Selective Reduction

[G G Gunhold]

To people who had shitty parents and wish their parents had stopped at one, if for no other reason than to not bring more idiot people into the world, I am absolutely and honestly sorry. You have both my empathy for the situation you were born into, and my admiration for making it out of there in one piece.

My comment expressing frustration at people who choose to have only one child for convenience is explicitly aimed at people who THINK ABOUT IT and then make a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to have only one child but NOT because they think it is better for the child. I think it IS better for the child, all other things being equal (but if you asked me to pick between crappy parents with siblings and great parents as an only child, then yes, the second, duh!). You might not agree with my premise, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, nor does it mean I'm attempting to legislate the number of children you or any other person has or doesn't have. I'm saying I don't know that I could be friends with someone who made their choices like that. You might not want to be friends with someone who thinks I might not be able to be friends with that someone. That's fine.

So basically, you judge people who only have one child because you had a good upbringing with your siblings, a generous uncle, and have strong bonds with your siblings as an adult. Ok, we are all allowed our biases I guess, but you might want to just own them rather than ascribing some sort of pseudo scientific legitimacy to your off the wall opinions.

Also, since it is apparently all about personal experience, I learned about being nice and not hitting in daycare, does that make me magically less empathetic because I did not learn that lesson from being whacked by a big sister?

My upbringing WAS good and very privileged in a ton of ways (the adults in my life never purposely hurt me or let me be hurt) but not without enough complicated issues to employ a few good therapists for another ten years.

I DON'T judge people who have only one child. People have only one child for a million different reasons that are none of my damn business, even if I gave a rip about it. I specified that I'd have trouble with a friend who CHOSE to have only one child for no reason other than his/her personal CONVENIENCE and then TOLD me this. I don't go around asking after crap like that; I don't expect that everybody wants kids, or that everyone who wants them can have them, or that any of it is anything that I need to check up on. People (including my friends) can share or not share what they choose to.

Yes, I have biases. I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough in stating that. I also have no personal experience with being pregnant or having children, and my only friends who have been pregnant so far have been in situations where they didn't want a kid and chose abortion. A lot of what I'm saying is based on anecdotal/personal experiences, but that's also what most of the arguments against my view seem to be. Anecdotal "evidence" doesn't really give widespread credence to ANY side.

As for the "pseudo-scientific legitimacy" of my "off the wall opinions", what are you getting at? The anecdotal evidence is out? But since science is not yet at the point where it can clearly tease out the effects of siblings in a loving environment, should I ignore all studies with ramifications for kids? Should I have no opinions? Or only the ones held by you? Perhaps take a page from a fundie book and just go with the bible? One of the things I like about FJ is that people DO have opinions about child-rearing (and that these lean towards the universal condemnation of hitting/spanking/hurting children). For now I'm going to opt to keep reading the science out there and forming and reforming and adjusting opinions/views based on it. And my own biases will probably creep in, along with my lack of real world parenting experience. And then at some point I might be lucky enough to actually have kid(s) and I'll be with the many who curse their naive and opinionated past.

Daycare probably has some of the same advantages of siblings, plus other ones in being exposed to a wider variety of kids.

As a parent of an only child, by choice and for convenience, I find this to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on here. And that's saying something. Come on, that stigma that only children are somehow warped is so 1950's. I've read several recent studies that show that only children turn out fine- sometimes better than their peers. I don't know what kind of fantasy world you are living in where having brothers and sisters automatically gives you a great life. I have a brother and sister. I haven't spoken to my brother in over ten years and my relationship with my sister is strained at best. When my parents die, the responsibility will fall on one of us, namely me. The other two are just not involved. I've seen it happen this way time and time again -siblings don't always band together and take care of mom and dad in harmony. (In fact, I don't think I've ever seen that.) And I won't even go into the mess that an estate dispute can make in a family. I'm not saying that siblings are always bad, but neither is being an only child. My husband can barely stand his sister because she was always so strongly favored by his parents and became a really arrogant person because of it. I can't believe there are still people out there that think like this. Because I have only one child, he will always have things he needs and wants as well as fun opportunites that he couldn't have had otherwise. If we had another baby we would just be poor. Plain and simple. Poor -- but he would have a sibling -- that he might or might not get along with later in life. There are no guarantees.

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/newsfl ... 93080.html

I didn't say only children were warped. I didn't say they DON'T turn out fine. I said there were costs to the child, just as there are for having more children. There are also benefits, as you point out. For me, the cost-benefit comes down clearly in favor of siblings, but that's in part due to the assumptions about the parents who are trying to figure out the cost-benefits of having one or more children.

With an only child, there IS a guarantee that they will never either get along or not get along with their siblings. And that might be better than the unknown; I can certainly see why many people on here believe so. I certainly think it would be hellish to have parents who would favor one sibling over another, and damaging to both/all. I'm not convinced that those parents would have been all that great with only one child. I don't think having siblings gives you a great life any more than many other things; I explicitly stated that I thought with bad parents, siblings could make things worse. My fault for being so damn wordy! I need to learn brevity.

The bolded is where we might differ. And I worry about the effects of always getting what you want. In fact, I think there's some value in not getting everything you want, or finding that the cheap vacation can be as meaningful as the expensive one. Perhaps I'm just justifying or ascribing meaning to my own experiences. But I don't really think that's what you were getting at in your bolded sentence.

[Witsec7]

I really wanted to ensure the GG would never consider me a friend :D

I had one child only and for my own personal convenience.

[valsa]

My comment expressing frustration at people who choose to have only one child for convenience is explicitly aimed at people who THINK ABOUT IT and then make a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to have only one child but NOT because they think it is better for the child.

Exactly what is your definition of "convenience"? A parent that wants to sleep in? Parents who wants to be able to buy nice thing for themselves? Parents who don't want to split their finite time and attention between several children?

How is having a parent who is well rested, can pamper themselves a little, and is not stressed about having to juggle a million things at once NOT ultimately better for a child than the alternative.

[rock_girl]

Exactly what is your definition of "convenience"? A parent that wants to sleep in? Parents who wants to be able to buy nice thing for themselves? Parents who don't want to split their finite time and attention between several children?

How is having a parent who is well rested, can pamper themselves a little, and is not stressed about having to juggle a million things at once NOT ultimately better for a child than the alternative.

You're not a real parent if you sleep more than four hours a night. You're also not a real parent unless every material comfort is sacrificed in order to provide for the blessings.

What sort of mother would allow herself a pedicure or an afternoon at the shops when she could be at home catering to her litter's every whim?

[Witsec7]

You're not a real parent if you sleep more than four hours a night. You're also not a real parent unless every material comfort is sacrificed in order to provide for the blessings.

What sort of mother would allow herself a pedicure or an afternoon at the shops when she could be at home catering to her litter's every whim?

But you are a real parent if you have so many kids you have to stack them like cordwood on Costco shelves.

[rock_girl]

But you are a real parent if you have so many kids you have to stack them like cordwood on Costco shelves.

You present a compelling argument. So, the only real families are ones in which either parent or children suffer. If there's no suffering? It's not a real family.

[Vex]

As for only children, I think it's a cruel thing to do to a person purposefully, and it takes a lot of concerted effort on the part of parents to overcome the costs on the child.

How the fuck would you know, exactly, if you're not a singleton? The answer is you DO NOT. Your singleton friends' or family memebers' experiences do not equate to the experiences of all singletons. I'm the only child of my adoptive parents, and if I had had a sibling my parents could never have sent me to schools costing +$20,000 per year, I wouldn't have had the nice things that I did, and we never would have bounced back from financial hardship so quickly.

It is so much more cruel to have more children than you can handle, or bring children into the world you can't care for or afford. I CAN speak about that because my biological mother (who I know - I also know my two half-siblings now) was a teenage orphan with no money living in her grandmother's house. She gave me up so I could have a chance at a better life. It was unselfish and I am SO glad that she did that. My half-brother (who she got pregnant with not long after having me) had such a harder life than me, and it would have been my life were it not for her selfless decision.

And do you want a fucking medal for being policing the prejudices of your friends or something? If your friends are bigots, either ditch them or suffer their beliefs, but don't mention them as proof you're so goddamned principled and tolerant. All you've done is display incredible ignorance.

[G G Gunhold]

Bolded 1: You do realize asking someone to prove there is no unconscious trauma from losing a twin in utero is sort of like asking someone to prove there is no God, right? You're the one making the claim that there's this profound trauma, it's your burden to prove it.

Bolded 2: I'm not a moron. The environment a fetus is immersed in can affect it. However, you're claiming something very specific. You're claiming that there is a bond between two in-utero fetuses that is strong enough to cause significant trauma to one if the other is terminated before birth. That's a strong claim that requires strong evidence. Especially as most selective reduction takes place in the first trimester. Exactly how far along does a twin have to be for it to develop this bond? Is it okay to reduce to a singleton at as long as it’s before 3 months along?

Bolded 3: Actually, no- this is what you said:

You didn't just say you had a personal problem with it. You compared it cutting off an adopted child from their biological family for selfish reasons, to using a child as a weapon against an ex, and to dismissing a child's claim about being molested. You also said that you wouldn't be able to continue being friends with someone who did it. That's a hell of a lot stronger than just "I had some problems with it personally in some situations due to my own reading and experiences".

Bolded 1: Yes. My claim is that there is the potential for trauma. Not that there definitionally is. Not even that there likely is, or that it's severe. My claim is that there is the potential.

Bolded 2: And this is why I should probably follow initial links. I didn't realize that most selective reductions were done at that stage (though it makes sense). In my head, I was thinking about Twin To Twin Transfusion, which, IIRC becomes an issue later in pregnancy. Yes, that would affect my view of it. I'm sorry for not clarifying that I hadn't followed the link.

Bolded 3: I was trying to stay succinct, which clearly isn't my strong point. I do have strong feelings about it that aren't entirely rational due to my personal relationships with loved ones who have lost their twin. Similar very strong personal feelings cloud my views of the other examples as well. What appears to be back-tracking is clarification/expansion (some of it deleted from my first comment). I was careful in the words I chose initially: it was about my theoretical choice to be friends with someone making what I view as selfish parenting choices and then telling me about them. In response to your Bolded 1, in my rereading, I did state it was a personal problem with it inasmuch as who I'm friends with is a personal choice. I also acknowledged that selective reduction was a choice I hope never to have to consider. And I also made it as a theoretical statement, not a statement about any particular situation; perhaps that makes it more offensive.

You've expressed that you feel so strongly about specific, common parenting choices that you would end a friendship over them. Normally when people feel that strongly about something, they know where they stand and can answer specific questions about them. It doesn't matter to me, but I know that when people try to apply such extreme beliefs as "I would stop being friends with someone if they made x benign parenting choice" to real-life scenarios, they come up with amusingly arbitrary answers. Oh, and sometimes it makes them realize how ridiculous they're being. You, on the other hand, immediately adopted a more wavery position when your belief was questioned. You admitted that you probably wouldn't break off a friendship over one of the aforementioned choices, that there is zero proof for anything you're claiming, that your anecdotal evidence happens to not back up what you're claiming. All of which makes me wonder why you'd say that stuff in the first place if you know full well that you can't back it up and if you're going to take half of it back a few posts later.

Oh, and this:

You're claiming to know better than only children whether being an only child is a bad thing. Meda's pointing out the pitfalls her hypothetical siblings could have caused her in particular. Only one of you is being condescending, here.

Good point. This is probably the reason that most of my comments end up being insanely long and never posted. I have strong opinions, yes, but I don't assume I know all circumstances and contexts and so for me to give them, I generally have a long list of caveats and if/thens. Definitely see how that reads as immediately wavery, and I am sorry if that was disturbing to you or others. In this situation, I was trying to "play" more on the FJ board. I'm learning. As for me taking back whether or not I'd break off a friendship, that was more an acknowledgement that my projected self and my real self aren't one and the same. So yeah, people do things I find morally questionable, but most people are trying to do their best in trying circumstances and who am I to throw them under the bus or assume I know better than them or know their personal story that led them to where they're at?

I don't really want to only state my fully formed, completely immutable, I will make it LAW, to-the-death views. I find the grey areas (even if I take a definite stance in them) much more interesting, in part because there's more to learn from other people's views and their challenges to my position.

I apologize to Meda, to you, and to anyone else who read my statements about only children as passing judgment about only children themselves. I wasn't fully aware of the history of assumptions about only children that I was tapping into and how that would influence the way my words came across. I didn't mean to say or imply that only children are inherently bad or damaged (and I have clarified on that point repeatedly). I also know that if MY parents had stopped at me, I would have had a much harder and more unpleasant life and a lot more issues. Firstly, parents' helicopter tendencies/traits. Secondly, making sense of some of the hard stuff: family dying/death, moving around a bunch, race/identity issues. Thirdly, sense of belonging/family/stability/groundedness.

[G G Gunhold]

Just to clarify, I also have issues with people choosing to have large families (hence posting at FJ) with no regard to the consequences for children. Actually, put me down as being pretty cranky generally about parents who think their kids are there to be about them. Kids aren't props or accessories or playthings. They're not there to allow you to martyr yourself sacrificing for them or to sing your praises in raising them or to care for you in your dotage. Yeah, having kids at all is a fundamentally selfish choice, but once kids are around, they are individual people who may or may not fit whatever you thought you were signing up for. And they deserve respect and love and all that crap.

At any rate, I appreciate all the comments/feedback so far on the position(s) I took. It's given me stuff to think about in challenging my views. Additionally, I apologize if I hurt anyone (though I also get the sense that most people on here are pretty stellar at not giving a damn about some random hack whom they disagree with); I may have misinterpreted some of the social cues about how FJ functions -- it's been years since I was active in any forum.

[BlueChair]

Aside from all of the other issues related to your defense of your position, you sound like one of those truly charming judgmental people who can be absolutely insufferable to be around. Yeah, it's not just the religious right. It's anyone who makes categorizing people in this way part of their regular thought process. My mother is one of them and growing up in her household caused me to go through quite a process of unlearning that kind of thinking in my early adulthood. It was quite liberating and I'm glad I no longer have to view people through that narrow lens of who is and isn't worthy.

Look, I steer clear of racists, homophobes, and misogynists because I fundamentally disagree with them and how they treat and view others and loathe getting stuck in situations where I have to listen to their nonsense. I can't quite wrap my head around why a woman making a personal choice about her body and her future and the potential health and survival chances of her children puts her in the same category as the former. The others are projecting a worldview. She's making decisions for herself and her own family that have nothing to do with you or with anyone else.

Also, I think making the choice to selectively reduce in these kinds of situations is truly brave. People who choose to go this route are making an active decision in a situation where I think I would be crippled be fear and self doubt and would maybe fall back on the "wait and see what happens" passive approach because I wasn't strong enough to make a decision. She stood up and made a choice that would give her child the best possible odds for survival. I commend her for that. In my mind, that makes her an awesome parent.

[BlueChair]

One more thing...

I didn't see if you expressed if you are pro or anti-choice anywhere in this thread, but if you are anti-choice on this issue, then please don't claim to be pro-choice. Being pro-choice is exactly that, even when your personal sensibilities don't coincide with the other person's and you would do something differently if you were in her shoes. Choice is choice.

[Minerva]

I really wanted to ensure the GG would never consider me a friend :D

I had one child only and for my own personal convenience.

My partner's parents did the same, whereas my parents had a bunch of kids. As a result, the partner and I have had very different lives, and our personalities are very different. I'd never claim to be omniscient enough to know whose family structure was more advantageous to them.

[formergothardite]

You're not a real parent if you sleep more than four hours a night. You're also not a real parent unless every material comfort is sacrificed in order to provide for the blessings.

What sort of mother would allow herself a pedicure or an afternoon at the shops when she could be at home catering to her litter's every whim?

Well obviously if you aren't a mommy martyr you suck as a human being and don't deserve to be G G's friend. If, after having one child you think long and hard and decide that having more really wouldn't fit into your life for whatever reason(could be hey, I like having one kid and it really wouldn't be convient to have more), then obviously you are a bad, bad parent who is going to fuck your kids up forever. It would be better to have another one that you don't really want, then you can resent the new baby like my Grandma did when she had her second kid! Then you can be G G's friend! Yeah!

Despite having several siblings, my mom was the sole caregiver for her mother.

[Deleted03]

I really wanted to ensure the GG would never consider me a friend :D

I had one child only and for my own personal convenience.

it's so silly. If a friend asks me if I'm having children for my own personal convenience, I think it's going too far already and will stop talking to that person

who are you GG to say what motivates people and what people say vs actually do or think?

I was an only child and I want to have more than one child if anything to increase the likelihood there will be someone with them and not end up in my situation. But that is only my opinion, I am not choosing my friends according to how many children I have.

I see my best friends losing some of her friends because she wants 4 kids, because she wants to homeschool the first years of school and that just makes me so sad, why are people so focused on other people's choices???

Are you going to raise that child? are you going to have to deal with the consequences of those people's choices? No? then shut the fuck up, and go on your merry way.

It's so sad that in a culture where so many are already not supportive of your choices (why are you not BF, it's the best for your baby, don't you want the best? Why are you not (insert practice)? When those choices do not affect the physical integrity of a child, then they are only choices that I am not going to criticize because I'm not the one waking up in the middle of the night or stuck with those 24/7).

BTW a former co-worker just had twin girls, at 26 weeks. Her first children ever. Yes having twins increase the odds of prematurity. So if someone does not want to take that chance, I won't judge them. Would I make the same decision? Maybe not. (it applies on the reverse too, if someone does not want reduction with high multiples, then it is their choice, not mine. I do not think that most women are "rational" jacked up on embryos' hormones but that does not mean it's not up to them to choose what they want with their bodies).

[MonkeyMomma]

My comment expressing frustration at people who choose to have only one child for convenience is explicitly aimed at people who THINK ABOUT IT and then make a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to have only one child but NOT because they think it is better for the child. I think it IS better for the child, all other things being equal (but if you asked me to pick between crappy parents with siblings and great parents as an only child, then yes, the second, duh!). You might not agree with my premise, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, nor does it mean I'm attempting to legislate the number of children you or any other person has or doesn't have. I'm saying I don't know that I could be friends with someone who made their choices like that. You might not want to be friends with someone who thinks I might not be able to be friends with that someone. That's fine.

Here's the thing - I know you've expressed that you are not anti-choice, but what you're saying here sounds exactly like what anti choicers say ... about women who have abortions for "convenience." What really is wrong with a family deciding if, when, and how many children they have? What looks like convenience to you may actually be the physical, emotional, and financial limits for that family. How to you define "convenience"? When author Amy Richards told the NYT (magazine, I think) about her decision to reduce a spontaneous triplet pregnancy to a singleton, she was eviscerated by people. Because? She dared to admit that having more than the one child her family had been planning would so radically alter their life that they would have to move to a new area, away from the work she and her spouse were doing. She'd also have to give up her work. "Convenience!" the masses shouted. "Selfish!" Really? And do you really want people who are "selfish" (according to you) reproducing willy-nilly?

Also, there's been some lobbing of the word "studies, so I went looking for them.

A 1987 quantitative review of 141 studies on 16 different personality traits contradicts the opinion, held by theorists including Alfred Adler, that only children feel maladjusted due to pampering.[19] The study found no evidence of any maladjustment in only children. The most important finding was that only children are not very different from children with siblings. The main exception to this was the finding that only children are higher in achievement motivation, largely because their greater share of parental attention translates into increased parental scrutiny: This scrutiny, especially as compounded by only children's access to a greater share of parental resources, exposes them to greater absolute quantities of both reward when they exceed parental expectations and punishment when they fall short.[20] A second analysis revealed that only children, first-borns, and children with only one sibling score higher on tests of verbal ability than later-borns and children with multiple siblings.

Bernice Sorensen, in contrast, used qualitative methods in order to elicit meaning and to discover what only-children themselves understand, feel or sense about their lives that are lived without siblings. Her research showed that during their life span only children often become more aware of their only child status and are very much affected by society's stereotype of the only-child whether or not the stereotype is true or false. She argues in her book, Only Child Experience and Adulthood, that growing up in a predominantly sibling society affects only children and that their lack of sibling relationships can have an important effect on both the way they see themselves and others and how they interact with the world.

The latest research by Cameron et al. (2011) controls for endogeneity associated with being only children. Parents that choose to have only one child could differ systematically in their characteristics from parents who choose to have more than one child. The paper concludes that "those who grew up as only children as a consequence of the (one-child) policy (in China) are found to be less trusting, less trustworthy, less likely to take risks, and less competitive than if they had had siblings. They are also less optimistic, less conscientious, and more prone to neuroticism."

So really, the only disadvantages to only children are society's prejudice, or government regulation of the number of children (such as in China).