Childfree by choice
 

First off, there is the word itself: childfree, not childless. My definition: A person that consciously chooses not to have children.

I personally would say that the movement is growing, although the internet could be the unifying force of the various groups out there. Some of them are quite militant. They will call children womblice, crotchfruit, or cunt nuggets. You won't hear it out of my mouth. I honestly love children; I just don't want my own.

For me, it started about 3 years ago. I have never really felt a real desire to have children of my own, but was willing to have one as an "appeasement" to Mimi (my ex-fiance).

After our breakup, I finally put my foot down. Any woman that was going to be with me would have to understand that I do not want children. Fortunately, I found one that is probably more militant about it than me.

--
Of course, I have my reasons for not wanting children. Some people will use population stats and hard logic for theirs. Mine are simply personal reasons:

--No real desire (as previously mentioned)

--Too selfish: I like focusing on myself and Rho too much. I don't feel like sharing that attention. I want Rho and I to be able to do whatever we want (within reason of course): traveling, shopping, laying around naked, whatever. Having children compromises that.

--I like the current world, but I don't think it's a very good one for children.

--I like bouncing around as you may know (3 cities in 4 years, possibly #4 coming up). I could never do that to a child without scarring or uprooting them.

--
Now, for those that have children, that's great! I hope you are financially and emotionally stable enough to provide a good quality of life for them...IMO, the core requirements for being a parent. And I hope they grow up to be good citizens of our world. (Griff, you rock!) After all, without people having people, our human world would cease to exist.

Obviously, childfree people come as a surprise to some. I don't know the exact reasons, so I can only assume:

--The true purpose of reproductive organs is to produce offspring. Makes enough sense.

--To some, it is unnatural. After all, we grow up, get married, have children, live to hopefully get old, and die. Childfree people throw somewhat of a wrench in that cycle.

--It's selfish and self-centered. Why WOULDN'T you want to share your love with a child?

These are valid points...but they don't move me.

--
The responses commonly posed to people who state that they are childfree (and my rebuttals in italics):

--"You'll change your mind." (Nah. Three years now...I didn't come to this decision on the drop of a dime. I don't see my mind changing on this.)

--"God will provide for His own." (First off, your God is subjective. Secondly, this isn't something you can just wing financially-speaking. That's irresponsible and unfair to the child.)

--"They're a true joy." (Indeed they are. But I have no interest in having them.)

--"There is nothing like the miracle of childbirth." (I'm sure it is. That's something that you will be fortunate to share in...I'll pass.)

--"Why would you deny your parents grandchildren?" (First off, it's not about them; it's about ME. Although my parents are somewhat saddened by my decision, they're supportive of it. Lastly, they are not the ones that will be having a child, waking up with it, paying for it to go to college, etc. And I would never push it off on them either. I have to be concerned about my own happiness, not someone else's wish.)

--"Don't you want to carry on your family name?" (Family history is important, but I simply won't bear a child to carry on the name. Besides, I have cousins that have already carried on the Blastenbrei name.) (What I am thinking when someone says this: "Are you fucking kidding? I haven't talked to my father in 8 years...he's basically a fucking sperm donor. My father's family is dysfunctional as all hell...and it's bad enough that my cousins have already reproduced. Blecch!")

--
Finally, we have the militants. Yep, they can be some mean ass bastards. On one hand, they make me sick...it's like they forgot that they were children once. They spew garbage that only makes us look bad. On the other hand, I feel bad for them. They're probably fried from getting so much flack and shunning from their family.

--
So, that's pretty much it. Like it, dislike it, whatever. I merely ask for respect and understanding.

UT, I'd be curious to hear how you came to your own conclusions on the matter...or anyone else for that matter.

Good post sir.

As for me, I think it's a simpler thing: both my wife and I come from "non-standard" family situations, and for one reason or another, these situations made us less oriented around being parents. It's just not instinctive in us like it seems to be in most others.

I grew up with a single-parent mom and no siblings after my father died when I was 3. I have a close relationship with mom (she may well read this, for example), but it's not your traditional situation and somehow it makes me less driven to develop the same old family unit.

It also makes my view of the world fairly selfish, and on this point your words on the subject apply to me as well.

I still might have gone the traditional route if my wife were the family-oriented sort, but she grew up in a somewhat dysfunctional family, which led her to a complete disinterest in the whole family life. I can easily see how, despite having gotten past the dysfunction to become a very fine person, Mrs. Toad would pass along a lot of that dysfunction to children. And I would bring a lot of dysfunction to the table myself, what with my non-standard childhood. It's not that there's anything <i>wrong</i> with us, but one has to admit one's situation...

Also, I read once where people who were surveyed about their lives did not generally have a lot of second thoughts about their choice of spouse, but often did have second thoughts about their choice to have kids. Watching our friends' children and seeing how their lives changed, I just know that I would be one of those with second thoughts.

I definitely don't share the "how can you bring a kid into this world" sentiment. There is still progress in this world, and I believe that things are getting better, not worse. I don't buy any of the population bomb or zero-sum theories, and one couple's decision isn't going to have any impact whatsoever on the built-in human behavior of billions and billions of people. Bringing a child into the world who will be productive and create new things is a net positive.

My only regret is that I expect to have less of an understanding of how the world works and how people work. The understanding of developmental psychology that comes from actually developing a kid must be tremendous. I would like to have that kind of wisdom but the price is just too high.

I approached having children with enormous trepidation. I was not at all certain I had the strength of character or maturity necessary to do justice to the role of being a parent. I was married for 13 years before taking a deep breath and deciding I would do my damnedest to rise to the responsibility. (Of course, it was only later that it became clear to me that *some* of the dissonance I was feeling had to do not with being a *parent* but with other only marginally related issues.)

But speaking as someone who considers themsleves a successful parent (one daughter now 19, another now 14), I can state an *emphatic* view that it is *not* a job for someone who does not come to the role with a level of comittment that can only be had from someone who is 100% a volunteer. The resentment that someone must feel who felt the role of parent was somehow *imposed* on them must be excruciating. While I have frequently considered whether having kids was a mistake, I have always concluded that it was the right decision for me and my spouse-at-the-time. Our daughters are a constant source of surprise, amazement and pride.

Also from personal expereience, if you haven't decided you're going to tackle this job by your middle 30's, give serrious thought to how old you will be when your kids hit college. Personally, I would not encourage anybody to have children any later in life than I did.

Ther are all kinds of other ways to make a contribution to the world besides having kids. If your gut tells you it's not for you, you should listen.

youts
 

I always try to respect other folks decisions especially when it comes to something as important as child rearing. I'm just glad there are people out there thinking seriously about their capacity or desire to raise kids. That level of maturity or self knowlege is something we all hope is as common among "breeders" as it is among the child free. Maggie makes a very good point about age, at some point you just don't have the energy to commit to kids and you are doing them and yourself a disservice. Thats gonna change from parent to parent, however, and knowlege of self is all important. My wife and I are suited to the child rearing lifestyle because we both like permanent situations, she because of her parents divorce and me cuz I like to take it slow and steady.

There is no one way to raise kids, we're going the focus on home route that others might not go for. One of my brothers buddies has a son who is probably around eight now and has lived in three or four countries. The home life remains steady only the background changes. Kids are wonderfully adaptable as long as the parent is responsible. A friend of mine quit his life as a lobsterman and moved his wife and kids into town, after living on an isolated island for many years. The kids know Mom and Dad are committed so the move while a huge change, hasn't been rough. I'm kinda rambling here so I'll just shut up until I think of something of value. nice thread

This may come across as callous, which is not my intention.

I can remember growing up in the late 70s and 80s, when my parents would look for places to live, that a lot of places would not accept children. I believe that is now against the law. A lot of places have gone out of their way to make things more "family-friendly": One notable example are sports teams. The Cardinals have created a special area at Busch Stadium for families, where they can hold picnics and the kids can enjoy fun little things before the game.

But lately, I wonder...have we gone too far? Aren't there some things made just for grown-ups, beyond alcohol, tobacco, and casinos? I ask this because it seems Las Vegas, of all places, is trying to make themselves more of a family place...at least from ads I've seen recently.

And I can understand that to a degree. Las Vegas is a fast growing city (almost 500,000), where people obviously want to form a stable community and raise children.

But is it wrong for people to want places where children are not allowed or encouraged to be? Truth be told, Rho and I would like to go to restaurants sometimes and not be bothered by kids. I'm sorry...to me, taking young (less than 4) children to a sit-down restaurant is just asking for trouble. I certainly don't forget that I was that child once, and fortunately, I was rather well-behaved. But I would imagine that some of those folks going to the restaurants are actually parents trying to get away from their kids for the night.

I would love to live in a place where there are no children around. Granted, we don't have a lot of children in our complex (and our complex is huge--almost 500 apartments), but I would love to see a place that caters to childfree people. After all, we have places that cater to retired folks...and the minute we would even think of getting rid of them, the AARP would be there with guns blazing. And if I want to see children playing and being carefree, I can always go to a park.

(After typing that, I thought, "Oh shit, that doesn't sound good." ;) But hopefully, the jist of what I am saying is understood.)

I guess, in a way, there ARE places where there are few or no children. I probably just need to get rich to live in them. ;)

For the parents out there: Do you feel that your choices are hampered when going out as a family? Or do you feel that there are choices aplenty? Maybe I just need another perspective on this.

its not insensitive at all. it would be nice to go somewhere where one never has to worry that the people in the next booth over will have a screaming spoiled brat child. ive been a father for almost 9 months now, and thankfully, my son has a pleasant disposition. but now matter how good a kid he is, there are places its inappropriate ot take him. generally, common sense should dictate where i can and cannot reasonably take my chilld. and thats what it boils down to. if parents used a little common sense, this would be a moot point. parents would realize that disneyworld is a better vacation hotspot than the vegas strip. if you take your child into a restaurant, and the host(ess) doesnt offer a kids menu, its probably not real high on the list of places you should take your kid. and a movie theatre is never appropriate for a child under 2, unless that theatre happens to be filled with other 2 year-olds excited to see disneys latest family fare.

child-free communities? i really dont see anything wrong with that. people want different things. im having a house built right now. part of the reason we chose the neighbourhood we did, was because a lot of the people building in that are young families who have, or will have, children close to my kids age. if i can make that choice, certainly its justifiable to want to make the choice on the other end of the spectrum.

i do find it a bit harder to find things to do that are appropriate for my family. i chalk that up to inexperience. before i found out i was gonna be dad, i spent a lot of time at bars and drinking with friends. not exactly the right environment for a child. so i think that gets better as he gets older and as i figure out where exactly children are welcome.

ive never been to vegas, and i doubt i ever will. i think todays vegas is far from sinatras ideal. and sinatra rules.

~james

When my wife and I go out we enjoy watching other peoples child based catastrophes, we get to exchange the look, ah not our problem. Like James we're fortunate because our kids are well behaved but we try not to put them in situations destined for failure. I know parents who think they have the right to drag their screaming monsters into all situations and it bugs me to no end.

I'm coaching my older daughters Pony League team this spring and my younger daughter has T-Ball so these are opportunities we didn't have for entertainment before. If not great baseball, both these leagues are highly entertaining. We've been going to AA minor league games as a family and that is a very kid friendly enviroment, folks have a couple beers but in a relaxed atmosphere, with a bunch of kids activities worked in around the game. We left early from a minor league hockey game last winter due to the level of violence creeping from the ice into the stands. It was a game against Elmira so the drunks from both towns were available, bad call on our part...

To take the age thing a little farther..

You're much less likely to even be able to have kids as you get older. And if you do have a kid at, say, 40, it's much more likely to have birth defects. So, people who want to have kids <i>some day</i> can't exactly put it off for very long.

James and Ooza: If you don't mind me asking...was little James planned? The only reason I ask is b/c I know that James is only a few years younger than me (from your profile), and I know that a few of my friends are starting to have their own kids. One couple in particular was already ready to "settle down" and start the family about a year before she became pregnant. Were you both like, "Okay, let's do this!" ahead of time, therefore possibly making it easier to adjust to the different lifestyle?

I'm just curious, simply b/c I don't have that "frame of mind."

When my friend's youngest sister graduated from high school in '96, the dad had been retired for 3 years (mid-60s) and the mother was one year from retirement (early 60s). There is a 10 year difference between youngest and oldest. And you could just tell...they were tired.

Of course, they were devout Catholics, but that's another story. ;)

Yeah, it's definitely possible to have a kid in your 40's. It's just that your odds aren't very good.

james was, officially, unplanned. we had been married about 14 months, and we had talked about it quite a bit. i think we both wanted one, but were unsure whether or not we were ready. all it takes as a bit of irresponsibility, though in this case the irresponsibility might have been slightly intentional. ill never forget the night we got a pregnancy test. it was one of those ones that changes colours within 3 minutes if youre pregnant. i started dinner and she did her thing. she rolls into the kitchen not a full minute later and says "that didnt take no damn 3 minutes!".

i think if we had waited until we felt like we were ready, it never would have happened. i dont think you can fully prepare for something like this. i think it boils down to how you want your future to play out. i really wanted kids, but i did not want them to be just leaving home when im 50 years old. i can see how other people decide to wait until later in life though, because they have plans for the present.

~james

Personally, I'm probably going to wait until I'm 26, 27, 29... I want to be financially secure so there's no question whatsoever that I have the means to take care of a child... and also emotionally ready.

My parents were both 32 when they had me, and I'm glad that they had waited - my father has matured throughout the years, and as he gets older, he becomes more adept at handling children. Not physically handling, but mentally. I've learned a lot from him, and I hope to apply it some day... but I want to make sure that I'm capable of doing so.

So that, in a nutshell, is my reason for waiting.

Well Syc...How'd I miss this thread? One should learn not to breeze so quickly through the land of the Sycamore..

The Warchs are childfree by choice. We've been married now for 12 years (yikes time flies) and we both agreed that its not what we want together.

Curiously I was more prone to maternal instincts when I was single. I think I was craving the intimacy and love more than the parenthood. And since our relationship, maybe we parent each other- thats probably the case, the desire has gone. I do wonder at times if I will regret this decision, clock is ticking ya know...and I do have pressure from Mom,(but to please her is not reason enough to create a life!) And what I wonder most now is just missing that learning experience of love. But there are lots of children here to love, and who need to be. (and then I can go home to my quiet house and do my own thing- the selfish-in-a-good-self-aware-way reasoning....)And I do love kids,not being a parent allows me this nebulous place with kids, I relate to them as a kid cause that's the part I know.

Now Mr. Warch has no paternal desires at all. He had a hard childhood, was a very late child and his mother was ill and died early on. He was pretty much raised by his elderly dad, a saint, and he sees no way in hell to live up to that model of parenthood- give it all up, all your life for your kids. His father is dead now and he likes the loner, tiny family we have. To be honest, I think he doesnt have the emotional strength for that level of responsibilty. He also doesnt believe that he would be able to work as a musician, and would be pressured(he would guilt himself.) into a steady day job. So our family is two.

:)

You know, what pisses me off about a lot of discussions about this.. but not this one, because, this being The Cellar, we can discuss a controversial idea civilly.. (most of the time.. almost always...)...

What pisses me off is the idea that this subject matters, or that anybody should care.

What I mean is that the reason the childfree-by-choice folks get so worked up (Womblice?? :3eye: ) is that there are so many people who feel like it's your freakin' DUTY to go out and have kids. Even if you don't want to. Even if you can't afford it. Even if you know you're too damn lazy to get up from watching Monday Night Football to change a diaper. And, vicious circle-style, this somewhat selfrighteous and obnoxious rhetoric from a small minority of the more imflammatory non-breeders becomes very offensive to some parents. etc. etc. etc.

Did it ever occur to any of these nuts (on both sides) that they should just shut their mouths and mind their own business?


"Why can't we all just get along?"

I am hurt. :(

Heh. :)

Dont get me wrong... I do enjoy the wind in the leaves...
Its just my go go go corporate takeover lifestyle. but I can change.

In an ideal world. :)

I won't deny that us childfree folk violate the "natural order." And I think that's why some people don't like it...it's not "natural." Add those folks to religious zealots and you have a molotov ready to go.

Like I said in my original post, I feel sorry to a degree for militant cf folks...they've probably been pressured to no end by friends, family, and (indirectly) society. But as a whole, I find them immature, forgetting that they once were children themselves. I want no part of them and their rhetoric. Children running around like nuts in a Wal-Mart does irritate the hell out of me...but come on! Life is full of little irritations, most far worse than screaming children.

How are you parents handling this rash of child disappearances? Have your kids come to you with any questions or concerns? Have you talked with your kids about these cases as a whole?

I can't even fathom what it would feel like to have my own child snatched away from me. I can only imagine that it is one of the most incredible hurts that one could ever experience.

Nobody has anything to say? My own opinion is that there isn't a rash of child disappearances, but a rash of *news reporting* about child disappearances. The media learned that it could grab attention by showing us pictures of the kids every time it happens. The parents learned they had a better chance of recovering their kids if everyone in the nation was watching. Suddenly a new Crisis.

Definitely one worth reporting on. If one child gets returned, ever, because of all the media attention, then it was worth it.

I suspect you might be right on that UT...we'd have to look at the stats to see if there has been any sort of spike.

But if we go with that...why all of a sudden is the media gravitating towards these? An attempt to get us past 9/11 or the economy? Time filler? (After all, this is generally the slow season for news.) Sure, any disappearance is horrible, but in reality, who the fuck really cares if one girl was taken from the Los Angeles area? I would imagine that several more have disappeared since that girl was found dead.

But regardless of the why, I am curious as to how the kids themselves are feeling. When you're 8 years old, and you see this shit on TV, I would imagine that some are damned near terrified.

I don't doubt that the media has helped in these cases. However, I would argue that they could also be putting these kids in further jeopardy. If you have an unstable person taking a child, then he sees all the media coverage, he could be driven to harm the child when it originally wasn't the intention. Of course, it could work the other way as well, i.e. kick in the abductor's guilty conscience.

Child abductions are actually down.

Oh...we're just supposed to take your words as law, right, crackhead?

Just kidding. :) I've read about some of the stats...for a country as large as ours, the numbers seem incredibly low. A good thing, of course.

I don't think people should be locking their kids inside the house b/c of a few well-publicized kidnappings. But from what I understand so far about the girl here in Philadelphia, I believe it could have been prevented. This morning, it was reported that the girl was walking with a 5 year old friend outside at 9 in the evening. What I'm reading now says she was at a street corner shortly before 10pm (the two situations could certainly be related). In addition, I have not seen anything that says this girl was under adult supervision. If this is the case, what the hell is a 7 year old girl doing outside without an adult after dark in one of Philadelphia's worst neighborhoods? That seems like outright negligence.

I wonder how much of an impact sex offender or predator crime notification laws have had in reducing abductions. There was just a case here of a level 3 (they say the profile most likely to repeat) offender who broke probation and was reported approaching kids in a downtown park. I never heard if they caught him, but they plastered his picture all over and there was much on the news about tips for kids. So no news is good news.

Then there was a case a while back here of a 11 year old girl who reported her attempted abduction but she was found to be lying for the media attention. She got on the news.

One kid tip that I actually saw in use was the "code word" When I was teaching little ones, there was a family going through a legal battle- the kids got picked up on a schedule of the few approved people and if the plans changed, they were given a code word. some how they managed to make that work. Some sad shit, though.

I am a big believer in fear instincts and being loud. One interesting thing I've heard on some TV thang, which is counter to how I was taught, is Not to tell a kid in trouble or lost to find a cop (or an easily mistaken uniformed man, which is a ploy that has been used by offenders) but rather to run to the nearest woman who is far less statistically likely to be a predator. Geezz.

She lives there.

It just came over MSNBC...she was found alive and safe. :)

We know that already from the news...that wasn't my question.

Certainly the residents of Kingsessing know that it is not the best part of the city. As it is a rough area, I would think that many if not most residents would take precautions to protect themselves and their families. Common sense would seem to dictate that a 7-year old child should not be outside unsupervised after dark, ESPECIALLY in Kingsessing. So, if there was no supervising adult around, why not?

*Found* alive and safe"? She was a little more proactive than that. Got out of the duct tape she was bound with, broke though a locked door, and broke a window and called out to her friends in the street,

The newswire is giving the time of her abduction as around 9:40pm.. Not unreasonably late for a city kid to be playing outside with her friends in the summertime, IMHO. Especially one with this level of independance and initiative.

A lot of childraising is judgement calls based on your knowlege of your child. True, some folks have better judgement than others, but this could happen in *any* neighborhood.
It is admittedly somewhat more likely in a neighborhood like that one where the kids don't have nice yards to play in, making a grab easier to execute.

But that's why I said "She lives there." ...I *was* responding to your question. When kids have no place to play but the streets on a hot summer night, that's where you will find them.

On mirror: <i>"You are looking at the person responsible for your safety."</i>

I doubt she had <b>no</b> place to play. She could always play inside.

I would say that it's a bit irresponsible to be letting little girls outside by themselves in a big city late at night. What time does it get dark in Philadelphia? Before 9:40?

You seem to have no trouble saying "Look, maybe it wasn't illegal, but it sure was stupid" about people knocking on back doors when they're drunk... yet letting a child play outside in the big city so late at night is perfectly acceptable and not at all irresponsible? Yeah, it wasn't illegal to play outside, and she <b>should</b> be able to... but Philadelphia isn't a utopian city and it sure as hell doesn't make sense <b>to me</b> to let seven year old girls play outside, at night, in the city.

The news bulletin came over MSNBC as I was typing that post...that was the information given at the time. They didn't give more detail about the how until after 9.

If there was an adult present, I would agree with you. The adult factor was the premise of my original question. As smart as this kid was, she's still only 7.

I certainly wouldn't apply that to a 7-year old.

Good thing she did. :-)

I don't see how the "presence of an adult" would have made any difference here. These clowns knew that Grandmom had just come into the exact amount of their ransom demand from an insurance payment arising from the murder of Erica's uncle, who was evidently a drug dealer.

They put the snatch on her on the sidewalk outside her row home. How long does it take to grab a little kid, throw her in a car and speed away? What difference would her grandmom being outside have made?

You can demonstrate your superior judgement when it's your turn to raise kids. Oh...wait a minute...I forgot.

Perhaps she would have recognized them and been able to give the police the names of the kidnappers that night.

Or perhaps she was packing a Glock 21 and could have dropped their asses right there.

But that really doesn't suit your argument at all, so hey...

I'm curious...where did you hear that information? I did hear that the uncle had been murdered, but that the insurance policy stuff was rumor at this point...apparently the family is saying that they received no money.

You're right in that an adult presence might not have made a difference, however:

--An adult could have told her, "No. You're not going outside this late." and kept an eye on her if she tried to go outside.

--The presence of an adult could have been a deterrent to the kidnappers.

Dave also made a good point about recognition.

While I can't step in a parent's shoes, I don't think one being a parent or not is relevant in this situation. I think it is more an issue of common sense and good judgement, which I find lacking based upon the information known thus far.

Heh, agreed over here, but neither common sense nor good judgement are prerequisites for having kids. Too often, the opposite is true... ;)

Back on topic (sorry! heh): I'm childfree, myself, for pretty much the same reasons. I, too, like kids a lot, just don't want any of my own. I do, however, resent society & media being dumbed down to the least common denominator of offensiveness in the name of "family friendliness". Try watching a formerly rated-R on broadcast TV -- it's so chopped up with alternate dialog and cut out scenes that it's often hard to even follow the plot. Not real "friendly" to me, and that's just an example wrt media.

I guess that's my biggest beef as a childfree adult: having my world altered to suit parents. (Well, that and the constant "So when are you two having kids?" previously mentioned.) Regarding media, my hope is that, before long, technology will allow each viewer to watch whatever level of offensiveness they want, so everyone's happy. Of course, the fundies aren't happy unless they're controlling what *everybody* can watch...

True scene from weekend wedding in Phoenix. Spouse not there, but parents were. Mom finds moment to raise child topic.

Mom: "I really want to to see Jake, hes so cute."
(Takes me to my cousin's house to meet his wife and two year old son)
Me: "Hi Jake! Nice to meet you."
(Jake runs from the far end of the room and slams his fists into my abdomen)
Cousin's Wife: "Jake, be gen-tle.", "He's in this aggressive phase..."
Me: "Oh...well...hmm."
(Jake turns attention to torturing old complacent dog by tearing at his ears- dog yelps)
Mom: "He a cutie,(to me) doesnt it make you want one?!"
Me: "Oh, well...hmm."

Later when with Mom,
Me: "No, I just dont think its in the cards. We're still not planning on kids."
Mom: (Sighs and looks away with teary eyes)
Me: "Who needs a margarita?!" (leaves to find strong beverages)

From the coverage in The Inquirer, who did indeed say that was a rumor. Evidently the rumor was belevable enough for the perps to act on it.

I still don't think insisting a seven-year-old stay inside a Philly row house at 9:30 on a super-hot summer evening makes sense. These kids don't have yards to play in, the house was likely not air-conditioned, the sidewalk is their play space. Row houses are unbearably *hot* in the summer. This is a close-knit neighborhood, and a hue and cry was raised the instant these guys made their move.

The very same technique would have worked at a suburban shopping mall with adults around everywhere. In fact, the very same technique works *on adults* in suburban shopping malls.

I understand what you're saying Maggie. Yeah, Philadelphia rowhouses without A/C are unforgiving. But then you live at 60th and Kingsessing in SW Philadelphia...and it's dark out. Granted, each family situation is unique, but from my own personal experience at age 7, I had to be in by dark, unless my parents were sitting out in front of the apartment and I was right in front of the apartment. Truth be told, I don't know of many kids who didn't have to be in by dark at that age, and IMO, that seems like a bit too much freedom for a 7-year old. IMO, 7-year olds shouldn't be outside by themselves at Academy Rd. and Morrell Ave. or Haldeman Ave. and Tomlinson Rd. for that matter. At the very least, an adult should have been keeping an eye on these kids.

Apparently, most of the adults were at a block party that night, and these two girls were walking home from said party. One of those adults certainly could have accompanied them.

Sure it has. But if one can take preventative steps to reduce the chances of a kidnapping from occurring, then why not take them? No, they might not work, b/c some criminals are that daring. I don't know if you carry your gun all the time, but someone could still snatch you off the street even if you have it on you. That gun is your preventative and protective step. Better to do something than nothing, right? Given that her grandmother is her guardian and she is only 7, her grandmother could have had someone walk those children home. It might not have helped, but...

I'm licenced to carry, and the weapon is very small and light. Like the US policy on nukes, in any specifc case I will neither confirm nor deny. There are a few places (damned few, in this state) where it's not legal for me to carry. But I've been at pains to make it easier to carry than not to--draw your own conclusions. Point being I don't give up anything by carrying.

Instilling the idea in a child that they are in constant danger against which they are helpless and must rely upon others *is* giving up something. There's a constant balancing act between raising a child who's too big a risk taker, and one who cowers in a corner with her spirit broken.

It's an interesting question to think about: if Erica *had* been constantly supervised as you're advocating, would she have had the moxie to escape as she did?

(How dark *is* 60th and Kingsessing at 9:30 in late July..less than an hour after civil sunset? Street lighting in most row-house districts is fairly bright...this isn't the Great Northeast we're talking about)

Perhaps. Have you seen a report that she knew them well enough to identify them?
That's also a "perhaps". But, knowing how much it costs to use a shooting range in Philly, I doubt that even if grandmom was licenced to carry and even assuming that she had as expensive a gun as a Glock, that she would have been proficient enough to drop a hostage taker without seriously endangering the child hostage.

Have you ever shot a handgun against a "hostage shield" target? It's humbling.

I don't know. Would you be proficient enough to drop a hostage taker without endangering the child?

Probably not.

I can imagine some possible circumstances in which I'd feel justified in taking the shot, but in general, facing a hostage-shield situation at moderate range with my usual short-barreled handgun carry weapon: no.

I'd have to be confident of a near-perfect head shot with the first shot, with little danger of hitting the kid. I'd also consider shooting to disable their vehicle (windshield, tires) but the perps' record suggests that they were armed...and thus likely to hurt the kid if attacked.

That's why I said "it's humbling".

I don't see a child being escorted on a dark night in a bad neighborhood as "giving up" anything. You can certainly teach a child to not talk to strangers, get in a car with them, scream and holler, etc. But a 7-year old child is dependent on others for their basic needs...they're only going to be able to do so much for themselves. One of the things under the umbrella of basic needs is protection.

Not to mention, there's strength in numbers.

I am advocating that a 7-year old child should not be outside after dark without adult supervision.

I would think that she would still have the moxie for escape, whether supervised or not. For all we know, that's something she could have learned from the suspected drug dealers in her family. I don't deny the intelligence that a 7-year old can have. I'm amazed by kids sometimes...but as I already mentioned, a 7-year old is only going to be able to do so much.

Perhaps it is time to find out. :)

[quote]Originally posted by kbarger
You know, what pisses me off about a lot of discussions about this.. but not this one, because, this being The Cellar, we can discuss a controversial idea civilly.. (most of the time.. almost always...)...
What pisses me off is the idea that this subject matters, or that anybody should care.

Why? Discussing being childfree DOES matter, to some of us.

What I mean is that the reason the childfree-by-choice folks get so worked up (Womblice?? :3eye: ) is that there are so many people who feel like it's your freakin' DUTY to go out and have kids. Even if you don't want to. Even if you can't afford it. Even if you know you're too damn lazy to get up from watching Monday Night Football to change a diaper.

Exactly. It's that pushing of the "social script" that gets most CF-by-choice people (myself included) so "worked up".

And, vicious circle-style, this somewhat selfrighteous and obnoxious rhetoric from a small minority of the more imflammatory non-breeders becomes very offensive to some parents. etc. etc. etc.

Just as parents can get right nasty with the CF.

Did it ever occur to any of these nuts (on both sides) that they should just shut their mouths and mind their own business?

When the day comes when certain people within certain circles of society stops with the "be fruitful and multiply" chant, THEN maybe your wish will be granted.

[quote]Originally posted by MaggieL

Good thing she did. :-)
I don't see how the "presence of an adult" would have made any difference here.

Mmm...well, I sort of disagree. I'm thinking that an adult (or a couple of adults) could have walked the girl home from the house she was coming from. After all, that's how it USED to be done.

These clowns knew that Grandmom had just come into the exact amount of their ransom demand from an insurance payment arising from the murder of Erica's uncle, who was evidently a drug dealer.

True enough.

They put the snatch on her on the sidewalk outside her row home. How long does it take to grab a little kid, throw her in a car and speed away? What difference would her grandmom being outside have made?

Possibly none, but I am of the belief that the presence of adults would have had the abductors think twice about trying it.

You can demonstrate your superior judgement when it's your turn to raise kids. Oh...wait a minute...I forgot.

Totally uncalled for.

LOL, this is truly worthy of alt.support.childfree (on Usenet). Stories like this are commonplace.

*stews* People saw the child abusing the dog, and they did nothing???? Grrr...:mad:

[quote]Originally posted by MaggieL
I still don't think insisting a seven-year-old stay inside a Philly row house at 9:30 on a super-hot summer evening makes sense.

If a seven year old IS indeed outside at night, then there should be a SWARM of adults around. This should be common sense, IMO. Usually, in city neighborhoods, when kids are out at night, there are a TON of adults around to watch them. I've seen this more time than I can count (and I used to be one of those kids when I visited relatives in Baltimore City).

These kids don't have yards to play in, the house was likely not air-conditioned, the sidewalk is their play space. Row houses are unbearably *hot* in the summer.

Understood, but again, where was the adult supervision?