Parenthood comes with a legal floor of care, and the culture treats sacrifice as virtue. A childfree take on obligation, perks, and choice.
A childfree daughter sits across from her elderly mother. The daughter is billing her for rent and care. The mother pushes back with a list of everything she did for her from birth to eighteen: diapers, food, medication. The daughter asks one question. What would have happened if you hadn’t done those things? The answer is Child Protective Services, and possibly prison. So the list is not a favor. It is a legal obligation the mother took on when she chose to have a child. The mother says she didn’t have to have her at all. The daughter agrees.
It’s a comedy skit. It is also the clearest version of this argument I have seen.
The Floor
Every choice means saying no to something. I’m not arguing otherwise. Parenthood is different because the state sets a minimum. Each state defines what a child must receive, and CPS enforces it. Parents meet that floor before they get to prioritize themselves. Not after. Before.
Truancy is the example I think about most. Where I grew up in the 80s and 90s, parents were held responsible when their kids skipped school. Not the kids. The parents. The law assumed a parent answers for a child’s conduct. Enforcement has faded since then. I don’t know why. Expectations may have changed. Policy may have shifted from punishment toward support. Either way, the premise is the same: the parent is the responsible party.
That is a legal obligation for roughly eighteen years. Childfree people don’t carry it. They answer for themselves only.
The Sacrifice as Virtue
Above the floor, a parent can spend their time however they like. Many announce the sacrifice instead. Giving up sleep, hobbies, and money becomes proof of moral character, and the culture agrees.
None of these perks are legal mandates. They show up in culture and in workplace policy:
- Priority on PTO around school breaks.
- Arriving late or leaving early for daycare pickup.
- Early boarding on flights, treated like a protected disability class.
Then the same parents get vilified when the baby cries on the plane, which they can’t stop. A parent can’t control a person who can’t reason yet. The culture hands them special status and then blames them for what they can’t control.
The workplace numbers back this up. Reporting on Pew data found that 39% of employed childless adults under 50 who are unlikely to have kids said they had been given less flexibility than colleagues with children, and 33% said they were expected to take on extra work because they don’t have kids. Reporting on a 2022 SHRM study found that 85% of respondents agreed parents get preferential treatment when requesting time off. I haven’t verified those figures against the original reports, so check them before relying on them. Experts quoted by NBC News say managers tend to favor parents when deciding who works a holiday or takes a night shift. In the UK, the right to request flexible working was created for parents and carers and only extended to all employees in 2014.
One perk is likely illegal in many places, and it happens anyway. About ten years ago, it happened to me: raises were assigned by perceived need instead of performance. An employee with kids got a bigger raise, in percentage or in dollars, because they had more people to fund. A single person likely got only the base cost-of-living increase, because that made the budget work. Employers use ambiguous language to justify it, so no one can gather enough information to report it or sue successfully.
The perks themselves aren’t the point. The point is what they signal: the parent’s choice is the correct ethical choice, and everyone else owes accommodation for it.
When the Obligation Runs the Other Way
Some places have laws that make adult children financially responsible for their parents’ care. I think those laws exist because of cultural expectation, combined with how few obligations parents have to treat their children well.
Look at who gets caught. Many adult children went no contact because they were treated as commodities or parentified as kids. Some suffered physical, emotional, or psychological harm. Then they are handed financial responsibility for the parent who caused it. The child never chose to be born. The parent chose to have the child. The exceptions are rape and abuse, where choice was taken away.
If you’re in this position, look up the laws in both your parents’ state and your own. Both can affect your obligations.
Different Obligations, Not a Ranking
This is a hot take, so here is exactly what I’m claiming. People who choose to have children take on a legal obligation that the childfree don’t. People who choose never to have children take on responsibility for themselves only. That is a real psychological and ethical difference in what each person has signed up for.
I’m not saying one group is more virtuous. The culture says parents are. I disagree, but the law appears to support parents as the priority status in US culture.
I’m also not sure what to call the other side. “Childfree” is standard. “Parents” isn’t the word I want, because it hides the very thing I’m describing: a choice that comes with a legal contract. For now I’m calling them the childed, and I’m open to better ideas.
You signed up for it. That’s not a complaint. It’s a description.
