Having children after the ''event''

So it's happened, our current society has collapsed and you are now surviving out in the wilderness or wherever you have made your home. What do you think about bringing new life into the world under these circumstances? Is it too dangerous? Or do you think it is necessary to keep the population going?

 

If you start finding reasons to delay breeding you will never breed as things won't be right ever!
Your old age will depend on how many decendants can support you!
As many children will fail to make it to adulthood many more children will need to get a start!
Up until a hundred years ago women would pop out up to 15 children, many of those children died before getting to breeding age!
And many mothers died in childbirth!

I say breed and breed many your aged pension depends on it!
Oh yeah a barren woman is next to worthless!
A woman who gives her man many sons has value!
etc etc!

 

Haha, you realise that in absence of modern medicine, couples have next to nothing influence on sex of their children? Ir's practically determined by random chance

 

I'm confused by this? You can't decide the sex of your child even with modern medicine. The only way to do it is to pay for very expensive fertility treatments and I think it's actually illegal to do that in the UK anyway. What modern medicine are you talking about that influences the sex of a child?

 

Well you've answered your own question, when you get an IVF treatment you can basically choose the sex of the offspring - I'm sure it's legal in several countries, not sure if US too, others ban it altogether or limit to cases when parents are carrying genes for a gender-related hereditary disease.

 

Like Keith says, I wouldn't risk having a baby post event. My daughter was born after a three day labour which in itself is enough of a reason not to want to bring a baby into a world without strong painkillers But I suffered a fair few complications in pregnancy, and the worst thing was pre eclampsia that made my blood pressure so high that if I didn't get to the operating theatre in time for a c-section I might have had a stroke or gone into a coma. I don't see it as my duty to ensure that the human race continues, and if I die as the last human to grace the Earth then I will be ok with that. I wouldn't want to bring my children into such an unstable environment anyway and to give them the pressure of continuing the repopulation (especially as that would potentially require them to commit incest).

 

First thing that came to mind: "Did a dingo eat your baby?"
Seeing as how I don't want children ever, giving birth post-apocalypse is a huge no-no for me. I think it would be incredibly dangerous to give birth in a world that has little medical aid and no pain relief. Besides, carrying a squalling babe around when there could be dangerous folk looming is like firing off flares every five seconds. And then to try and raise a child in that kind of environment? It's doable, but there'd probably be so much disease and famine going around that the baby would die before even getting a healthy immune system.

 

It's definitely not in the slightest way ideal to bring a child post apocalypse. Scarcity of food, the danger, shelter, anything that a newborn child needs is hardly accessible unless of course, you are well prepared and have supply of food that will help you get through for years and years, then by all means, have as much babies as you can. Lol

 

Deleted due to feelings

 

This is a bit concerning, you find the idea of rape funny??

 

I've heard this too, if the woman is lying on her back the birth canal isn't open enough, it's better to squat or be on your knees.

 

Deleted due to feelings

 

Personally @Arkane I find it troublesome that you think these posts are in any way conducive to a reasonable discussion about our expectations post collapse. The hit and run rapist in today's society is a rare occurrence, the majority of rapists are people the victim knows such as a family member or spouse. The rapes which do happen outside of these boundaries are either rape as a weapon of war, or the rare instances of being raped by a stranger. If the economy collapsed and only a small percentage of people survived, those people would still be the same people that are alive today, and the percentage of people who will rape women will diminish by the same amount. Rape is not done as a desperation for sex or to sew a man's seed, it is done as an act of aggression. So our chances of being raped should be statistically the same, or marginally higher because would-be rapists who only don't commit the crime because of the potential punishment of prison would have an extra excuse - but I think those rapists are few and far between, as a rapist could kill or drug the victim to avoid identification if he was so inclined.

We were not answering the question "Would we keep the baby if we were raped after the event", we were asked the question whether we would choose to reproduce in order to repopulate, as in a hypothetical "If you had a choice..." scenario. I don't think it was good etiquette to then mock all of the women in the thread who answered the question as it was asked for not simply replying, "No I won't make the choice because I will be repeatedly raped and impregnated by barbaric idiots".

 

Sorry

 

For me, it would depend on the situation of the world. If it was a super dangerous place with a lot of wars going on, or the possibility of being put into slavery, I wouldn't want to have children and risk them suffering in inhumane ways. However, if it was just a survival situation like the Swiss Family Robinson, then I would be fine with having children and preserving the population. But, if there is no birth control, I guess I would let God decide if I was going to have a baby. Then again, I guess he kind of already does that anyway.

 

I don't agree that a barren woman is worthless. A woman, with or without a child, can offer a lot to society. The sole purpose for the existence of a women is not to bring children to the world. There is no sole purpose. I agree that having children would be the best way of ensuring someone will take care of you when you can't take care of yourself. But that's a little selfish way to think about it.

 

There are times when you have to think about the quality of life your children will have. If you can hardly care for yourself because things are that bad then you certainly don't want to have children so they might suffer by your side. Why have kids and have your heart broken watching them die? However if there's some hope the future won't be all that bad then get married, have kids and repopulate the earth.

 

No modern world means no birth control either, so inevitability babies will be made. It would surely be more dangerous to have an abortion than to give birth, The infection rate would sky rocket. Pregnancy would be a death sentence for a woman who's had a previous cesarean.

 

not a sure death sentence unless there is a deformity!
Not a picnic either!

 

To make a pop culture link to this, albeit a little reluctantly lol, I always think of the Walking Dead when I think of this scenario. When Lori has her baby and then is ripped to shreds and the father is left to care for a new baby without the milk and the help of the mother.... even thinking about it gives me goosebumps. I'm not sure the likelihood of a zombie 'event' is there but it's still frightening nonetheless to imagine, and it wouldn't, in reality, be much different from any other catastrophic event where medicinal institutions collapse.

So as a woman, imagining having a child and then dying and leaving my group to fend for the baby is really, really frightening and I'd want to avoid it at all costs! It's sad to think about, because I do want to have kids of my own one day.

 

I think it would be your duty to propagate and make sure your species advance to the next generation, no matter what the costs. I think you have to be able to make a livable community, a community that will probably create a genesis of man's civilization after the event that ruined the past. I think you wouldn't have a choice in the matter, because assuming you are the last two people on earth, it's either both of you would die and humanity is no more, or you can start over, and hopefully create a hospitable environment for future generations before your time passes in this world. But that's just my opinion though.

 

I don't think it's anyone's "duty" to have children. Because, "duty" to who? If my species is wiped out apart from me and one fertile man, no one is going to care whether or not we take our species to the grave with us. The other side of the coin is that creating new life means needed extra resources to survive. On top of fighting for your own survival in a post apocalyptic world, you suddenly have a tiny child that needs carrying everywhere you go. A child that you brought into the world simply to give them the unnecessary pressure of fulfilling a "duty" to continue repopulating the earth. I couldn't hate my unborn child enough to think it was the right thing to do to give them that life.

 

If there is no sustainable society, I would not have children, I would look for a colony because the current way of life that we have built under the rule of law is the best method to have children under. I would not want to have kids just to tell them later that the chances of them dying before me is 1,000,000% more than it would have been if I had just waited and found a colony, or started to form one so that we can build up our old rule of law way of life.

It's way too dangerous, especially if you have no clue about how we were able to extend our average length of life to what it is today.

 

I have three children and it is not always easy.
I would hope that we all survive the apocalypse and that my children are still there and that they can also be there to help me when I get older.
However, in terms of getting children after the apocalypse, I do not want any more children. Three are enough for me.
Now if I would not have any children, I might consider it but only IF the environment makes it possible, meaning if there is enough food around to survive.
This will probably take some time though, at least a couple years after an apocalypse occurs and by then I might already be too old to even conceive children...

 

I am barren, but have had the opportunity to have custody of a few of my Godchildren over the years. Motherhood or anything similar is hard. However, I think having children after a disaster or SHTF situation would be really unwise, particularly if you didn't have access to good medical care. The fact of the matter is that there are tons of things that can go wrong with childbirth itself plus many complications the baby could have shortly following birth that can arise. It wouldn't be something I would advocate, although people have been birthing children off the grid for ages and are still doing it with confidence.

 

If I had a choice, it would be a very hard decision to make. I don't think it is ideal to try and raise children in a world where there's danger at every turn, trying to hide if you need to and baby starts crying. I am a very religious person, so I do believe that it is ultimately not my choice to make, and if God so decides to let me have children post-event, then so be it, it would be very hard to do, but that is where my belief comes in of: "When God calls, He equips"
All in all, no, I don't think it's a good idea, but, I will if I had to.

 

If that happened I wouldn't want to bring children into the world. My husband and I are debating over it now because of the economy. It wouldn't be fair to bring them into this world if we could not financially be able to handle it.

 

I think the first thing you need to do is get a tent and watch The Walking Dead. Then, you need to make a decision. You can probably afford one kid. Before you have two kids, I think you should wait ten years.

 

There is the human capacity to persevere in the most daunting of situations. We have managed to survive hundreds of thousands of years by being adaptable and procreating through super volcanic eruptions, ice ages, drought, floods and plagues. I'd certainly like to think that we would continue to procreate even in the most difficult of situations since it innate to our being.

 

I can't even imagine myself rearing children today, what more in a world wherein danger lurks everywhere you go. But that's just me. I'm reminded of that movie The Road about a father trying to protect his kid in a post-apocalyptic world. I my humble opinion, bringing a child in a very violent world would be insensitive and irresponsible.

 

So suppose this! while hubby is out checking the trap line some bloke sneaks up overpowers you and rapes you!
Then he just leaves laughing! no need to kill you as there are no police!
One hour later hubby arrives home with a catch!
Do you tell him? or do you just carry on as normal?
If you tell him he will go and risk his life on vengeance and maybe leave you open to daily visits by the rapist or even an occupation!
12 weeks later you are swelling and you have not told him!
Do you abort? Do you birth it then kill it or care for it??
So many questions so many possibilities!
What are your priorities?

"I wont get in that position" is not an option