

 

Just because you managed to endure the agonies of childbirth doesn't mean you should expect others to endure the same.

Continuing with a pregnancy should be a choice made only by the woman. No one else.

 

Even the current law disagrees with you. Yours is a poorly thought out perspective.

 

As an Australian, I don't care about American law.

 

As an Australian, I don't care about American law.

In addition .. American Law does not support Whaler's claims either.

 

Well good for you, but so what?

 

It actually does if you would bother to read it. Women cannot abort a child in utero anytime they want, after a certain age it is prohibited.

 

It depends on the circumstances.

 

So you are relying on the miniscule minority of cases where the mother'
s life is in eminent danger? Well OK, I obviously have to agree that there is a miniscule percentage of cases that it is allowed, but that obviously still supports my argument that the majority are cases where it isn't

 

Under American law the age doesn't matter as long as the abortion is performed entirely in utero.

 

Age matters.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/...bortions-facts-stories-and-how-you-can-help-0

Late-term abortions are very rare. About one percent of all abortions performed in the United States occur after 21 weeks. There are different definitions of what constitutes a "late term abortion," but most definitions refer to abortions at or after 24 weeks or in the third trimester.

Late-term abortions are severely restricted by law.

 

This is incorrect! Show me proof of your assertion.

 

Read the post above yours. The answer is there.