At my off-site last week, one of my co-workers was talking about the fact that she didn't want to have kids, and another one seemed almost offended by the notion. When Co-Worker A said she didn't think she'd make a good mother, Co-Worker B said, "You don't know that!" Worse was when another one, Co-Worker C, said he and his wife were thinking of adopting rather than having their own child because why bring another child into this world when there are so many kids out there who need a family? And, again, Co-Worker B became very adamant about her position, telling him there wasn't actually this huge glut of kids in need of adoption, and there were all these women who were unable to have children of their own, and here they were, able to produce a child but refusing to, instead taking from the stock of children that could go to women who couldn't have their own kids, and it's hard to mold a child taken in at the age of four, and...it was all very strange, and I was surprised neither one of them actually got pissy with her.

It certainly did not feel like it! We sat and chatted while the kids were playing like we've known each other forever.

Yeah, it did. And we'll definitely do that more. We'll be back in Michigan in July. *hint hint*

Pushy breeders are nobody's friend.

BWAH! I'm putting that on a t-shirt.

Maybe we humans just evolved the desire to make everyone else have kids because it gave us an advantage over groups of humans that didn't breed as much.

At my off-site last week, one of my co-workers was talking about the fact that she didn't want to have kids, and another one seemed almost offended by the notion.

Do these people who think that those who choose not to have children are judging them who have or otherwise invalidating their choice to have children? I do not get why people get so het up about other people's choices. Then again, these are probably the same people who think that Teh Gays getting married it will ruin it for the rest of us.

Not to say I haven't run into Assholeriffic Child-FREE folks. @@ Assholes are assholes, regardless of parental status, I guess.

One good thing about getting married at age 50? No "having kids" questions.

Co-Worker B said, "You don't know that!"

For starters, A would know far better than B does.

Sorry. B just hit one of my peeviest pet peeves there.

Assholes are assholes, regardless of parental status

Yup. There's far too much asshattery in the world to be confined to a single viewpoint.

[eta: Though I will say that, IME, "So, when are you having kids?" is a more socially acceptable form of presumptive nosiness than the other way around.]

I've gotten the "You are selfish for not having kids" argument.

It was a head scratcher for a long time until I realized that I was being selfish for not sharing in this particular mom's misery. Her kids are great...some of the best...but she's just the miserable type. So, my choosing not to have kids appeared to be making a statement about her choice, I guess.

eta: Huge apologies for the weird bolding. I thought I'd fixed the tag and then had to run out to see a client. Yikes. I hate committing that kind of faux pas.

I think there's still a strong cultural bias that contends that Parenthood is the right and natural role of adulthood. That people that don't choose it are selfish or immature or something.

I don't hold to that theory, but I think it's entrenched.

I do think that some people are so surprised by their experience of parenthood - in ways that they couldn't have anticipated - that they get shirty about people who decline to have children.

Bottom line: people should be respectful and not assholes.

In Cancer News:

*********

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Cancer deaths in the United States have dropped for a second straight year, confirming that a corner has been turned in the war on cancer.

After a decline of 369 deaths from 2002 to 2003, the decrease from 2003 to 2004 was 3,014 -- or more than eight times greater, according to a review of U.S. death certificates by the American Cancer Society.

The drop from 2002 to 2003 was the first annual decrease in total cancer deaths since 1930. But the decline was slight, and experts were hesitant to say whether it was a cause for celebration or just a statistical fluke.

The trend seems to be real, Cancer Society officials said.

"It's not only continuing. The decrease in the second year is much larger," said Ahmedin Jemal, a researcher at the organization.

Cancer deaths dropped to 553,888 in 2004, down from 556,902 in 2003 and 557,271 in 2002, the Cancer Society found.

Experts are attributing the success to declines in smoking and to earlier detection and more effective treatment of tumors. Those have caused a fall in the death rates for breast, prostate and colorectal cancer -- three of the most common cancers. (Watch a Harlem doctor's fight to care for poor women )