|
Post by drongo on May 7, 2006 16:41:39 GMT 7
You hear all the time that teens are the worst age but I really disagree. Mine are nearly adults and I'm still waiting for the horror to start. The last five years have been my best years in terms of enjoying parenthood. I just love that we can have intelligent discussions and go out and on holiday sharing experiences at an almost adult level. Fabulous to love and live with such fascinating beings. Now I pretty much loved the first 6 months too, then could happily have given them away for the next 4 years. Thereafter it gets better all the time. BTW I have boys!
|
|
mimi
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by mimi on May 7, 2006 19:09:57 GMT 7
I think the teen years can either be the best, or the worst. If your kids have any rebellious genes in them (and yes, I'm convinced it's genetic), then I think it's one hell of a ride. I've got one of each with my two. One has made my life hell - I could happily disown him sometimes and can honestly say that I no longer "like" him. The other is a delight. That said, if I had my time again, I wouldn't do it any differently. I just think my life would be so empty without my children.
|
|
|
Post by DINKS55 on May 7, 2006 20:38:19 GMT 7
As one half of a couple (I'm the pretty one ) in our mid 50's who chose not to have kids, I'd say steer clear of them. I have no regrets not having children, nor does my husband. The freedom cannot be described nor understood by parents of our same age. As a result of NOT having children we have been able to: 1. Travel and work in several different countries This is of course, possible with children but it has been my observation that it is easier for us to 'pack up and go' as nothing is tying us down except our own choices as a couple - no little ankle bitters whining about friends being left behind etc etc. We've done the trans-siberian, trekked in Mongolia, took a year to do South America, another 18 months to do Europe and recently spent 9 months doing Africa. Not saying it can't be done with children but.... 2. Pay off our hous(es) by the time we were 35Compared to several of our friends, my two sisters and brother and my husbands sister and brother; we are financially miles ahead - and both my sisters have earnt more than me since graduation until recently. Even though as couples our siblings and their spouses had more earning power in their first 15 years; they haven't be able to put it into anything except their mortgage and children. 3. Changed career 3 times eachI started as a teacher (math), went back to Uni at age 35 and became a lawyer, and went back to Uni. again at age 48 to do ancient history and archaeology. Just because I wanted to and had the financial capacity to follow my passions. Likewise my husband went from being a teacher (math) to an accountant to doing a theology degree and moving into academia. Hard to do that with kids. But the main reason why I'd say DONOT have kids is because as a couple you will be so much richer for not having them. Without children you can devote yourself entirely to enriching the life of someone you love and experience the same being applied to you. I often wonder if people who have children simply do it as a way of 'filling spaces' in their relationships. In any case, the opportunities to share things with your partner are beyond the comprehension of those with children. I'm fairly certain that there will be screaming hordes telling me I'm wrong and that I can't understand what it's like to have children. Well, on the later you are right but likewise no parent can truly understand what it's like to get to my age having made a DELIBERATE decision not to have kids and the freedom it entails. Suggestions that 'I was once single' or 'I know what's it like not to have kids' don't cut it. So, in my view, go without. You'll be a richer person and couple for it, and if you get to my age and regret it, you can always adopt!
|
|
mimi
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by mimi on May 7, 2006 22:08:04 GMT 7
I think you have a point with the financial arguement, but I've done all three of your bullet points. Some of the traveling was done before having children but we've done a fair bit since. Our mortgage is paid off and I've changed career twice - once since having children. My husband plans to change career in a couple of years to teaching. Yes, children can be restrictive but the only restricion I feel is that I can't afford to give up work. If I had no children, we could live off my husbands salary. But I think the main point is that most people with children wouldn't trade their children for more travelling or paying off their mortgage early. Yo
I do think it's good that people who don't want children don't have them though. It's a personal choice and you have every right to a child free life but I don't think you can argue that it's necessarily right for everyone - we're all different.
|
|
|
Post by tiredparent on May 8, 2006 8:32:23 GMT 7
I don't think kids' bad behaviour is entirely geneticly predetermined. Of course personality plays a part but any person considering parenthood must consider that how they raise the children is hugely significant in how they turn out. Different personality types require different parenting (but it is my experience that no 2 siblings are handled the same way anyway). It is a massive responsibility and too often shirked. Back in my home country it is obvious that the schools struggle to cope with the lack of self control that many students have. Schools cannot make up the ground when parents have failed in their part. It is good to really consider whether you not only want to become a parent but whether you have the energy and desire to be a good parent.
|
|
Another 12 of a DINK
Guest
|
Post by Another 12 of a DINK on May 8, 2006 8:50:28 GMT 7
I'd suggest putting off having kids until you are sure. If it happens it does, if it doesn't; that's great also ;D
Don't rush into it; as another poster said there is always adoption if later on you decide you want kids.
|
|
|
Post by devils advocate on May 8, 2006 11:10:35 GMT 7
Just a "big picture" question ...
If everyone took the: "don't have kids - enrich yourself" road, does it matter if the human race were to simply disappear?
OK that sounds extreme, but we do have to concede that a real possibility is occuring already: that richer better eduacted people don't have children but poorer uneducated ones still do. So in the long run the world will be full of dumb poor people right?
|
|
|
Post by Me me me on May 8, 2006 11:19:17 GMT 7
Actually, it's often phrased in terms of "personal choice" to have kids but isn't there any civic responsibility also?
I agree that someone who is clearly going to be a bad parenet would be better remaining child free. But isn't an attitude of I want to do my own thing and not have kids selfish? Doesn't the fate of our communities matter more than whether you get to holiday abroad 4 times a year and pay off your mortgage by 30-something? Each of us wouldn't be here if somebody hadn't made a sacrifice to produce us after all ......
|
|
|
Post by Just Messing on May 8, 2006 11:29:21 GMT 7
And isn't it the case that having kids is a form of non-monetary "taxation" or insurance for the future - those kids will be the doctors, teachers and other workers of tomorrow supplying the services you need. You may have financial resources at your disposal but to make use of those some human pressence is required even just to cash a cheque or order in a restaurant in your old age. So in effect, those without kids (by choice) haven't paid their dues but are happy to take from the system (i.e. society) where other have provided the future manpower.
Clearly those who can't have kids - single due to legitimate probelms finding a spouse, infertile etc. can be exempt from this.
It might be arguable that you have paid more taxes through high dual salaries to offset this - perhaps, but where's the line on that value?
|
|
|
Post by link on May 10, 2006 11:52:24 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by majestic on May 14, 2006 5:51:12 GMT 7
It's absolutely wonderful!!! The bond and the depth of the love can simply not be described, it can only be experienced. Yes, your life changes forever, but - as someone else perfectly described it - the love and the laughter is intoxicating and a complete high. My daughter made me completely re-evaluate my priorities and changed the way I see the world.
If I'd known how great it is, I would've done it much earlier.
|
|
gsj
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by gsj on May 14, 2006 11:42:28 GMT 7
Good point drongo!
Personally, my kid has added so much to my life, but having said that I'd never recommend someone having children before they've had the time of their life first! you shouldn't begrudge them and feel like that thye are stopping you from doing something. so firstly i lived a lot, had one night stands, parachuted from planes and helicopters, went on a year sabbatical.
now, take my kids with us wherever we travel, he can't wait to get up in the parachute with me..
|
|
|
Post by sundaymorningstaple on May 14, 2006 12:39:09 GMT 7
After reading the thread since my first reply, the one thing that has come to light to me is that maybe those persons not wanting to have families is a good thing. Let me elaborate. This generation seems to have a lot of the MEMEME types out there today. This selfish attitude is not good for a society in general and it tends to break up the social unit called "community" as there is no common interest only their selfish personal interests. The faster that generation dies out the better. These people shouldn't be allowed to have children as they are not the type of genes we should be advancing in the gene pool. They are more like an abberation to a species that is community oriented, and like most abberations, should not be allowed to propagate as it would only further regress the geen pool. Outcasts in the wild are usually pushed to the perimeter of the heard so that they are the cannon fodder for predators to pick off, therefore leaving the good healthy stock to propagate. That ought to be enough fuel for a flame war. Go for it! ;D
|
|
mimi
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by mimi on May 14, 2006 13:43:44 GMT 7
Good theory sms, but in the UK at least, there are plenty of people having kids that shouldn't be passing on their genes either.
|
|
|
Post by asbo on May 14, 2006 15:06:21 GMT 7
Doctor: OK Vicky, you can put your clothes back on. Well, after having a good look at you it's pretty obvious to me what the diagnosis is.
Vicky: I got the lurgy. Yeah I know because there was this whole fing 'cause I was down the arcade and Kelly flobbed on Destiny and a bit of it landed in my hair because Kelly hates Destiny because Destiny told Warren that Kelly pads her bra. It's true - Nathan reckons he put his hand down there and pulled out a bag of Jelly Tots.
|
|
Selfish with defective genes
Guest
|
Post by Selfish with defective genes on May 14, 2006 15:34:47 GMT 7
Now SMS I had always thought you to be "sensible" person, but now I'm not so sure.
Why is it that those of you without children are allowed to generalise that we childless ones are selfish, without knowing us at all?
Why should we HAVE to have children when it doesn't feel right for us? Because "society" says so? Or are we allowed to make that decision ourselves, Singapore being a "democracy" after all!
Why should people suggest that we should be taxed extra as punishment, when our taxes contribute towards your kids' schools and medical care?
How many of you consciously made a big decision to have your kids, and how many just got pissed and forgot to wear a condom?
If it's such an unselfish thing to have kids, then why not adopt a needy child from a developing country?
And if you're all doing this fabulous job of being wonderful, self-sacrificing parents while I'm being so selfish, why are there so many badly behaved brats around?
I've chosen not to have children (so far, but probably never) just because it's never felt right. Yes, there is a risk that one day that I'll regret this, but I'd rather that I regretted bot having children than that my kids regretted that I did.
If more people thought more aboiut it, there would be a lot less f#%^&d up people around.
But there are a lot of people who would love to have kids but can't and these rude, tactless comments hurt them like hell.
So, please everyone, by all means have your opinion, but is there are any need to name-call people you haven't met. We're not the angryboard after all .....
|
|
|
Post by interesting on May 14, 2006 16:06:58 GMT 7
agree with above poster and would like to add:
It's the hieght of arrogance to say that people with children can understand those without but not the other way around.
As the poster "DINKS" said - you (people with children) can never know what it is like to be without children for such a long time, and the freedom it brings.
Once you make that choice not to have kids, you thinking changes. The same as it changes once you decide you will or realise you will be having children.
They are divergent paths. DINKS or SINKS subsidize breeders through higher taxes. Imagine if everything was user-pays, DINKS and SINKS would have the last laugh as they wouldn't have to fork out a cent to subsidize those little brats going to school or getting sick, only what they need.
Being a conscious SINK in my late 40's i can only agree with DINKS and above poster - breeders cannot understand my life - they simply don't know what it's like to be middle aged and have no children.
It's different from being in your 20's and single (or attached) and thinking about kids.
chalk and cheese.
|
|
|
Post by sundaymorningstaple on May 14, 2006 16:47:18 GMT 7
Now SMS I had always thought you to be "sensible" person, but now I'm not so sure. Me? Sensible? Why is it that those of you without children are allowed to generalise that we childless ones are selfish, without knowing us at all? You mean those of with children I hope.Why should we HAVE to have children when it doesn't feel right for us? Because "society" says so? Or are we allowed to make that decision ourselves, Singapore being a "democracy" after all! Nowhere did I say you HAD to have children, nor did I even mention Singapore - I meant worldwide.Why should people suggest that we should be taxed extra as punishment, when our taxes contribute towards your kids' schools and medical care? I didn't know it was a tax discussion. Sorry, don't think I even mentioned it.How many of you consciously made a big decision to have your kids, and how many just got pissed and forgot to wear a condom? Can only speak for the wife & I, after 2 non-productive marriages, we were hellbent to have two. No more, nor less, Not increasing the burden just replacement value.If it's such an unselfish thing to have kids, then why not adopt a needy child from a developing country? Who knows, its real parent may have been MEMEME's as well, I'm trying to eliminate not propagate the aberration And if you're all doing this fabulous job of being wonderful, self-sacrificing parents while I'm being so selfish, why are there so many badly behaved brats around? Over protective Parents? I've chosen not to have children (so far, but probably never) just because it's never felt right. Yes, there is a risk that one day that I'll regret this, but I'd rather that I regretted bot having children than that my kids regretted that I did. If more people thought more aboiut it, there would be a lot less f#%^&d up people around. You are right there, there wouldln't be anybody around!But there are a lot of people who would love to have kids but can't and these rude, tactless comments hurt them like hell. So, please everyone, by all means have your opinion, but is there are any need to name-call people you haven't met. We're not the angryboard after all ..... Don't believe I've called you any names. As for those who would love to have kids but can't - that's an entirely different kettle of fish than "conciously making a decision not to have them" isn't it. Now who has egg on their face?By the way, it was obvious that you are having trouble telling when you are being had so I'll help you as the original post was definitely sms
|
|
|
Post by feelgood on May 14, 2006 17:37:59 GMT 7
We have a certain amount of civic responsibility. That is beyond our personal wants. Sure human's have free will but they also need to look at the big picture. If a tired old woman boards the MRT and there are no seats free you have the free will to look at your shoes and mutter "i'm not giving up MY seat; why should i". Yes you have that free will but it's obviously very selfish if you don't have any impediment of your own.
One of the stats that's always thrown around is that places like Italy will only have 60% of their current population but the middle of this century. To sustain themselves they will almost definately need to bring in foreigners. And then everyone will be up in arms about their societies being overrun with immigrants.
Of course there is room for alternative lifestyles and individualism, but the normal encouraged way of life should be a proper family nucleus that includes children - the very people who will make tomorrow possible for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by nah on May 14, 2006 17:59:23 GMT 7
that's assuming you want to grow your population. A number of smaller european countries have stagnant (or shrinking) ageing populations that are still growing in economic terms and will have no problems dealing with the 'gret tide'
There was a good article in Foriegn Policy titled something along the lines of "why men rule the world and conservatives will inherit the earth" about these population trends and how liberl-pinko-lesbo-feminists will die out, very informative but still outlines that a shrinking population is not always a bad thing economically.
|
|