Unscientific survey for an article I'm writing: Kids - why?

SeatClutcher said:
Exactly, which is part of the reason I think having children isn't necessarily part of the logical progression for everyone. Obviously, not everyone is fit to be a parent (if they were, there would be far fewer abused/neglected/foster kids).
Click to expand...


This is one area that makes me legitimately sad/upset. No child should ever be unloved, abused, hungry, cold, or have to worry about any basic necessities.
 
pullup said:
This is one area that makes me legitimately sad/upset. No child should ever be unloved, abused, hungry, cold, or have to worry about any basic necessities.
Click to expand...
Nor should they have to become teenagers who will be ever-after mortified by a TIME magazine cover they were on, and that they were too young to consider in terms of future consequences, that depicts them with their mouth closed over their "sexy" mother's breast
 
SeatClutcher said:
Nor should they have to become teenagers who will be ever-after mortified by a TIME magazine cover they were on, and that they were too young to consider in terms of future consequences, that depicts them with their mouth closed over their "sexy" mother's breast
Click to expand...
I bet he will grow up to be an "ass guy" anyway ;)
 
jtrain609 said:
Our species needs my wife and I's superior genetic material. It's really a moral imperative that we have kids.
Click to expand...
You say this with what sounds like humor, but one woman I interviewed for the article I'm writing, when asked whether she and her husband had considered population (prior to having their first kid), she said "Honestly, no," and then she thought about it. Her response was that they feel like they're adding something positive to the world in the person they raise.

I said nothing to her about how even a positive person generates waste and uses space, but I did say it to Ian when I asked him whether population would be something he would consider if thinking about having kids (obviously, hypothetically). Didn't sway him.
 
SeatClutcher said:
You say this with what sounds like humor, but one woman I interviewed for the article I'm writing, when asked whether she and her husband had considered population (prior to having their first kid), she said "Honestly, no," and then she thought about it. Her response was that they feel like they're adding something positive to the world in the person they raise.

I said nothing to her about how even a positive person generates waste and uses space, but I did say it to Ian when I asked him whether population would be something he would consider if thinking about having kids (obviously, hypothetically). Didn't sway him.
Click to expand...

Would you rather have a positive person generating waste and taking up space, or a negative person generating waste and using up space?

Or is your argument population control?
 
Matt13C said:
I guess what I am saying is, don't jump to no right away just because you are undecided.
Click to expand...
This is what I don't understand. Why not? There are many things people believe others should try because they're wonderful experiences, like skydiving, driving cross country in an RV, swimming with dolphins...

But if people don't want to do it, no one tries to encourage them to. Nothing is lost by not doing any of those things, just like nothing is lost (can't lose what you never had) by not having kids.

And, since having children means being the people who will impact the key molding years of that child's life and be responsible for it until the day you die or they seek emancipation, wouldn't it be a better idea to be certain you want them?

I understand people who accidentally have them (sort of - there's birth control) and then can't imagine any other life, but to recommend that those who are unsure give it a try anyway seems (no offense) irresponsible. This is an entire new life we're talking about. How can that possibly be taken lightly?
 
jtrain609 said:
Would you rather have a positive person generating waste and taking up space, or a negative person generating waste and using up space?

Or is your argument population control?
Click to expand...
I'm not making an argument. It was a question about whether the growing population was something a person who hadn't yet had children might consider before having them - period. If I was making a point, it was that continuing to have children to bring positivity into the world is still continuing to have children who, good or bad, contribute to the rising population.
 
Before I answer your very good questions, I'm going to blabber a bit.

My wife and I were pretty much "anti-kid" for the most part. Sure we met some great kids. However, operating in society, we also noticed a lot of (ok, what seemed a majority of) jackwagons. My wife was a Flight Attendant at the time and always had some story about parents, their kids behavior and what not. And it seemed to be a legitimate gripe, even looking back the stories were pretty much yeah.

Then it happened. She hit 30. I'm not sure exactly what that meant at the time, but there was some change in her. Her good friend was trying every desperate measure to concieve, was 4 years younger than my wife, and was having no luck.

At the time, I was at a point in my career where I was making enough money to support us (and hold weekends off. ;) ). So she said "Let's try...."; I agreed, the goalie was pulled, and 2 weeks later a panic-filled 9 months started.

SeatClutcher said:
For anyone who wants to answer, before having kids, how much time did you give to considering and weighing the following:
1. Financial cost

Totally a consideration. For years we were just making ends meet. Getting retirement started, a 6 mos aviation emergency fund, and getting our first real home put together. However, we were at a point where our financial house was in order, and we would still be able to manage life and some extraneous things other than just growing the kids

2. What would happen in the case of a divorce

Best case, it was a minor consideration. Actually, we have examples of people not divorced and should be (You know; "We stayed together for the kids") and the downline effect on the kids. We also saw examples of divorced parents that have raised great kids. Ultimately, we have a dynamic marriage anyway due to the career field. We had a quick discussion about it, but did not pay it much attention.

3. The possibility that the baby might not be physically or mentally healthy when born and would require constant care (and how that would affect not just the parents, but the quality of life of the child)

Of course this is a concern, and freaked me out from time to time, however it is part of the unknown of the whole process to my wife and I. We'd never really been around small kids, care givers to kids or anything like that. With this, and so many other topics, we tried to deal with the "What-ifs", but ultimately, you can only guess at so much with realistic expectations.

4. How your own schedule and priorities would change

Like the previous question, we tried to wrap our heads around it, and had some baseline plans. However, as soon as our first child arrived, we were dropped into a fog of war and did the best we could. The concepts in our minds certainly weren't what occurred. That being said, we went with what was presented and moved forward in life re-establishing a balance

5. Who would work, who would stay home, and what would happen if the plan changed when one of the parents wanted to do something different

We did discuss this, and in our case our plan wouldn't change. Unless of course I hit powerball on Saturday and I can call in rich on Monday.

6. The expectations of each marital partner (romantic, sexual, normal attention) post-baby and how to handle the shift that would come when attention and energy diverted to the child

Again, like question 4 and 3, there is only so much we can discuss. On this topic I think that it is far easier to establish a realistic foundation.

Much like parents that are detached from their kids and plop them in front of a TV or XBox, so are the parents that dote on their children to the extent that they a) can't see any wrong or behaviour trends that are outside societal norms and/or b) totally ignore their partner.

Unlike being childless, with children or even someone who is always working or advancing a career, you have to FORCE time for a balance. You don't have as much schedule slop.

Each parent needs time, alone, with the children; you need time all together as a family; the parents need time to maintain THEIR relationship; and each parent needs some adult time alone to keep from losing their identity

7. How to handle a child that wasn't what you expected (emotional trouble, psychological problems, or simply a kid you don't like very much - there's a confession by a mother on a parenting website that says she loves her son, but she just doesn't like him very much)

In our case this did not happen. However, there are so many things life can throw at you at any given time; tragedy, inconvenience, strife that you can't prepare for everything. Sometimes you just have to make-do and swim as best you can.
Click to expand...
 
MQAAord said:
It's a little different at 40 weeks than at 26 weeks.

And yes, it is [or at least can be] that bad.
Click to expand...
There wasn't that much difference between 6 weeks and 27, so I highly doubt it. Plus, people that have had both have said it's pretty much the same. The doctor told me breech at 27 is size wise the same diameter as full term head first, so that wasn't even all that different. It's probably more of just a personal tolerance than a gestational one.
 
Little late to the show but here are out reasons.

1) religious belief and desire to have a family.
2) We did it because we believe, when done properly, it adds to society
3) family is core unit to society and existence
4) My wife and I love each other very much and felt having kids would add to our love and commitment and that we would be good providers and teachers to others. Hopefully our love to each other will be an example to our children and they will add more to this earth.
5) Its fun.

Not listed in priority.

I love being a dad, between that and my marriage it has brought the most satisfaction in my life. Above school, money, holidays, boats, planes etc etc.

My priorities have changed and sacrifices have been made, but I LOVE it.
 
amjon said:
There wasn't that much difference between 6 weeks and 27, so I highly doubt it. Plus, people that have had both have said it's pretty much the same. The doctor told me breech at 27 is size wise the same diameter as full term head first, so that wasn't even all that different. It's probably more of just a personal tolerance than a gestational one.
Click to expand...

Not a woman, never been pregnant, but some internet reading says a 6 week fetus is the size of grain rice and a 27 week fetus is the size of a cauliflower. One quarter of an inch and .04 ounces v. 14 inches and nearly two pounds. What are we missing here?
 
Ian J said:
Not a woman, never been pregnant, but some internet reading says a 6 week fetus is the size of grain rice and a 27 week fetus is the size of a cauliflower. One quarter of an inch and .04 ounces v. 14 inches and nearly two pounds. What are we missing here?
Click to expand...
I'm not talking size wise there, but pain (and what comes out is more than just the fetus, so the size is quite a bit larger than that, but no nothing like a full grown baby at that point). The labor PAIN was as bad (if not worse) for the 6 week fetus as the 27 week stillborn (with Cytotec to induce which is supposed to make the pain worse).
 
amjon said:
I'm not talking size wise there, but pain (and what comes out is more than just the fetus, so the size is quite a bit larger than that, but no nothing like a full grown baby at that point). The labor PAIN was as bad (if not worse) for the 6 week fetus as the 27 week stillborn (with Cytotec to induce which is supposed to make the pain worse).
Click to expand...

Okay... you're the expert I guess.
 
SeatClutcher said:
This is what I don't understand. Why not? There are many things people believe others should try because they're wonderful experiences, like skydiving, driving cross country in an RV, swimming with dolphins...

But if people don't want to do it, no one tries to encourage them to. Nothing is lost by not doing any of those things, just like nothing is lost (can't lose what you never had) by not having kids.

And, since having children means being the people who will impact the key molding years of that child's life and be responsible for it until the day you die or they seek emancipation, wouldn't it be a better idea to be certain you want them?

I understand people who accidentally have them (sort of - there's birth control) and then can't imagine any other life, but to recommend that those who are unsure give it a try anyway seems (no offense) irresponsible. This is an entire new life we're talking about. How can that possibly be taken lightly?
Click to expand...

I never said they should "give it a try" I simply said, don't be so quick to jump to no if you are unsure.I was talking about people on the fence, not those already saying no.

I would argue that something is lost, the experience. I will always encourage someone to try something, or to at least weigh all the options instead of just saying no. No is easy, yes is hard but often times leads to something much greater.

Have you been 100% certain of every decision you have ever made in life? Have you never done something that may not turn out right, but you did it anyway? Obviously having a child is not like jumping out of a plane. It is a life long commitment vs a 5 min adventure with the slight possibility of death. The premise is the same though. If you are weighing your options, don't just jump to no out of fear of the possibilities. You could possibly be missing out on the greatest adventure of your life.

Like you said, if you don't have them you won't know what you are missing. Just like if you don't jump. Me personally, I'd rather jump.
 
It's a cliche, but "If I have to explain, you will never understand."

Asking a parent why they had kids is like asking a pilot why they enjoy flying, there simply are not words to describe it. Being a parent is something that you must experience to understand, and you can't experience it unless you are willing to jump in with both feet.

I would never push someone to have kids if they do not want to, but I think that you are missing out on something amazing.
 
USMCmech said:
It's a cliche, but "If I have to explain, you will never understand."

Asking a parent why they had kids is like asking a pilot why they enjoy flying, there simply are not words to describe it. Being a parent is something that you must experience to understand, and you can't experience it unless you are willing to jump in with both feet.

I would never push someone to have kids if they do not want to, but I think that you are missing out on something amazing.
Click to expand...
But, you hadn't had the experience before you had them, so you didn't know what it was like before having them, either. Yet, you chose to.

Edited to add: I have no doubt there are many wonderful experiences related to parenting that I'd enjoy. But I don't long for them, so I'm not really "missing out," I guess is how I feel.

And say with no intended snark that there are some things you're missing out on, too, by not being childfree. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top