I immediately thought that they were saying that in order to have it all you can't have kids. That in order to have a good, fun and fulfilled life, filled with days of lounging on the sand, you have to skip parenthood. The article shows that more and more couples are choosing the child-less life. This is evident in the fact that the birth rate in the United States is lower than ever.
There are always going to be people who believe that parenthood is not for them. And they will unfairly be judged by someone for that decision. They may base their decision from a financial standpoint, or from a purely lifestyle standpoint. If a couple decides that traveling the world is what they want and do not believe that children fit into the equation, well that's their decision. In my opinion I think it is great that this generation is putting so much thought into having or not having children. I have friends who have chosen to not have kids and are living a fun and exciting life. They are fulfilled by career, travel, friends and truly have it all...for them.
What really irked me about this cover was the term "having it all" and the implication that in order to do that you can't have children. The definition of "having it all" is different for everyone. For me it's my 2 children, my husband, the love we share and the adventures that we work hard to have together. For me a life of travel, vacation and adventure would be fun. And those few times where I get to leave my kids with a babysitter and enjoy some child-less time is always great. But FOR ME, not having children would be missing a big part of "it all", really the only important part of "it all", my family.
What is your opinion on this idea of a child-less life = having it all?
Leave us a comment.