I don't want to go into a lot of detail here but the reason I never married is basically that I never met anyone I wanted to marry. There are advantages to not being married too lol but I fully respect those who are married and wish them all the greatest of joy in their relationship.

I think even if I became married I would choose not to have a child. I don't think I would be permitted to adopt (I live in the UK) because my health is not good enough.

Basically I have severe deafness (I wear two bone anchored hearing aids as I am unable to tolerate in the ear hearing aids due to chronic otitis externa) accompanied by vertigo and migraine. I also have hypoparathyroidism and as I was a child when I developed this I am vague on what it is. However I do know I am on medication for the rest of my life. I was born with a cleft palate which was corrected by surgery.

I would not wish any of these conditions on any child and feel in the circumstances that it would be irresponsible even to think of giving birth. And in any case I made the decision at the age of 15 not to have extra marital intercourse.

I'd be interested to see what other people think of the disability aspect of having children.

Incidentally I am due to become an aunt towards the end of May - and I'm looking forward to it! Baby will live just up the road and he's a boy.

There was a related conversation recently, and I went back and copied part of one of my posts from there for you. That conversation centered primarily on the genetic aspects of the childfree choice. Interesting topic. I applaud you for considering the health of a potential child in a serious manner. So many people don't. Anyway, here's what I think on the matter:

I am not one who favors applying the strict selective breeding standards often used on livestock to humans. I simply believe ALL factors should be weighed before a couple chooses to bring a child into the world, including genetic factors.

Every child born deserves the best chance they can get at a full, healthy life. The outside world is dangerous enough without having to fight for life from within. The fewer children who spend their childhoods in hospitals, the better. I think we can all agree on that. If achieving emptier pediatric wards requires couples with high risks of producing disabled children REALLY think through the decision to procreate, and many choose a child free, fostering, or adoptive path instead, no one is harmed by that... and existing people may even be helped.

Incidentally, a few years ago, my fiance and I had a long, semi-joking conversation about our various minor and not-so-minor genetic problems. That conversation was a turning point for him in fully accepting the idea of not having anymore kids. He'd never seriously thought through that aspect of what we'd offer a child. He'd thought about our families, our finances, our career plans, his daughter, our personalities, etc., all of which were good things to consider, but the nitty-gritty of our genetic problems made him step back and look at the concept of us producing a child with a more clinical eye. He's a firm believer in "survival of the fittest." He would not want to make a child with someone with my genetic flaws.

I don't blame him. At almost 27, I've already proven to have all but two of the genetic flaws of both sides of my family. I've got everything but the heart murmur (from Dad's side) and my high probability for cancer (from Mom's side) is a possibility that will never leave me. And just based on genetics, I'm not a good candidate for reproduction.

I just wish EVERYONE would consider such things. There are people out there with much more serious genetic issues than those I carry. People should think of the child's life BEFORE they make the child. That's an important part of responsible parenting.

Very few children in pediatric wards arrived there due to genetic conditions. Most are typically developing, genetically average kids who suffered injury from accidents, illness, or abuse, or who caught or developed illnesses due to exposure to germs or toxins.

Some are preteens or teenagers who made bad choices, or one bad choice, during a space of time when they assumed they were immortal or when life seemed too difficult, or when they just were not aware of the danger of a thoughtless action, impulse or activity.

Families of genetically anomalous children, like the family of the Governor of Alaska, find great worth in each of their children. Most kids with Down syndrome make great contributions to their communities as they grow up, and have meaningful and productive lives as adults. Most children with Down syndrome are as unlikely to be hospitalized as their mainstream peers. They do deserve equal access to medical care - and all children deserve better medical care than they have access to right now - and the same consideration while under care that any other child should find.

Although there is a greater likelihood that the child of a mother over the age of 35 will have Down syndrome, so many thousands more mothers from age 18 to 25 have children, most babies with DS have younger mothers. Although the statistics are not the same as this example, think of it as 20 of 1000 children being fewer than 100 children out of 200,000.

So, young mothers do not have as great a 'genetic risk' of having a baby with DS, but more babies with DS are born to young mothers. Not that this is any of your business. We have the right to bring our babies into the world no matter what their genetic surprises or potential. As children grow, every single one of them has special needs of some kind, even those who do not develop illness or suffer injury.

It used to be that people with nearsightedness, farsightedness or astigmatism were at a great disadvantage compared to those with better eyesight. Glasses and contacts make life much easier and accessible for those who use them. Most people with disabilities can get along as well with small accommodations and support. And even if they can not, they have a perfect right to express their diversity without other people deciding they should not have been born. Hitler had a disagreeable solution to full pediatric wards, and he is rotting in hell. I don't like your partner's views much better.

The genetic problem that most people have is that we are born human and are prone to mistakes - most of human progress has come from people who made many mistakes until they discovered something extraordinary that worked. Some of human progress has come from the inspiration of making someone else's life easier, bearable, or more healthy.

No progress has ever developed from the thought that everything is perfect, or the illusion that an individual or group has achieved perfection themselves. We are born unique and wonderful and have the capacity to improve every day. What is needed is compassion and encouragement, not ridiculous theories that don't work well for anyone.

We all grow and learn. Most typically developing people plateau early and don't progress much past high school, many plateau in middle school. It's not necessary to keep growing and learning ~ most adults could sleepwalk through their lives.

People with Down syndrome continue learning, and teaching, all their lives. We should have learned from them that we do not need to plateau intellectually, spiritually, or any other way - but it's hard to learn things like that if we assume their extra chromosome means they can't teach or inspire those of us who are not chromosomally enhanced.

People with disabilities have the same capacity to teach and inspire as the rest of us - and the same right as anyone else to be lazy, inconsiderate oafs who feel no responsibility whatsoever to teach or inspire anyone. Whatever variety they may be, they have the right to bring children into the world who are just like them, with any flaws and talents, disposition or potential.

You seem like an excellent candidate for reproduction because of the qualities you reflect in your writing. I respect whatever decision you make, although I question your partner's opinion. He already has a daughter, you say, but has not considered the value a brother or sister would offer her.

He considers your genetic flaws contrary to his ideas of 'survival of the fittest' - technically the theory is survival of the fit - but does not consider your genetic gifts in the balance.

He doesn't sound like my cup of tea, but everyone to their own preferences. I am certain you could do better, whether you choose to remain childless or not. It all depends on whether you love one another - and that is not always reflected in whether you want to have a child together, I know.

I believe you would be a great mother and that your child would be a treasure, but you do not need to be a birth mother, or any other kind of mother, or bring a child into the world at all, to be the best person you can be. As my daughter once explained to her young friend, "We are born perfect and we are getting better every day." That's how I feel about all babies, including my son who was born with Down syndrome.

Pam W
SE of Seattle

Is Diversity Like A New Box of Crayons?
BellaOnline ALERT: For anti-spam reasons, we restrict the number of URLs allowed in a given post. You have exceeded our maximum number of URLs.

Forgive me, but shouldn't this be about the rights of the child above all? To be given the best start in life, including not being deliberately burdened with conditions which will make its* life more difficult than its* peers'? While I'm not saying that disabled people are any less human than the rest of us, or that they have less of a right to be here, I cannot understand a parent who would willingly inflict suffering on their child simply to satisfy their urge to reproduce. That, to me, is extremely selfish.

I am reminded of the case of two deaf women who made sure that their child would be deaf, so that they could have a child exactly like them, disability and all. How fair is it to deliberately deprive a child of the ability to hear? To listen to beautiful music, to pick a telephone, to experience the full range of what the world has to offer? All so that its* parents could have a mini-me?



This is exactly the sort of bingo CF people (and parents of single children) encounter on a regular basis. I'm sure that we would all appreciate it if you refrained from making such disrespectful and personal comments while on an CF board. After all, don't the new rules promote tolerance and respect above all?

* DISCLAIMER: All references to "it" are nothing more than a grammatical shortcut for "he" or "she", and are not in any way intended to objectify children. For "its", please read "his or her(s)".

Originally Posted By: SNC_Editor_Pam:
"You seem like an excellent candidate for reproduction because of the qualities you reflect in your writing. I respect whatever decision you make, although I question your partner's opinion. He already has a daughter, you say, but has not considered the value a brother or sister would offer her."



I saw this, too. In fact, I had to rub my eyes and read that statement three times before I actually believed I read this in the MNK forum. In addition, did someone actually tell Myrabeth she could "do better" as in a fiancee?



1. I don't think Myrabeth wants kids. In fact, I'm pretty sure. I don't even ever recall her saying she's a fence-sitter, though I could be wrong.

2. One of Myrabeth's other posts includes her feelings on having siblings just for an only child's benefit:

What I think is poetic, Myrabeth in yet another post (in March) saw it coming, since she's so used to it now:

Good point, Angela. I can't believe that I had missed the end of Pam's post where she denigrates Myrabeth's fiance and suggests that she would (and should) make a wonderful parent - I think the length of the post meant that I didn't read all of it in as much detail as I should have done.

That someone would come into this board and make such ignorant comments really beggars belief.

My husband and I both battle with different medical issues and it is definitely a major factor in our decision to not have children. I am diabetic, as is my husband, and we come from a long line of this disease in our family. My mother, my mother's brother, my grandmother and who knows how far back it goes. It is also rampant on my husband's side of the family in his father, both maternal grandarents and who knows how far back on that side. There is a very high likelihood that any children we would have would also one day, due to genetics alone, be diabetic. I also have high blood pressure controlled with medication. These health issues, although not deafness,blindness, downs syndrome etc, are still big enough for us to consider my health during a possible pregnancy AND the health of the child as well as the effects on that child during gestation.

Here is an MSNBC article link regarding this very subject:
MSNBC


People do not know that a mother who is diabetic before pregnancy, has a higher risk of producing a child with abnormalities and problems due to sporadic blood glucose levels. It can lead to limb deformities right down to having a bigger than normal baby which can cause permanent damage to the baby during delivery (shoulder distocia for example). I also worry about the high blood pressure problems as pre-eclampsia during pregnancy is a life threatening condition to the mother and possibly the baby as well. I would be going into a pregnancy knowing full well that I would be considered "high risk" and I do not want to take any risks. There is a likelihood that all could be fine and well but there is an even greater likelihood that there could be major complications and therefore, this is one of the many reasons we have decided not to have a child.

There are some people out there who would take the risk and deal with the outcome, whatever it is. My husband and I chose not to go down that road. We could see a very grim picture of our lives if anything would go wrong with the development of a baby -something we could have controlled or avoided. I do think that to stick your head in the sand and pretend that there is nothing to consider when you KNOW that there are problems/genetic issues to think about is absurd. Each person has to make their own decisions but to not think about outcomes at all is not responsible.

It IS our business. Since when do parents outlive their children? Who is going to look after and pay for all the medical expenses for a special needs child? The money and resources that are used could be better allocated to feed the hungry of the world.

People need to look to future of the child rather than just try to fulfill their own selfish needs to procreate.

Yeesh, it's pretty sad that we are getting bingoed in our own forum.

Absolutely! THis is one of the many reasons I am CF.

I agree, Anatasia. But it's our own fault for still coming here knowing it's happening - like standing on a stage with flood lights, letting the audience throw tomatoes and laughing. If we speak up, we get hit.

This is like a freak show.

You're right Angela. I'm outta here.

1) YOu just bingoed Myrabeth in a CF forum. Many of us CF people are told we'd be excellent parents--and we would! BUt we are CF. And we are CF because we do a lot of thinking about children before we decide whther or not to have them. Either way, we come here to get away from being bingoed.

2) Many CF people are only children. As am I. There is a huge value to being an only child as well. In this economy, I honestly don't know how people can afford one child, let alone more. I was perfectly happy being an only child and tell this to many people who are getting pressure from parents and friends not to let their child be a "lonely only." I was never lonely.

Gillian- congrats on being an aunt.

When considering to have a child I think it is important to think of all the bad along with the good, and I think people who want to be parents need to think about any genetic disorders they may pass down. I'm not sure whether I think that would be categorized as a moral obligation but I think so. Yes people can live productive lives with genetic disorders but if you know you are a carrier why purposely inflict it.

I have a friend with a degenerative eye disease. She will be completely blind by about 30-35yrs. Her father had it and the doctors said it only shows up in males and females are only the carrier. Well the gene mutated and both my friend and her sister have the disease and it is working faster. The father was about 60 before being legally blind. Both she and her sister have chosen not to have biological children. I don't know if either want children and will therefore adopt.

>You seem like an excellent candidate for reproduction because of the qualities you reflect in your writing. I respect whatever decision you make, although I question your partner's opinion. He already has a daughter, you say, but has not considered the value a brother or sister would offer her.

Wow, that sounds like a wildly inappropriate thing to say! First, the OP DOESN'T WANT a child -- that makes her an excellent candidate to NOT have one, in my book.

Second, that argument that you need to have another child to give first child a sibling is equally inappropriate, on multiple levels. I'm saying this as a woman who has an only child, not by choice but by circumstance. I have known many who had an only by choice, too. Whatever works for them.

But I will tell you -- my only child has had times when he was young and wished for a sibling, then times when he was older -- about 10, I think (he's 16 now) when he said he thinks it is better being an only. There is no cut and dried right path for all.

I'm glad that Pamela has a good attitude for her life and her child-situation, but it doesn't mean that it is the only view, or that it is what is right for all others.

As Myrabeth mentioned, this topic was brought up here:BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Gillian-you posted a very interesting situation. The best part is that you and your fiancee worked this out before you were married, good or bad. In the end, it is your personal choice, do you want kids and are you ok with your decision.

A lot of people don't even know they are carrying a defective gene that is passed on until their kids arrive. I have a perfectly healthy friend and her husband that have three kids with severe disabilities. No one knew until the oldest was about two. It's a great conversation to have before you get married because some people would bail under those circumstances. Others thrive to make the most out of life.

*post deleted by author*

(deleted by poster)

Consider this-my friends that have 3 kids with disabilities are burdened by debt but there is abundance of laughter and love in their house that they share with others.

Another perfectly healthy child may come from an abusive family and gets emotionally troubled later on in life, ends up in trouble or commits suicide.

Environmental and family conditions contribute to a healthy child's life. Which life is better?

I think the difference is between children with disabilities that are already here versus knowingly having a child that will have a disability. Children with disabilities can live productive lives and be happy. I don't think any of us are against children with disabilities. However, I think it is unfair to have a child when you know it could be born with a disability, just because the parent "wants" a child. There are many children already born, healthy and otherwise, that need loving parents. Yes there are many things that can happen in life to make a child's life hard but why knowingly add to that. (obviously it is a different case if the parents had no idea they were carriers of a disease or disability)

*post deleted by author*

Excellent points. But who gets to decide the definition of a disability? You may think I have disabilities and genetic defects, but I may not think so.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't believe Myrabeth got bingoed in the CF forum. I feel like I've been slapped in the face. How selfish someone must be to come here and do that.

I agree wholeheartedly that discussing family history needs to be discussed. I know from personal experience how strong the biological need is to have a child. But should the outside world decide what a disability is, and the rest of us fall in place?

First, I agree completely that parts of the SNC editor's post were inappropriate and I will talk with her about it. Please put off further responses in that vein until I can. The point has been made, and I will ensure that it is followed through on. The purpose of the banner was so that that type of post was NOT made in here, and all posters (including editors) need to be aware of that. I would consider editing the post but since several people have commented on it already, it would make things more confusing.

I think Gillian's initial post is very important and it's a good topic to talk about in general.

In general, though, I think people need to be very aware of the strong emotional statements which would cause someone in the special needs children area to feel impassioned, when it is stated somewhere that "children of XXXXX do not deserve to live". We touched on this briefly in another thread here but I think it deserves some elaboration.

It is easy as a child free person to say - intellectually - "only children of X quality level should be born". That is a fine statement to make from a logic-only point of view.

However, human beings are very emotionally driven people, and emotions *cannot* be separated from logic. There are many excellent books we can discuss if we want to get into that. Emotion is a required part of being human. It cannot be divested from our brain's processes.

So let's say that African Americans are genetically less likely to live long, healthy lives - and have slightly lower IQs. You could say - logically - that we should have only non-African-Americans breed for the overall better health of the human race. That might be true. But as human beings, if you made that suggestion, it would cause huge - proper - outrage. It is not appropriate to start "weighing the value" of human beings against each other. Every human has something to offer.

So if you start saying "children with situation X should not be alive" it would naturally upset people who DID have children with situation X. There is no way around it.

An analogy would be if someone decided that a trait your loved partner had was not appropriate any more, and came and took him away and shot him. That is what it is like - that a random third person, who is not involved in your life - is telling you that a person you love dearly is not worth having alive.

So while we can certainly discuss many topics here - I think this one in particular is one to be more aware of what you are doing. You are causing huge emotional pain to people by so flippantly saying people do not deserve to live. That is a much higher insult level than for that person to say "you should be with someone who fully loves and respects what you are, without considering part of you flawed". Yes, neither is appropriate - but the first is far more inappropriate.

But I don't think the issue is a person with "x" should not be allowed to live. It's knowing that you could create a person with "x" and willingly do so. There are many people already with "x" disability, many children who already have it so why not care for them rather than risk another child. I do think people have different definitions of what a disability is and thus no third person should come in and monitor their reproductive choices. This comes back to the duty of the prospective parents to decide, unfortunately just because one person can live a happy life with "x" doesn't mean all people can. people have different ways of handling situations. What may be liveable or bearable for one person might distroy another mentally or emotionally. How do you know your child can handle living with "x"? Is it worth the risk? Again this does not mean a person with "x" is not allowed to live but a choice made before conceiving.

I mean this in a way to promote discussion not put anyone down for their own choices, these are my thoughts.

I'm hoping no one was offended by my posts. I'm of the thought that the nature of a debate is to examine an issue from all angles, and agree to disagree. If you can offer some personal experience, it adds weight to your argument.

No one should leave a forum based on someone else's opinion. After all, we all learn from each other. Feel free to blast away at me, though. :-)

As I've stated before, I am opposed to the public/government having as say in who should have kids.

I am strongly in favor of individuals and couples putting serious thought into ALL aspects of what they would give a potential child, including genetic predisposition to health problems. That is the first stage in responsible, loving parenting: deciding if your potential offspring would start out in life with his or her "best foot forward."

Every child has the right to live, but every potential parent has the obligation to their possible children to consider the child's best interests before conception. I firmly believe that.

My parents wanted kids. They didn't consider ALL the possible repercussions of passing on the knee problems on Mom's side. In 2002, both of their kids (ages 21 and 14 at the time) had serious knee injuries brought on by the genetic "flub" that runs in Mom's family. I will limp at least a little bit for the rest of my life. As I said, that's a minor thing. There are people out there with much more serious negative traits that ought not be passed on. I guess it's about self awareness and pushing aside one's own ego in favor of logic (as much as one can).

No, I'm not a fencesitter. I never have been. I don't really like most children, but that's just me. I decided to definitely not have kids 9 years before I found out my predisposition to knee problems would end up under a surgeon's knife and change my life.

We've thought things through, in so many different ways. For our lives, and our situation, it's clear that having a sibling would negatively impact my almost-step-daughter's life. That's a red flag. She's already here, and deserves the best we can give her. If we knew going in that adding a young sibling would not have a positive impact on her life, and had another kid anyway, we'd be proving ourselves to be poor parents for both children, and incredibly selfish besides.

Her father agrees on this point. So I stay with a man who, in another woman's hands, may have ended up siring another kid or two. If he felt strongly about having more kids, I would have left him to that goal years ago. But I have given him the time and opportunity to consider it all, and he has decided he is happy to have a life that includes both myself and his wonderful daughter. And he sees that another kid would not benefit anyone in our particular situation, let alone are we in an adequate position to benefit another child... Not to mention the fact that he loves "his girls" (his daughter and I) just they way they are.

Thanks to everyone who responded in my defense. Goodbye.

SORRY FOR THE LONG POST! I hope it will provide some insight for those who are interested.

Let me say first of all that the MAIN reason my husband and I will not have children is because we simply don't have the desire.

My post is only to provide some insight into one situation and not to say what one person or another should do, each case is different (in the cases involving genetics and knowledge of a disease or disability).

Adding to that, as someone who has had and whose husband has also had bone cancer (different types, but both bone) I do not believe that for us it would be responsible to bring a child into the world when we have both had diseases where there are hints of a genetic link, but really how long is it since a fair number of people have been surviving cancer, so how much research do they actually have? Also, mine in particular was rare with not a great long term (5-10 year) survival rate, so it's not like they have a large number of survivors to study the genetic outcomes of. Because of the diseases we have had, my husband has a leg that has had some of the bone and knee joint replaced with metal etc, which leaves him with some disability (cannot physically run, muscles missing etc). I had a stroke during one of my surgeries and because of this I am left with the entire right side of my body much weaker than my left. We both do just fine, but it is harder for us to get around physically than those who have not had any injury or illness.

So - in relation to Genetics, there are two main points in our decision and those are.

1) Advocating for the would be child - This point being about not bringing a child into the world knowing that they may have an increased chance of developing cancer.

Whilst for both of us Cancer has been perhaps (for want of a better phrase) the best thing that has ever happened from the point of view of being developed as an individual I guess. FOR US we could not make the decision that a child of ours went through something similar because of something in our genes that made them suffer illness.

2) Taking care of ourselves - Because of the disability we live with and may face in the future because of the illnesses we have faced.

Because of the illnesses we have had we have had heavy treatments and there are many late effects from these treatments that could impact our lives in the future. As I already mentioned we both live with disabilities because of our illnesses and these may have more of an impact the older we get as we were just 18 and 20 at the time of treatment (we are now both 26), so were in prime age to fit disease and potential disability, with age it is likely that these disabilities will have more of an impact on our lives than they currently do.

I hope that provides some insight and understanding into the decision of one couple. For me, it is not about blanket statements on whether it is right for certain people to have children. It is up to the couple involved to make informed decisions about if they feel they are equipped enough to care for a child who has an illness of disability. I am referring to making this decision before conception and to some extent before birth. Not to cases where an illness or disability is unknown until further down the track. I do think that people should actually actively make these decisions, consider the welfare of all involved and make an appropriate decision, not just ignore something they know is there. An appropriate decision being one that they can live with - not other people, there are plenty of people that tell us we have no reason to not have children, we beg to differ and like I said, do not see it as responsible.

Intellectually this is certainly true. Emotionally, if you have a loved one with trait X, and you begin hearing people talking about embryos with trait X being flushed, it strikes a painful emotional trigger. For many people, every life is sacred, in whatever configuration it happens to be in.

If we say 45% of the US is pro-life, that is 150 million people. So not a small number.

Just something to think about, when people phrase discussion points.

Here is an extremely interesting take on this issue from a Columbia professor. The article talks about genetic testing, issues such as Down Syndrome, and abortion.

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

But this is still assuming the child has already been conceived, which I feel is a very different issue. I feel that aborting a child with trait "x" is different than choosing not to get pregnant because you have trait "x".

This is a tough but interesting issue. My husband's family has polycystic kidneys, hereditary. By the age of 40 or 50, the kidneys fail. My husband, his brother, his mother, have had kidney transplants.

Should he have not been allowed to come into this world and give me the joy and love that he has, that's a really tough call.

It is hard and it's one of those choices parents have to make. I think it is different knowing a person and saying what if this person had not exisited than if you have not even conceived. I think it is also different when you look at a person who is happy and has a great life in spite of any physical or mental disabilities or diseases.

What about the child that only lives to be 6 and has spent those years in the hospital having surgeries, has never had a chance to be a child? Should the parents have opted to give their love to a child that already existed? Or are those few moments of love and happiness worth it? And how would you ever know ahead of time?

Not to mention everyone has different opinions on which disabilities/diseases are livable (not sure if that would be the right word but my brain is not coming up with a better one)

People keep saying "who should be allowed" or words to that affect. I'm not for banning people with x disability from procreation, I just think potential parents really need to think about it first. The reason why most CF people I know are CF is because they think about things more than the average person does before they make decisions.

So, no, I can't tell you that you should not be allowed to have a child because you carry x gene, but I (me personally) could not morally create a child knowing I would run the risk of passing something on to her that would make her life harder to live with, painful, require surgeries, etc. For me, this would be a sin.

This is the same way I feel about in vetro fertiization, BTW. WIth so many children in this world who are already here and need families to love them, dropping bucketloads of cash to create your own baby seems wrong and selfish. I would feel like a sinner for doing this. On the other hand, my very good friend did it and has two wonderful children who I love to spend time with. It worked for her. I'd never tell her that what she did was wrong, because it wasn't wrong for her. It would be very wrong for me.

Different strokes.

Thank you for your explanation.

I believe that the concerns you have for children who may be born with or have a greater likelihood for developing special needs are the same that you would have for potentially typical children - even without the health challenges that you and your partner have faced in the past.

You have a perfect right to decide whether a child or children would be the right decision for you or for them. I am sure that there have been discussions here about many reasons to choose not to have children that are thoughtful, valid, and admirable. And there's nothing wrong with more selfish reasons - no one needs more justification than to say they choose to be 'child - free' - although of course that goes hilariously or tragically wrong with families and friends who want you to give them grandchildren, nieces or nephews, or just share their child rearing adventures.

Individuals with disabilities add to the rich mixture of diversity that helps the world celebrate, recognize and solve problems, provide leadership, companionship, and opportunities for compassion and spiritual growth - everything that each of us has the capacity to do, in our spare time. By the subject line and your original post, I was not sure if you were taking a potshot at children with disabilities as reasons for adults to choose to be childless - as if the birth of a child with a disability would be a fate worse than death.

All children who are born know misery, suffering, grief and loss - and preventing each one's birth would save them from the human condition. To attribute the miseries of life only to children with disabilities is the mistake I hope that would not be made, as much as the denial that kids with disabilities can have as great high moments as low ones, just like their mainstream peers.

Raising any child gives parents feelings of being overwhelmed and in despair or hopelessness - hopefully balanced regularly by the opposite - so I would hope that you would give that more weight than whether a child has a disability. Parents are already across the threshold of difficulty before the disability is taken into account.

And to us who raise children with special needs, that's a positive observation - and for those who choose to be 'child free' I hope will be helpful in your arguments with friends and family who hope to change your minds.

;-)

Thanks for taking the time to clear up the misunderstanding.

Pam W
SE of Seattle

You're serious with this? You start out any point you could ever make with this given: "Let's say African Americans ... have slightly lower IQs?" Don't worry about deleting my post to save face. It's already been copied. Wanna ban me, too, Lisa?

How about this grand assumption?

Did you, a mother, really poll the Childfree? Do you think it is really that easy for us to discount a) the children with "x quality level" (whatever you're deeming that to be) and b) the mothers who bore those children? Or is it just easier for you, a mother, to tell yourself and others that wild off-truth to make yourself more comfortable as you pontificate in this forum with the sole purpose to keep its volume going?

Like I said...lock down the post as you keep doing, and ban me as you've banished the others. Whatever you do, please stop your Miss Manners bullcrap from the pulpit, trying to make people think you actually have a point that a true CF person would even attempt to swallow.

Angela - as you know, we have only shut down accounts of people who requested it. We would only shut down your account if you requested it too. That makes sense I hope. Are you requesting that action?

I am generally quite fluent, but your post above makes no sense at all. I can't unravel your post's meaning. The post I made previously was with the help of several child free couples who fully agreed with what I said. I'm afraid I'll have to bypass your confusing post for now, and move on with the conversation.

Cherry Red - you bring up an *excellent* point. We live in a world right now which has an abundance (an over-abundance) of children without parents. All of these children are desperately in need of love and attention and a home. I understand that many people want to raise children, to nurture and guide their growth. Why is there not a stronger connection between these *existing* children needing love, and these groups of parents wanting to raise children?

Lisa, I'm interested as to the Childfree couples whom you've polled to come up with the assertion that it would be easy to say "only children of X quality should be born"? Because they surely weren't representative of the CF people I know. Indeed it sounds somewhat of a generalisation.

With the subject of existing children needing love - I don't understand how parents can just abandon their children either. You know, the parents who just fall pregnant at the drop of a hat, possibly with various fathers, then decide to abdicate themselves from taking responsibility for their offspring. That to me is the worst.

I know people who are undergoing IVF and part of it is that they see other couples falling pregnant easily (especially those who aren't good parents) and they just want the chance to experience pregnancy. For some of them, it's also that they want to pass on their genes.

Let me say first that my friends tend to be "love to discuss topic" types. We can have dinners that last 3 or 4 hours. So we talk about these types of issues all the time. We find it quite enjoyable.

When I discuss the "only children of X quality" it was in an intellectual sense. Several posters were talking about not wanting to have a child with X syndrome. If you read news reports and studies, that is a common feeling. In fact most studies show that people who realize (through testing) that they have an embryo with Down Syndrome then choose to abort.

So it seems shown by studies and by actual life that people draw a line with "quality". If a child has a certain level of syndrome or disease, they are likely to say the child should not be born. If it is a minor problem (say a bent toe) they would not make that choice. If it is a more serious problem (say Down syndrome) they make that choice the majority of the time.

It is interesting that half of the pregnant women I talk to are terrified of pregnancy and want it over as quickly as possible. They want a baby but HATE being pregnant. Then I talk to women who cannot get pregnant and they crave the experience, they want a "baby in the belly" to feel it grow. So it is like the curly hair / straight hair war. It sometimes seems that no matter what life has given you, you desperately end up wanting / feeling the opposite way.

No, I'm not requesting that you delete my account, Lisa.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you're a college graduate like myself. I spoke in plain English, so don't try to pull the "confused" thing (so many trolls used that word to introduce arguments with us in the past). I believe you were out of line on two counts:

1. Trying to make a point assuming others would allow you the given introduction of black people having a lower IQ. I still question...you used this as a given? As in, "Let's say...?"
2. Thinking you can speak for truly CF people and our assessment on the validity and quality of life.

Let's not just "move on" or employ other editorial, dictatorial, or sugar-coated encouragements to move past what I feel is an abhorrent disservice to many people who both participated in and learned from the former posters.

Can the remaining MNK posters get a CF moderator? I mean, by virtue of the fact that you're a parent...wouldn't that mean your interests lie completely elsewhere, Lisa?

When discussing anything regarding or invoking a truly Childfree response or similar mindset, how could anyone feel akin to you, a parent?

You seem to be asking a lot of frivolous questions in this forum to incite a response (even to the tune of making up your own posts to keep the forum pumping). Don't be confused with my plain English, and please answer my questions as someone who has posted here for over a year.

Actually I am not a college graduate - I dropped out of college because I found it boring. I am in Mensa though. And yes, your language in your post honestly was baffling to me - I read it six times and could not decipher its meaning. I am glad you posted again.

For example, #1 you posted is not a sentence structure I recognize. It is not English that I've seen, and I read *quite* a lot. Can you please rephrase that again? It simply does not make sense to me, what you are trying to say there.

#2 also does not seem to be a complete sentence. Thinking means what? Are you saying that your opinion as a CF married person is more valid than the opinions of my friends who are CF married people? I don't imagine you're really saying that ....?

In the next two paragraphs - I am *not* a moderator here. So that doesn't make sense to me either ...? Jill *is* a moderator and she is married, and she is child free. Kim *is* a moderator and she is married, and she is child free. Both moderators are married and child free - while many posters here are not married. So in those terms, the moderators are far more qualified to speak to the topic at hand than many posters are.

I honestly am trying my best to read your posts but your sentence structure has made it very challenging. I do appreciate you trying to rephrase but even the rephrasing is challenging in item #1.

BTW you can see the moderators of this forum right immediately beneath my post. It says:

Moderator: Jilly, kimkenney, marriednokids

That is Jill and Kim (Kim is on there twice). It is *not* me.

Lisa,

In the interests of acting as a translator, let me help you to understand Angela�s post. Maybe it is a college/university thing as I could understand it perfectly. Also, if we�re going to suddenly make this a question of who has the higher IQ, let�s debate that on a different thread.

Point one refers to the example that you used as a given (something that can be taken as a fact) in an earlier post. That given was that �African Americans are genetically less likely to live long healthy lives � and have slightly lower IQs.� Angela was questioning the validity of even using this as a hypothetical fact in a climate of support and free speech. It does indeed seem somewhat derogatory to be using this example.
Point two refers to the current state of affairs where you are posting much more than history would indicate that you normally do, in the Married No Kids arena. Indeed from reading your background it would seem that you do indeed have children, thus not really understanding where we come from. Some of your posts also seem to have generalisations within them that do seem somewhat unsupportive of our feelings.

The moderator issue seems a moot point as Kim has decided to take a break, Jilly has admitted to not feeling the need to post and you do seem to be the person taking the lead in the new regime. Thus, by virtue of you being the highest ranked Bella person posting and perusing the boards, you are seen as a moderator.

You're throwing darts on style to try to make a point, Lisa. It won't work. If you want to turn this into a grammar, spelling and punctuation showdown, you picked the wrong person. But I'll play for the show (DISCLAIMER: THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE WAS INCOMPLETE). If my language and style baffled you, just stop now. Mensa is useless...it's a certificate anyone can get if they just apply and breathe. I've known more people who try to fly the Mensa flag with poor conversation acumen and wanting rhetoric ability than I care to recall.

Hopefully we can get past the grammar and education qualification gauntlets to address some more poignant issues.

Are you denying you have more control than what you've admitted? I don't care as much about the pawns you've recruited as I care about your own commentary.

By the way...you never answered my questions. If you think you did answer them with some roundabout way of saying you don't moderate the MNK forum, try again. You sure are active here as a parent. And let's not forget what real contol you have here.

I don't feel it matters at all who has a higher IQ. For some reason Angela wanted to know if I had graduated college or not. I wanted to reassure her that I should be able to understand what she said. Sometimes it is difficult with our world wide audience to know who is from what region of the world and what their familiarity with English is.

My initial post about African-Americans was *not* true. That was the whole point of that example ...? We have debated this issue many, many times in the other forums. Maybe you missed all of those posts?

Historically I have posted all across BellaOnline in general but, being a person who does not like to "rant", I have only occasionally posted in MNK. You can find many posts of mine in the MNK area, but certainly not of the volume of say the yoga or Buddhism or other areas. This is because - if you look back at the past 30 threads for example - MNK has solely included threads which 1) talked about poorly behaving children or 2) talked about poorly behaving adults. I did not find these posts productive in any way. Now that there are posts that are productive, I am actively engaging in them, just as I do in the many other forums.

If you click thorugh the history archives for this forum, you can see that history, of what the past threads had been about.

It is related to the Buddhism forum thread about "not complaining". It is very emotionally harmful to rant about negative issues. Many therapists I know will tell yout his as well. For emotional health, it is far better to find a path for you which is happy, to be content with what you have in life, and to move along that path in a way which makes you happy and hopefully makes the world a better place. For me, joining those 30+ old archive threads about "this child in the supermarket was awful, chime in" or "this parent in the restaurant was awful, chime in" was not a healthy outlet for my time.

Finally, your moderator comment does not make sense to me. When was it that Jilly "admitted to not feeling the need to post"? She is here in DC without laptop access and seems to have strep throat ...

For those who are interested, here is the thread in the Buddhism forum about not complaining for a month -

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

For those interested in the IQ and Genetics thread, we were discussing that in several threads in the Atheist forum. Here is one which is a good starting point -

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Lisa,

From an earlier post in this thread you asked: "Why is there not a stronger connection between these *existing* children needing love, and these groups of parents wanting to raise children?

I think that question would be a great thread somewhere...I'd like to hear thoughts on that. I think I've heard there are about 500,000 kids in America that need to be adopted. How many in the world do we adopt and we can't give home to 500,000 kids.

Is this more of a government problem, red tape holding up parents who want to adopt, or is it about wanting a "baby?"

I'm just curious, the end of that post stuck with me.

Violette - actually we've discussed this situation in several other forums. Let me see if I can go dig out the thread that has those numbers.

OK here you go - one thread was in the Gay-Lesbian forum -

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

No, go back. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were a college graduate (and could keep up with English).

And this is your out? Anyone can look at my year-long posts and feel pretty comfortable with my ease of the English language. *sigh* You want to wear me out with this nonsense, and frankly, your forum is benefiting in volume because of it...for this reason, I'll stop it before you do.

We probably did miss the boat here, Lisa. We were never interested in, nor intruded on, forums that didn't concern us.

Who are you to deem what is productive for the Married, NO KIDS forum? How could you possibly understand? Of course, you're engaging in the new threads, because they're about things YOU can identify with. You have a child. You will never, ever, ever as long as you live understand what it's like to either not be able to have a child or to have decided to not bear life. What about this concept do you not understand?

As far as your Buddhist reference goes, I'm not even going to repeat your feel-good lecture blather. We were always interested in CHILDFREE opinions, no matter the religion, race, background, education, or political orientation.

You will never understand this, though I know I wrote in plain English.

OK right I'm reading through those posts again. I remember I looked for quite a while during that discussion and there doesn't seem to be a central clearinghouse of "orphan children" numbers for the various countries in Africa. In many, outside agencies simply don't know what is going on. But for example in Zimbabwe alone, most aid agencies guess that there are about 900,000 orphans and that their care systems are *completely* overwhelmed. The countries don't have enough beds, there isn't enough food, and certainly not enough caregivers.

It is not at all that the government is somehow preventing people from adopting the children. It is that parents in the US primarily want newborn "white" children. The reason we have unadopted children in the US is primarily that those children are older and adoptive parents do not want older children or children with issues. Then going internationally, adoptive parents are less likely to want children of non-Caucasian skin tones.

Angela -

I appreciate your clarification, it has certainly made your point of view much more clear.

As I have mentioned, I do have a large number of couples who I talk with who are married without kids, and I am explaining the views that we all agree on. It appears that you are saying that their views are not valid?

If there is a specific view that you feel is invalid, please let me know which one it is - I'll give them a call, explain your issue, and then I can give you their response in their exact words, if you feel my "translation" of their words is not adequate enough for you to respond with. That is fine by me!

As far as what is productive for MNK (in regards to ranting vs not ranting, I imagine) - this was a key reason we did the changes we did recently. It was not my feeling which instigated the change. If we had gone by my feeling, it would have changed months ago. Rather, it was the large volume of complaints by MNK forum members who felt as if they did not want to post in a place filled by ranting. As site owner, I am the recipient of all "forum contact form" messages. All of those messages come to me. So a flood of messages has continually come in from MNK individuals who wanted to know why the MNK area was so full of anger and anti-child posting. They wanted a place where they could feel supported as a MNK individual - not a place where each post was complaining about the actions of a child or parent.

It was in response to those repeated messages, and in discussions with Kim and the rest of the BellaOnline community - that we began to take steps to ensure that this forum was inclusive towards all, rather than reflecting the views of a very small segment of the community.

If you felt the change was solely because of my personal feelings, then I apologize for that miscommunication. It was not at all a personal decision. It was a group decision based on an enormous amount of feedback by forum members here.

I would like to add that I feel concerned by an aspect of your post. It appears you are saying that - as a MNK forum member - that you actively do NOT want any person posting in here who is not married - and who has children. So you explicitly want to exclude from this forum any person who is not married, or who has children.

Is that true, or did I misinterpret what you said?

*deleted*

Oh Lisa...just when I thought we could shake hands...

How could you misinterpret something I never said? I neither said nor implied that that I "actively do not want any person posting in here who is not married." How could I? I'm not married myself. But I don't have kids, and that way of life was the heart of this forum (or the recent generation of people who just left it), be it that someone like yourself (a parent) sees it differently - for what you or others thought it should be - or not.

That is why I asked for clarification.

You said:

"We were always interested in CHILDFREE opinions, no matter the religion, race, background, education, or political orientation."

This is explicitly a forum for married no kids. You are saying you are interested in CHILDFREE (emphasis yours) opinions.

On one hand, if BellaOnline was going to be an environment which only "was interested" in having Buddhists post in the Buddhist forum, gays post in the gay forum, republicans post in the republican forum and so on, then the appropriate response would not be CHILDFREE opnions are interesting. It would be that MARRIED CHILDFREE opinions are interesting. That is the area this forum was created to represent.

However, BellaOnline is an inclusive environment. The Buddhist forum warmly welcomes posts and opinions from all people, including non-Buddhists. The Christian forum warmly welcomes posts from all people, including non-Christians. This is true for the gay forum, the republican forum, the atheist forum.

What, then, are you as a married-no-kids member (but not a married person) saying about whose opinion is welcome here in the married-no-kids forum? Is it only people without kids, regardless of wedded state?

If so, that is not what I have been hearing from the many messages I have received each day, via the contact form, from the readers of this area. They are all saying that they want this to be an area where everybody feels welcome to post.

But again, maybe I am misinterpreting your post?

I'm a regular on the MNK forum and I'd just like some details on the actual members who are contacting you with these concerns.

Malamutes - I'm not sure if you meant this seriously, but all contact forms on the BellaOnline site are completely private. It would be a huge breach of integrity if I were to reveal the content of any contact form to any third party.

We never sell our newsletter lists, we never reveal our email addresses in our members area to anyone, and we never reveal or forward any contact form details to any third party, anywhere. It is a cornerstone of our privacy policy.

I just wondered what percentage of the usual posters were affected by this?

Personally I saw most of our posts as healthy venting (which most professionals agree is better than bottling up feelings and not dealing with them) rather than ranting. It gave us all a chance to deal with issues that we couldn't in a predominantly child-obsessed world where it's often seen as "wrong" to criticise a child's behaviour.

I don't necessarily see the benefit of trying to make everything positive all the time when it's not eg "acting" vs dealing with the reality of life as it confronts you.

I hesitate to try to respond to this because any way I respond could start to give away information which was sent to me in private, and have people start to make guesses or assumptions about other forum members. I think any way that I try to answer this would begin to cause issues for some people.

What I think I can do is address the second part of your post in a very generic way, summarizing up the sentiment of what many of the writers sent to me. That would seem safe enough, and I hope none of the commenters feels upset by this.

Yes, they agree completely that bottling up feelings without taking action on them can be harmful. However, to have the main focus of post after post be along the lines of

I saw a kid in the WalMart today - he was awful
I saw a kid in Home Depot today - he was awful
...

was simply not enjoyable or helpful or something they wanted to participate in. I am sure there are many other things in our lives each day than running into awful children one after another!

The commenters felt the primarily complaint-laden posts did not help support them in their married-no-kids existence. It did not make them feel better about being child-free, to hear how other parents had done badly at being parents. To them it was like being in a Texas forum and hearing repeatedly how people had visited NY and it had sucked. They wanted to hear more about how to have fun living in Texas.

You might think, why did they not just post other threads which addressed the issues they wanted to talk about? What was happening is that there was so much "strong anger" in those "kids suck" forum postings that members were literally afraid to post in here, lest those feelings then be directed towards them. I agree that this does not necessarily make logical sense, but this was an emotional reaction to the environment in here. With all of the "this woman was stupid" and "that woman was idiotic" going back and forth, members were afraid that their post would then draw that negative energy onto their heads.

I am intrigued, because a group of us were actually talking about this very issue for several hours tonight (in real life). What would you say was the difference between venting and ranting?

Lisa - a longer post doesn't make it more effective.

I'll cut to the chase for those trying desperately to sift through your mud.

You say that this is what CF people are about (or a large number of posts, or whatever rhetoric I'll gladly kneel to in order to prove a point):


I challenge anyone and everyone reading this post to dig up anything and everything in this forum that wasn't a rant -- something that proved we had a home here - a safe haven - filled with things that were NOT rants: Education. Lifestyle. Books. Culture. Current events. Activities. Travel. Politics. Dreams. Cries for help. Bad days. Great days. Quotes. New people saying they were glad to find us.

We didn't house a negative compost to which you're trying to point.

Lisa, I disagree. This was not the negative cesspool that you're making it out to be. For many of us it was a safehaven. We discussed a wide variety of issues - some vents, some celebrations of what we were accomplishing and most of all it had a family atmosphere.

Now, the forums themselves seem bereft of lively discussion as nobody is going into real issues for fear of being censored. Never before have I seen this board so full of "fluffy" posts, ones that aren't about somebody dealing with a bad situation that they've encountered, being scared about a role at work that was troubling them, looking at humorous news articles.

Personally, I didn't and still don't see what you seem to. I don't think it was a place where people were just saying "I saw a kid at WalMart today - he was awful". It was a place where I could come to vent about having to babysit a friend's child and not knowing the level to which I could discipline him, share with people when I had a great accomplishment that would not be celebrated by the outside world because it wasn't mainstream or merely find some like-minded people.

Now, the main posters seem to be Bella Editors (the majority of whom have children) or the Bella Owner. How times have changed.

Rather, it was the large volume of complaints by MNK forum members who felt as if they did not want to post in a place filled by ranting.

Lisa, if so many "large volume" of members who felt it was not a safe place to post....and now with the "new rules" and "changes" WHERE IS THIS LARGE VOLUME OF MEMBERS now? I see no new threads, no new postings; all the the new threads are by editors of the site?

When I was searching for a place to chat about being CF and I came across this site I was so happy b/c there was so much energy and so many different topics; I could just sit and cruise and pick one. Some days I could pop on and get suggestions of places to travel for couples only, some days I maybe had a bad experience with a kid or their parents and just needed to vent. Now I come to the site and I see nothing....the only person starting new threads has a child and is the owner/moderator??? So where are all these other members that wanted this change so bad?

Malamutes and Angela, I must add a post of support to you guys here. I may not have been a hugely frequent poster, but I visit this site every day and have been watching what's been going on. I've been biting my tongue, but I now feel I've got to say something here.

Sorry in advance for the uber long post.

You know what? It's so sad to see what's happening to this forum. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having somewhere online that people can vent and talk about the good - and bad - aspects of a CF lifestyle. Unfortunately, it appears that we're not even allowed to do that these days. I might be talking out of order here, but like Malamutes, I've also noticed that the most frequent posters here ATM are mainly the childed Bella Editors, who don't seem to understand the fact we'll come here to vent if we feel the need. Excuse me, but isn't that part of the point of this forum? We come here to talk (and yes, vent) amongst like-minded people without fear of having to keep quiet for fear of insulting a sensitive parent (as is the case in our lives offline). If that involves venting about an unruly brat then so be it. Can't decide whether it's venting or ranting? No matter - it's hugely subjective anyway and something that will never be agreed on, so it's probably better to agree to disagree on that particular subject. On the other hand, if a kid or parent has been particularly nice or something along those lines, then that will also get mentioned here (and has been). It appears that we can't say much here these days, let alone what we really feel.

I would say that if there are some CF people that aren't entirely comfortable with what's being said here, then maybe this isn't the place for them. I certainly don't mean any disrespect in saying that, but as the saying goes, it's different strokes for different folks. As there are different CF people, there are also different CF forums. There are some CF forums I don't really get on with; others are great!

Let's get this straight. I am not here for the benefit of parents. I am here to chat about me and my lifestyle with other like-minded people who will understand where I'm coming from and have the ability to empathise. I am happy, however, to answer genuine questions, but I will not tolerate being bingoed or insulted in a place "formerly" considered to be a CF safe haven.

Now bear in mind that this comes soon after our rather nasty parent troll directly bingoing and insulting the users of this forum. Ever get the feeling you're being kicked when you're down? I'm not getting any sort of feeling of support here - and I'm not talking about me personally, but the forum as a whole.

Actually, Lisa, Ingilbert never asked to have her account deleted, or her access to this site removed. Of course, you have conveniently deleted her post, so you are free to claim otherwise. She did not use any of the derogatory language you have been so focussed on, nor did she insult anyone. What she did was to point out some uncomfortable truths - I suppose that it was easier for you to delete her post than to address them, or leave them up for there for the world to see.

And that, my dear, is censorship.

The way I see it, anybody who visits this forum has several choices:

1. read because they are interested what is posted, but not post anything themselves - they just read.

2. read and provide their own input. Now there are two possible options (and about 1,000 in between!): they either agree with the topic that is being discussed (which is fine) or they disagree with the topic being discussed (which is also fine). As I mentioned before, I love having a healthy discussion or maybe you could even call it a "debate". I love when two people can "agree to disagree" in a civilized manner. I even like it when somebody plays devil's advocate, because it oftentimes can open your mind and broaden your horizon. Coming on this site does not necessarily mean that you have to be in agreement with everybody's opinion. In fact, I think it is rather stimulating to hear from people who have totally different view points. I try to keep an open mind and understand where they are coming from. I don't want to hang out with a bunch of folks who are afraid of expressing themselves just to be pc. I think there is something to be learned from everybody's opinion and/or perspective.

4. Last but not least, if a reader/poster/member does not agree with what is being posted and finds the contents offensive, embarrassing or otherwise unworthy of their dignity, there is a little red "x" at the top right hand corner of your screen. Just click on it....

Wow...what has happeded here? This is nuts.

I would like to say, though, that yes sometimes Childfree people, or those who are "Married No Kids" like myself and my husband, tend to find the behavior of many kids these days (and their parents) to be appalling. And yes, for many of us, like my husband, the bad behavior of many kids (but of course, not all) *IS* another one of the myriad reasons that we do not have kids. It just is a real reason for us, and that is a fact. I do not see this as negative, we just find bad behavior in many of today's kids to be yet another reason to not have a child of our own. If we want to talk about that here, we could. To discuss that as a reason in front of our friends with kids (even well-behaved kids) got us some "gasps" and some funny looks. It was safe to bring it up here, with like-minded adults, and find that we are not alone in this feeling. Not everyone here felt the same way we do, but many did.

Too bad we are not able to discuss that reason here any longer.

Each poster who was removed did say in their final post (or in a PM to me) that they no longer wanted to post on this forum. I am very certain of that - we very rarely remove people from the forum and only when it is asked for.

For those who wonder why we aren't currently flooded with new posters, I think the last 5 posts make it very clear why they are not. The reason they were not posting before was because of the hostility. That hostility is still quite apparent here. Some people may thrive on conflict and love to rant and vent - but many people do not. Those people will not enter a forum area filled with posts such as the above ones. So by continuing to be hostile, you are keeping those posters from feeling this is a safe haven to enter and join.

BellaOnline exists for *all* members - from all parts of the world, from all cultures. This forum here is explicitly for "married no kids" - but we have it open to those who are NOT married and we have it open to those who DO have kids. That is how the entire BellaOnline system is structured. It is a core part of our mission.

Part of the reason we added the banner and will be adding other changes is to make this area *more* safe for healthy discussion. We had seen trolls and bingoers coming in here and disturbing you. These changes are making it more clear to incoming people that this forum is explicitly for MARRIED NO KIDS and that there should not be any complaints about that way of life - no statements about "you will learn to love kids" or so on. So we are actively working to make sure this area is a more safe haven for MNK members.

But the other side of the coin is that it needs to be open to ALL members in a warm, welcoming manner. The rants and word choices were actively driving away people who ARE "mnk" people. That is not the way BellaOnline is designed. We do not create forums that drive people away who we intend to support.

I would think, as MNK individuals, that you would want to be helping these groups of MNK visitors who really want support - but who currently feel afraid of the hostility they continue to see thrown about in here.

Please consider - just for two weeks - posting supportive messages on MNK topics and not continuing the rants. See what happens. Two weeks is not a long time to be positive and supportive, and it would demonstrate to the many "watchers" that they could be happy here.

If there are no "rants" though, what would the supportive comments be supporting? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm totally serious. Someone is hurt and belittled, they come here to vent, it comes out sounding like a rant. I don't think we can say something like "no rants" without defining what a rant is and realizing that it's not something specific. It'll be something different to everyone.

I'm not sure that we said no rants - I would have to go back and look at exactly what Kim wrote in her rules and I need to board my plane. I think what we said was to please avoid "breeder" as it was upsetting many MNK lurkers (as I guess we can call them) who didn't want to post because of it.

In rants, the issue was more that it seemed to the MNK lurkers that every single post was a rant of some sort. If you go back through the archives you can get a sense of what they were talking about. So certainly if someone's mother screams at them for an hour about having kids, that is abusive, that person should come tell us and we should all give them advice about what to do and how to get some distance from that person. So they are calling for help and we are all helping them. That is what we are here for.

I don't think the people who wrote me were upset about that. They were upset about the many long threads about "I saw a bad kid here" "Well I saw a bad kid there".

Shoot gotta run!! More later! But I hope that makes it more clear.

I find it incredibly sad that some people lack the will power to just push that little red X in the corner when they visit a website that is upsetting to them.
Perhaps you could create a "MNK-lite" forum?

Although I never said anything about it, I did think the term breeder felt -- especially the way I generally was reading it -- derogatory, as if that was the ONLY thing a person who had a child or children did in life. In case anyone cares. ;-)

But otherwise, I think most of the negativity was directed more towards either people who had children but didn't actually parent them, something conscientious parents loathe, too, or at those who assail CF's decision to be such. And that certainly is appropriate, just as someone who's had a miscarriage might rant against someone telling them it's for the best or some other idiocy.