Please Don’t Ask Me When I’m Having Kids


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, amykeim said:

My goal with this article was to say that it’s not anyone’s business why you do or don’t have kids yet; it wasn’t to advocate not having (or even postponing) children—although truthfully, I think if someone is choosing to do so, it’s also not really my business and that’s not something they need to reveal to me. But really, my intent was to say, “Hey, this aspect of a marriage is really personal and questions about it shouldn’t be tossed around in casual conversation—especially because we never know the background of a couple’s situation and why they do or do not have children.”

I really believe everyone understood that, Amy. I don't think your meaning was lost. I suspect we all agree that (1) it's none of anyone else's business whether, when, and how many children you have and (2) such questions should not be "tossed around in casual conversation".

Where myself and some others are not on board is the idea that it's somehow never acceptable for anyone ever to ask another couple about their child-bearing plans. It's a touchy subject, of course, and obviously there are many couples who struggle with fertility issues and who might take offense and be hurt in the face of such a question. Nevertheless, we are a social people, and we should be involved in each other's business to some healthy degree. In any culture where people care about each other and about each other's children, asking about child-bearing is so natural that I can't imagine any healthy culture where it's not done in some form. If we seek to eradicate any discussion or asking about each other's childbearing plans, I think we lose some extremely important social elements to encourage intimacy in friendships. I think we Americans and others of related western European cultures are especially bad at this, and we could use some lessons in desensitization and not being triggered into a flood of tears or a torrent of offense every time someone asks us about having children. Sure, some people do it badly, and some are simply rude. But let's not (forgive the metaphor) throw the baby out with the bath water.

As for the idea that perhaps you suggested people ought not have children, I don't think any of us were saying that, either. Rather, I commented on your statement that you and your husband had not felt led by the Spirit to have children yet. I found it a curious statement. Now, I don't know (or want to know) your intimate situation, and I'm the first to admit I cannot (and don't want to) be your judge on the matter. There may be legitimate reasons why you feel you need a revelation before you allow pregnancy to happen. But as a general rule, I think it's astounding that a Latter-day Saint would expect a revelation on something like having children before acting on it. To me, that seems like asking for a revelation on whether we should pursue a college degree or get a job or eat when we're hungry. It would make more sense to pray about whether we should NOT do such things, because they are a normal, natural part of existence, and are in fact great blessings that we are expected to seek after. I certainly hope that my own married children don't wait on receiving special instructions from God before starting to have children. That's all I was commenting on, and it was not directed toward your situation directly, but toward the general idea that your words raised in my mind and that I have seen occasionally in the Church among the young marrieds of the rising generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mores said:

Fair There was always adoption since time immemorial.

Not everyone can adopt either. It's not just going to the orphanage to pick a kid anymore. Quite possible that the same health issues preventing the couple from having kids could be physically, psychologically and/or financially disqualifying them from adopting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My family has for many decades wanted me to adopt. Actually from the various deputations that I have received, any method of obtaining a child would be acceptable. Kidnapping would, I suspect, be tolerated. The latest visit that I had from my brother brought up, ‘Why not foster?’. If you are female in my family, you are expected to produce at least one child.

At family gatherings, we put the children in the Center of room and just gaze at them in deep satisfaction. 

But not everyone can raise a child. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, amykeim said:

I would like to say, for the record, it literally never crossed my mind that this article was saying, “It’s okay to not have kids” or “It’s okay to postpone kids until you’re more financially settled.” I think the Lord has commanded us to have children and that having children even when we don’t feel ready, but feel that it’s what the Lord wants for us, shows great faith. On a personal note, I have a lot of health issues that have put me in a position where I don’t think I could take care of a child right now—I felt that was important to include in the article because it serves as an example of a situation that someone might not see on the surface. 

My goal with this article was to say that it’s not anyone’s business why you do or don’t have kids yet; it wasn’t to advocate not having (or even postponing) children—although truthfully, I think if someone is choosing to do so, it’s also not really my business and that’s not something they need to reveal to me. But really, my intent was to say, “Hey, this aspect of a marriage is really personal and questions about it shouldn’t be tossed around in casual conversation—especially because we never know the background of a couple’s situation and why they do or do not have children.”

So...you see a nice person at church. They are married and female. You want to make a connection. How do you do this?

Sounds like a case for a list!

Suggestions: Love your shoes! Love your purse! But a guy can’t really say this sort of thing.

So you are a male, what can a man say to a married woman to encourage conversation? How about, ‘So nice to see you here! I don’t think we have met. I am Fred. In charge of setting out chairs. Do you have a calling? No? Well your calling is to be you. You are seem to be doing a great job of that!’ Would the previous be acceptable? If not, what would you like the person to say? A lot of people crave human connection. We don’t spend a lot of time hanging out in bars so Church is our time to make connections. 

Edited by Sunday21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
9 hours ago, amykeim said:

My goal with this article was to say that it’s not anyone’s business why you do or don’t have kids yet;

And that is a valid point.  All the people that repeated and supported it have a valid point.

Here's my point.  It's no one's business why I'm sad today or happy today or energized today or tired today.  But people ask because they have an interest in you.  If you're a part of their lives, they ask when they see something outside of normal parameters.

While there are always boundaries and subjects that are off limits, the idea that having children is in that "off limits" category is a recent cultural development.  The older generation (and those of the younger generation that still adopt that from their parents) don't see it as off limits.  Thus, a culture clash.

I believe that the real problem is, unfortunately, that people are not simply "interested".  They are busy bodies.  They often give reactions that are judgmental and tend to shame the person in question.  Well, we've all gone down that road with many social subjects in this era.  And there will always be topics like this as cultures develop.

While I might understand some topics are moving into and out of that off limits category, we have to take a step back and look at what is going on.

Nowadays, it is very common for people to ask if an unmarried couple has slept together yet.  Yes, outside of conservative or religious circles, it is common.  It is accepted.  It is not off limits.

Imagine how soon we'll be at the point where an expectant mother is not allowed to tell her closest friends that she's pregnant because she might make her friend feel shamed or sad because she can't have a child or simply doesn't have one yet.  Take a look at what passes for "shaming" nowadays.  Can you really see that not happening?

I think everyone needs to work on being more sensitive and empathetic towards others.  But that works both ways.  The person hearing the question may need to be more empathetic and sensitive to the one asking the question.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
3 hours ago, NightSG said:

Not everyone can adopt either. It's not just going to the orphanage to pick a kid anymore. Quite possible that the same health issues preventing the couple from having kids could be physically, psychologically and/or financially disqualifying them from adopting. 

Again, can we all agree on the 0.1% exceptions and just discuss the rule?

I have a relative that fit all those problematic criteria that you mentioned.  But he and his wife were able to adopt.  It took a long time.  But they did it.  So, even with the exceptions, I believe there are a lot fewer exceptions than one might believe.

NOW to the point:  If you see all my posts on this thread, I'm not talking about those who CAN not.  I'm talking about those who WILL not.  And when that happens, it is most often due to selfish reasons.

That said, @amykeim has clarified her position as focusing mostly on the concept that the decision is simply one's own (or per the couple).  I absolutely agree.  I'm not EVER going to tell them that they MUST have children or they're going to hell.  And out of politeness, I probably would never ask them the question anyway unless I knew them really well -- simply because I'm aware of this cultural shift.  And it would be considered butting in nowadays to ask such a question.

But as a matter of philosophical position to be put on a public forum for discussion purposes only, I was stating that if one makes such a decision because of the reasons I stated, it is a selfish (and it wouldn't take much to convince me it is also misguided) decision.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
10 hours ago, person0 said:

My wife and I went through a similar ordeal in life.  In our case, however, we never ran into a situation like that with our bishop, because when people asked us about kids we would straight up tell them that we are physically unable to have children.

I think in a way, that might have been easier, but we didn't know what to tell people.   At the time, it really isn't something we wanted talk about.

In a way I think it might have been easier if we could just tell people that we were physically unable to have children and leave it at that, but we were able to have children; it was just hard.  If people asked, we'd just say we're working on it.

That was years ago.  It's easier to talk about now.

Quote

In all honesty, though I don't know all the details, I will admit that my initial reaction is to be somewhat judgemental of your situation, if only because, unless your bishop was newly called, the fact that he had no idea what was going on at all seems very unusual. When my wife and I started the process to go through LDS Family Services for adoption, we immediately told our bishop that we would likely be looking to him for certain steps in the process.  If you had not been going through the specific ordeal you faced, the Bishop would have been right to interview you in such a way.  Hence, he was in the right, because he didn't know, and this led him to the information that he then gained about your circumstances.

Yes, it may seem unusual and it was unusual.   I hope this doesn't make anyone uncomfortable, but I will explain a bit on the situation.

Here's what was going on:

Since my wife was a young teenager, her period days were the reverse of what is normal.   In a normal menstrual cycle, a woman will menstrate 3-5 days a month and then the cycle would be repeated the next month (or more accurately approximately a month).

My wife however, would menstruate for 30 days and then get a three day break of not menstruating before the next 30 menstruation would begin.   Since she'd loose too much blood and tissue, she had to be on birth control since about age 14.  She still has to be on birth control at age 47 even though her tubes were tied 15 years ago (under medical advice).  We're probably one of the very few couples who can't wait until she hits menopause.

My wife could only go off birth control for short periods of time without very serious health risks (it's still the same to this day). It was frustrating because we would try to conceive and then she would have to go back on birth control.   We would try for her to go off birth control for longer periods of time (up to a few months), but it didn't work and she would have to go back on.  This went on for several years.  It was really frustrating and was really painful, especially for my wife.   She wasn't offended in any way when people would ask us when we were having kids, but she was really depressed about it and it would make her sad.    It wasn't about being offended, but just a reminder of her situation.  We'd just say that "we're trying" and try to leave it at that, but we had to do this for several years.  We really couldn't say that we were unable to have children and we didn't want to explain why it was taking so long.

 As far as LDS Social Services go, we hadn't approached the bishop yet because LDS Social Services was still trying to decide if we qualified as infertile or not and thus if we were eligible for the program.   We were stuck in a gray area.   We really weren't infertile, but it was very hard to conceive.  Technically being on birth control made us ineligible, but we had unusal circumstances and good reasons.  We were kind of stuck between fertile and infertile.  LDS Social Services was in the process of determining our eligibility and this took quite a while.  We could have gone to the bishop earlier, but we were waiting for the decision on eligibility.  At the time it wasn't something that was easy to talk about.  It would be easier now.

My intention isn't to shame the bishop.   As mentioned, he was a good man and felt really bad after he found out what was going on, especially since my wife just miscarried after trying all those years.  It was really bad timing.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NightSG said:

Not everyone can adopt either. It's not just going to the orphanage to pick a kid anymore. Quite possible that the same health issues preventing the couple from having kids could be physically, psychologically and/or financially disqualifying them from adopting. 

Not to mention that adoption can be very expensive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores

Consider the following questions and see where you draw the line.  Imagine moving into a new ward and someone comes to shake your hand and  wants to get to know you.  Imagine questions about family come into the discussion.

  • So, are you married?
  • How long have you been married?
  • How old are you?
  • Do you have kids?  How many?  How old?

So far, I don't see anyone getting triggered by any of these questions.  It is the following where 30-40 years ago, they were not triggering.

  • No kids?  Are you planning on any?
  • Are you thinking about adopting?
  • When are you planning on having kids?

Today, triggering.  30-40 years ago, not.  Why?  Because of the lingering cultural norms from 50 years ago.

Consider for a moment that while these are considered intrusive questions, I'd ask if these questions would even be asked 50 years ago.  I don't think they would.  Why?  Because everyone wanted to have children.  Everyone had children soon after marriage.  Anyone who couldn't would consider adopting.  So, no questions were asked because this was the natural course of things.  It would be like asking if someone was looking for marriage when they became an adult.  That's why moms and dads were "worried" about their offspring not being married by a certain age. That is what sparked Brigham Young's infamous phrase about a menace to society.

But when the culture shifts to NOT doing any of these things BY FREE CHOICE, then this is going to clash with a different culture that expects these things as much as buying a house with indoor plumbing.

You don't have indoor plumbing?  Do you have money to install a system?  When are you getting that installed?  Do you need help with finances to get that done?  Can you see how this could be a line of questioning about concern and willingness to help rather than being meant to hurt or offend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not to threadjack, but for the last couple of years as I’ve read Pahoran’s epistle I’ve had the feeling that he was manipulating Moroni, just a bit.  Not that Pahoran was a bad guy; but he had an agenda, he wasn’t sure Moroni would buy into it, and he thus used Moroni’s own words to more-or-less compel him to do Pahoran’s bidding.  Again—not necessarily a bad thing; but the guy strikes me as having been a consummate politician. 

Not...cynical...at.....all.......... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Vort said:

(1) it's none of anyone else's business whether, when, and how many children you have and

I, for one, think that any time anyone says, "It's none of anyone else's business" concerning any given thing there's a problem with the approach.

The phrase, itself, doesn't fit what the gospel is about.

8 hours ago, Vort said:

and we should be involved in each other's business to some healthy degree.

Which idea contradicts the phrase "none of anyone else's business".

8 hours ago, Vort said:

whether we should pursue a college degree

I don't think this one fits in with your others. Not any longer.

Total tangent, but there are some very, very good reasons why many people should forgo college degrees in today's day 'nd age.

Maybe another thread opened on this debate would be appropriate. ;)

 

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mores said:

I think everyone needs to work on being more sensitive and empathetic towards others.

Probably another tangent and perhaps another thread as well...but I agree with the first (sensitive), but not the second (empathetic).

It's not so much that I'm anti empathy or something. It's just that in the overall scheme of mortality, I think sympathy, kindness, patience, forbearance, charity, etc., are much more important than empathy.

Why?

Because empathy is simply not possible in so many cases. Empathy is: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another (Oxford Dictionary). I don't believe we, as mortals, really have the ability to understand how people "feel" about some things. And I certainly don't believe we're capable of sharing those feelings in most cases. Nor do I believe understanding or sharing feelings is a prerequisite to sympathy, kindness, patience, forbearance, charity, etc.

/tangent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Probably another tangent and perhaps another thread as well...but I agree with the first (sensitive), but not the second (empathetic).

It's not so much that I'm anti empathy or something. It's just that in the overall scheme of mortality, I think sympathy, kindness, patience, forbearance, charity, etc., are much more important than empathy.

Why?

Because empathy is simply not possible in so many cases. Empathy is: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another (Oxford Dictionary). I don't believe we, as mortals, really have the ability to understand how people "feel" about some things. And I certainly don't believe we're capable of sharing those feelings in most cases. Nor do I believe understanding or sharing feelings is a prerequisite to sympathy, kindness, patience, forbearance, charity, etc.

/tangent

If that were true, I'd agree with you.  But from personal experience, I have learned to listen to others enough to really feel what they are feeling (AFAIK).  And through the Spirit, we can truly understand and feel what they feel.

This is why Jesus wept.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mores said:

If that were true, I'd agree with you.  But from personal experience, I have learned to listen to others enough to really feel what they are feeling (AFAIK).  And through the Spirit, we can truly understand and feel what they feel.

This is why Jesus wept.

Hmm. I think you need to stretch a bit on that.

Take an extreme example and consider...say.....how Jeffry Dahmer felt about cutting boy's heads off and keeping them in his fridge.

Haha.

Okay. A bit too extreme maybe. But the point remains. Some people think and feel in ways that I will never understand in mortality.

And whereas I can accept that through the Spirit we can theoretically understand all things, I don't believe, as I said, that a perfect understanding of how another person feels about something is a prerequisite to compassion. Therefore I put the importance of empathy down the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When someone asks why you're sad, there's at least a moderate chance that the answer may give them information they can use to help out. 

What help is anyone other than a urologist or OB/GYN going to offer with conception? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Some people think and feel in ways that I will never understand in mortality.

Psychosis moves well into the "gazing long into the abyss" territory. If you can't empathize with someone who has suffered a serious loss, on the other hand, you should probably rethink your assessment of your own mental health. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NightSG said:

If you can't empathize with someone who has suffered a serious loss

I think what's more realistic is to discuss how someone who thinks rationally on any given subject can empathize with someone who is thinking irrationally on any given subject, and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
43 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. I think you need to stretch a bit on that.

Take an extreme example and consider...say.....how Jeffry Dahmer felt about cutting boy's heads off and keeping them in his fridge.

Interesting that you would use that example.  The fact is that most serial killers (whether psychotics or sociopaths) have a lack of empathy.  That is what allows them to go through with it.  They only think about the benefit to themselves.  But to consider the pain of another... that just isn't what they do.

I'm having a vague memory of an interview with some serial killer -- it may have been Dahmer -- where he was asked if he thought about the pain he was causing.  He responded,"No, of course not.  If I thought of that, there would be no way I could have gone through with it."

Quote

Haha.

Okay. A bit too extreme maybe. But the point remains. Some people think and feel in ways that I will never understand in mortality.

And whereas I can accept that through the Spirit we can theoretically understand all things, I don't believe, as I said, that a perfect understanding of how another person feels about something is a prerequisite to compassion. Therefore I put the importance of empathy down the list.

That is why I added the point about the Spirit.  I believe Charity is a gift of the Spirit.  And to truly be one, we need the Spirit to also grant us true empathy.

Earthly empathy example:

Did you ever see the Vin Diesel movie The Pacifier?  There was a scene where he confronted one of the kids he was protecting.  The teen said that he didn't tell anyone about being in drama club.  But he felt it was what he really believed in doing.  The response from Diesel's character was something like:

Quote

I may not understand much about this kind of stuff.  But I know everything about not giving up on something you believe in.

Christ's empathy:

Jesus came to raise Lazarus from the dead.  Everyone else thought it was hopeless.  There was no faith in anyone but the Lord, himself.  Jesus wept.

Some claim that Jesus wept due to the lack of faith around Him.  Others say He wept because it showed how close he was to Lazarus.  Those interpretations are problematic  for a variety of reasons.  I choose a different interpretation.

Even though He knew that Lazarus was about to be brought back, and even though He knew that all those around would have an increase in faith and many more would be drawn to Him, He still wept.  Why did He weep?

I believe Jesus wept because for just a moment, he felt what Mary and Martha felt.  They felt deep loss.  There was no loss on the part of Jesus.  Lazarus would be back in just a few hours. But He wept for a problem that would be solved in mere moments.  Godly empathy allowed him that grief even when he knew much better about all that happened.

Regardless of whether you share this interpretation, I believe you get the point that the Spirit can let us truly feel what others feel.  And we can be one with all Children of God.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
11 minutes ago, NightSG said:

When someone asks why you're sad, there's at least a moderate chance that the answer may give them information they can use to help out. 

What help is anyone other than a urologist or OB/GYN going to offer with conception? 

Believe it or not, I was able to help someone with that very issue.  And I'm not a urologist or OB/GYN.  But for the record, it was because I was close friends with them that I was even involved with the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mores said:

Interesting that you would use that example.  The fact is that most serial killers (whether psychotics or sociopaths) have a lack of empathy.  That is what allows them to go through with it.  They only think about the benefit to themselves.  But to consider the pain of another... that just isn't what they do.

I'm having a vague memory of an interview with some serial killer -- it may have been Dahmer -- where he was asked if he thought about the pain he was causing.  He responded,"No, of course not.  If I thought of that, there would be no way I could have gone through with it."

The point remains. How can someone who has some level of empathy empathize with someone who has no empathy?

And yet, we can still have compassion, forgiveness, love, and kindness -- even to the likes of Dahmer.

1 minute ago, Mores said:

And to truly be one, we need the Spirit to also grant us true empathy.

I don't agree with this. To truly be one we need to come unto Christ. Those who choose not to come unto Christ will not be one, and I have no obligation to share in every feeling, evil or good, that other's experience. I have an obligation to serve and obey.

Now I will grant that at the broadest level we can empathize. As in, oh...you have some inclinations towards evil? I've had inclinations towards evil too. But I'm not entirely sure that's what people really mean when they're talking about having empathy.

"I got mad because someone murdered my child" is not the same as "I got mad because my wife refused to squeeze the toothpaste from the bottom!"

But maybe I have these views on empathy because I suck at it so bad, and I'm just trying to justify that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The point remains. How can someone who has some level of empathy empathize with someone who has no empathy?

And yet, we can still have compassion, forgiveness, love, and kindness -- even to the likes of Dahmer.

Okayyyyy... You're taking a tangent that wasn't even on my radar.  I was referring to having empathy with a wide range of people in a wide range of circumstances and a wide range of opinions and positions.  Such range does not include a tendency to become a serial killer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Mores said:

Okayyyyy... You're taking a tangent that wasn't even on my radar.  I was referring to having empathy with a wide range of people in a wide range of circumstances and a wide range of opinions and positions.  Such range does not include a tendency to become a serial killer.

But it should, no?  

Okay, okay... so I just got done watching Zac Efron as Ted Bundy - the Mormon serial killer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

What help is anyone other than a urologist or OB/GYN going to offer with conception? 

This is a weird question.  What help is anyone other than an oncologist going to offer with cancer?  What help is anyone other than an orthopedic going to offer a broken foot?

Empathy, sympathy, a listening ear, old wives' tales, make them honorary aunts/uncles so they can enjoy my babies anytime they want, especially during diaper change time and sacrament meeting ;).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see it from both (multiple?) points of view. 

For the childless couple, it can be hard to talk about, bringing feelings of sadness, shame, regret, etc.  And that isn't something most people open up to with acquaintances. But that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't still talk about it with others.  You might find someone who has some great insight, or even just a shoulder to cry on.  Talking about difficult things can strengthen relationships.

For the asker, they may be genuine in their question.  They may want to build a relationship.  Or, they may be so extroverted that they ask every question that crosses their mind without thinking of the impact.  To me, asking something like this would be like asking "Do you or your spouse have any interesting birthmarks?"  Sure, that might be interesting to know, but it's a boundary I wouldn't cross.  Others aren't as reserved.  

If you are asked any question you feel is too personal, it is OK to say so.  Be sure to be clear though.  A few months ago, my wife had gone to the temple with a friend.  On the drive home, she asked my wife a very personal question and my wife responded "I'm not comfortable talking about that." So the friend shared a personal story of her own and asked again.  My wife's response was the exact same. "I'm not comfortable talking about it."  The friend shares another personal story.  After the fourth time, my wife finally gave in.  After my wife shared, the friend asked if my wife felt better.  My wife said "No, I didn't want to talk about it."  When my wife said "I'm not comfortable talking it" her friend heard "If I feel more comfortable, I'll talk about it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share