why having kids is the best thing ever

[VeryBerryCherry]

Yes, you will be having the pleasure of their company for at least 28 years, minus a 3-year gap at uni. Where you both get a taster of freedom... and then get to be incarcerated with one another fo a further 5 years while they pay off their uni fees (get drunk most night's because you've given them free board).

[indiepanda]

My sister and her husband got accused of being selfish by his mother for not wanting to have children - she wanted more grandchildren (her daughter has a child already). I understand they pointed out she was being selfish wanting them to have children purely because she wanted to be a grandparent and eventually she quit going on about it.

Take the point someone made about having the wrong friends if they can't respect your choice of lifestyle. Not so easy when it is family, though my sister certainly didn't have any intention of falling in line with the request!

I haven't had the "selfish" tag thrown at me too often. Tended more to get (from men) "ah, your biological clock will start ticking when you hit 30 and you will change your mind" (I didn't) or (from female friends) "but you'd make such a good other" - though quite how they'd know given I've never even baby sat for an evening is beyond me!

[SteveT]

The parent who has no doubts and are convinced they are right are the worst in my opinion.

Someone like your sensitive self indiepanda, I would back money you would be a great mum.

[????]

I'd quite like a quiet drink with my kids sometimes without braying idiots in rugby shirts or idiotically dressed teenagers in skinny jeans talking opiononated shite in mockney accents but sadly both these tribes invade my quiet family drinks....

...back to the thread. I wasn't aware that this thread was aimed at creating a debate...maybe the childless are the 'protest too much' people who piled in? Anyway, people with kids have also been childless in their lives so can commnent on the other side with more authority than those without I'd suggest..

Shit I miss loads about my childless life...absolutely loads....and the immense sense of responsibility can be overbearing at times..plus the sleeplessness, worry, financial pressure, planning, etc, etc...

would I go back? Nahhh

[SteveT]

Good call quids.

My two daughters are way more important than anything I've been involved in during my life.

Before I had children I was really anti-kids, when they arrived it was fine, you cope and enjoy it too.

Best residue from my ex-wife by far.

[Cassius]

I think that stating an opinion 'having kids is the best thing ever' as a FACT, will cause debate from those who have a different opinion. I am sure that if it had been a question 'IS having kids the best thing ever?' or an individialised statement 'having kids is the best thing ever for me' it would have been less controversial.

[citizenED]

You have a point Cassius, though I never read the original title as being provocative, only a call for celebratory comment from those who have kids. I generally think you can take the "..for me.." as read in any such title. Nevertheless, I feel it is a pity that a thread about why having kids is great, a thread that provided some beautiful comments, really thought-provoking opinion and heartfelt debate has rather descended into some without-children people feeling that they have to fight their corner.

Shame though it is, i think it somewhat inevitable. Here?s why.

Having children is not the opposite of not having children.

People without chidren can be split into several catagories: those that cannot biologically have kids, those that choose a vocation that precludes them having kids (such as the priesthood) and those that have actively chosen to remain child-free. The debate centres on the last catagory because they have an incredibly unique relationship with children. Whereas they decide not to be parents, I would argue that no one with kids actually chooses to have them. As an individual, you can choose to remain childless but an individual cannot simply choose to have kids. Having kids is a complex, convoluted social, sexual and biological process beyond the power of one humble human. But at the same time it?s something practically everyone does. Becoming a parent is not a choice as such but an unfolding life phase rather like being a teenager or becoming old.

Someone on this thread earlier said that choosing to remain child-free was a rather noble position. I agree, especially for those who do something nobly in service of humankind for which having their own children would be a hiderance.

[????]

er....like what and who? Without wishing to start this all off again...."It always strikes me what a noble life the childless are having"......er...didthe irony come over?

[Bellenden Belle]

Becoming a

> parent is not a choice as such but an unfolding

> life phase rather like being a teenager or

> becoming old.

I find that sentence hugely problematic CitizenEd... it implies that parenthood for the majority is inevitable - and for those of us without children there is an implication that we are missing a fundamental stage in our lives. Particularly since your last sentence differentiates between those of us who don't have children - for whatever reason - and those that do not because they "do something nobly in service of humankind".

[indiepanda]

I agree Belle. I don't quite see why those of us who choose not to have children should have to fill our lives with "something noble". There are plenty of dreadful parents out there after all - those who beat / sexually abuse their children for example, or those who abandon them for the other parent to cope with. Why should we have to be living exemplorary lives if we don't have children, when so many parents aren't exemplorary?

Obviously, I am not suggesting all parents are like that - most are doing the best they can to give their kids a good start in life. But I don't like the implication that being a parent automatically makes you a better person. I'm sure for some people it brings out the best in them, but it's not a universal experience.

I also think citizenED left out an important catagory of those who haven't got kids - those who haven't met someone they really feel they could have kids with. (I don't count that as a biological issue)

I've generally been in the "I'd rather not, thanks" camp, but I suspect that is at least in part due to the fact I've not had a relationship I've really felt would go the distance and that they would be a good father. I'm now the wrong side of 35 and still single... what am I meant to do? Start investigating sperm doners?? I wouldn't dream of being a single parent by choice - awfully hard work and I would like to at least try to ensure my children had a father who did a little more than produce the sperm.

I have been told I might feel differently about parenthood if I met the right guy to have children with, which may be true. But by now, even if I do meet them, there's a chance it will be too late from a fertility point of view. I don't like the suggestion that unless I do something amazing to fill my childfree life, I'm somehow some kind of second class citizen.

And yes, I expect I am being overly touchy about this and reading more info the remark than was meant. But it is so tiresome being single and having people rub salt in the wound by going on about missing out on one life's great experiences. Whether I am missing out or not is irrelevant, this is about creating a new life, one who has no say in the matter, but I feel has some right to expect two loving parents to care for it well. And if I can't provide that, I'm not going to do it.

[SteveT]

If I change my name to Andypanda would I qualify to be your donor?

I am convinced my fathering skills would be superior to any other

black-eyed bamboo muncher;-)

[Bellenden Belle]

I think your post beautifully summed up my thinking Indiepanda.

I don't know if I absolutely believe a child strictly needs two parents, but I agree it would be tough to go it alone and simply economically crippling.

I have enormous admiration for those women who do become "choice parents" though - since as single women it is frustrating to think one has to hang around waiting for Mr Right in order to fertilise one's eggs.

[Moos]

BB and Indiepanda, do you think you might be over-interpreting EDCitizen's post? I didn't read it to mean that if you don't have children you should feel obliged to go off and cure cancer, or whatever. What he said was those who choose not to have children could be seen as noble - he didn't really say why, but perhaps because of the argument that having children is a selfish act - perpetuating ones own genes.

However, I don't agree that refraining from having children is always 'a choice', and BB and Indiepanda have given lots of good reasons why that might be so already. For a man without a partner there's even less choice! A woman could make the decision to go it alone, and many have, but as BB said it's a hard road.

But finally I come back to an uncomfortable feeling raised by the two previous posters. The sentences 'missing a fundamental stage in our lives' and 'it is so tiresome being single and having people rub salt in the wound by going on about missing out on one life's great experiences' seem to imply that this discussion is wrong to describe having children as a fundamental stage of life, or as a great experience, on the grounds that it is not a universal experience. Am I in turn over-interpreting what you have said? It's become clear from the contributions that perhaps we should all be more intelligent and sensitive in how we discuss one another's choices, and that many people who don't have kids have had to put up with some fairly dim-witted and frankly nasty comments from their friends. I hope some of them are reading this and blushing. But I also hope this doesn't mean that we can't celebrate parenthood or recognise that it is a fundamental and life-changing experience.

Edited a while later because it occurs to me that the important distinction in the 'fundamental' argument is the difference between fundamental to human experience and fundamental to individual experience. Perhaps we shall turn out to be in agreement with one another after all?

[Bellenden Belle]

Fundamental

? adj. forming a necessary base or core; of central importance:

A discussion about what a great experience it is to have children is absolutely fine - I don't doubt it is.

To describe it as a "fundamental stage of life" is something entirely different.

Fundamental to the well-being of society I can acknowledge but how do you differentiate between human and individual experience Moos?

But I absolutely agree with your point that it is far harder for men in society who find themselves without a partner. Although, with the proviso that they don't mind being an older father, there is less of a sense of urgency than for a woman.

[indiepanda]

Agree men don't really have the option to be a parent alone, but at least they don't seem to suffer people going on at them about when they are going to have kids. I may be mistaken, but people seem to take a dimmer view of women who don't want to be mothers than men who don't want to be fathers.

I'm not sure I agree with the notional that having children is a fundamental part of life. I think that sort of thinking is what leads some people with children to look down on those that don't as being somehow less complete, which I find somewhat patronising. And if one wants children but can't for whatever reason, to have to deal with that disappointment and then have some people thinking you are somehow incomplete as a result can only make you feel worse. I am happy to believe it's a great experience for some (not all) but I don't believe, or think it is helpful to beleive it is fundamental.

The simple fact is, we don't need everyone in the world to reproduce any more. I read somewhere that everyone in the world consumed at the rate we do in the UK, we'd need 3 planets to provide the necessary resources, and it's much worse if it were at the rate in America. Sure, go back a few centuries, and with rates of infant death and short life expectancy, it was pretty much necessary for people to have children, and in large numbers for society to survive. But the world has moved on since then, it's just not necessary for all of us to breed.

BB, I know what you mean about the "things happen when you are older" thing - I get told it's not too late for me to find someone and have a family, but at 36 it does seem kind of late by the time you allow for spending some time dating, then moving in together, then getting married before starting a family (I'm a bit old fashioned in wanting to be married first I expect). I'm not quite old enough to say never, but I'm at the age now where it's getting towards "now or never", which is scary. I'd almost rather be 40 now and have the pressure off (somehow I think of 40 as being the cut off point after which I'd not think about it, which I guess is kind of arbitary!)

Steve, thanks for the offer, but if I do it, I'll be looking for a husband not a doner!

[Moos]

Bellenden Belle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fundamental

> ? adj. forming a necessary base or core; of

> central importance:

>

> A discussion about what a great experience it is

> to have children is absolutely fine - I don't

> doubt it is.

> To describe it as a "fundamental stage of life" is

> something entirely different.

BB, bugger, I did wonder whether I'd explained myself well. I think many parents would say that having children was of central importance to their lives. I certainly would. That is what I meant by individual experience - fundamental to my individual experience of life, and I think to many others. But I don't believe it is necessarily of central importance to life in general (what I previously and poorly defined as 'human'). As IP says, it's not necessary for everyone to 'breed'. I'm not sure it ever has been.

IndieP, you say "I'm not sure I agree with the notional that having children is a fundamental part of life." I hope you mean what I have just redefined above. If, however, you mean that you believe it cannot be a fundamental part of a person's life I will say with respect that it is for the parent to make that definition for himself. You have argued with passion and eloquence that others should not define and judge your choices. It has to work both ways.

[indiepanda]

Moos Wrote:

> IndieP, you say "I'm not sure I agree with the

> notional that having children is a fundamental

> part of life." I hope you mean what I have just

> redefined above. If, however, you mean that you

> believe it cannot be a fundamental part of a

> person's life I will say with respect that it is

> for the parent to make that definition for

> himself. You have argued with passion and

> eloquence that others should not define and judge

> your choices. It has to work both ways.

Nope, I meant it the way you redefined it. I am more than willing to believe that for some people having children was the most magical and rewarding thing they ever did (if also challenging and tiring at times I expect!). I just don't appreciate when some people see me as somehow damaged or deluded for not being keen on the idea, implying I am less of a person because I don't have children. (and for clarity, I am not suggesting that you are such a person!)

[Moos]

"I just don't appreciate when some people see me as somehow damaged or deluded for not being keen on the idea"

I should bloody well think not, that's a barbaric and frighteningly self-centred opinion. You have to wonder whether its proponents are going through the bad phases of parenthood and hoping to reinforce their choices by putting yours down. Suggest you think of your lovely non-saggy bosom in order to maintain the smile on your face, and change the subject...

[indiepanda]

I'm sure there is more than a grain of truth in that comment Moos. The friends who seem most stressed in their life choice always seem to be the ones who are quicker to put down my choices. The ones who are happy with their lot, despite it being very different from mine, never seem to be so judgemental.

Unsurprisingly, I choose to spend more time with the latter. Also find I like their children better, because I am not automatically expected to be interested in them.

[Bellenden Belle]

Beautifully clarified Moos... thank you for taking the time to do so.

As for non-saggy bosoms - well, that extra cup size might suit me fine should the moment come :) And personally under "why having kids is the best thing ever" - I imagine being able to go out with food spilt down your top and to wave any comment away with a "ooooh, kids... what can you do?" would suit me just fine. I could definitely embrace being a slummy, rather than yummy, mummy!

[Tony.London Suburbs]

SteveT Wrote:

If I change my name to Andypanda would I qualify to be your donor?> I am convinced my fathering skills would be

superior to any other black-eyed bamboo muncher;-)

With respect b4 indiepanda decides it is only fair to inform her that Tuesday was the only day old "Andypanda" used to come,from memory of my childhood,so rather limited options one feels...:-$

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Bellenden Belle Wrote:

don't know if I absolutely believe a child strictly needs two parents, but I agree it would be tough to go it alone and simply economically crippling. I have enormous admiration for those women who do become "choice parents" though

Sorry,but can not agree at all here.

I have no admiration whatsoever for someone who brings any child into this World with the clear disadvantage of Single Parenthood(which is NOT insurmountable)...

Its like a child running a 100 yard race and starting 25 yards behind other children.

Male children(for example) brought up in Single-Parent homes are much more likely to go off the rails when they become "Teens"-difficult for a Woman to control a strapping 6 foot lad of 16/16/17 on her own I should of thought,quite frankly.

The boys,for example, attend Primary School with hardly any Male Role Models and direct Male Role Models living at Home either. This can not be a decent preparation for the role in life that he will play.

Yes we know that:-

1/ All children from 2-Parent Families are not wonderful and some go astray.

2/ That children from One-Parent Families can(and DO) "make it", but its MUCH tougher.

3/ All 2-Parent Homes are not happy havens.

A Single-Parent Woman has to perform the role of both Parents,knowing as much about acting as a Man as a Man does acting as a Woman.

She is the SOLE provider of Parental income,emotional and practical Parental Support.

Almost by definition she(unless she has a really decent income) will have to work long hours and be "cream crackered" half the time which can't be good for any parties involved but it is this question which I have NEVER heard satisfactorily answered b4:-

Whatever marvellous attributes and talents and life skills a Woman posseses that IN ADDITION to that if the Man can offer and bring his Male perpective and equivalent Life Skills and experience to the table of Parenthood it HAS to be better for the child(ren) surely ??

A Man offering Emotional,Practical and Financial support IN ADDITION to what the Lady already possesses herself, must give the children a much better start and chance in life,imo.

There are NO guarantees of success but,at least,the child is beng given the best possible start when he/she has 2 Parents, which is all we can do,surely.

[indiepanda]

I have to agree with Tony here. I would never consider for a minute deliberately having children on my own, courtesy of sperm doner or poor unsuspecting male on one night stand or whatever. For me choosing to have a family without a father involved would seem like a selfish choice all about me and not about the child at all.

It's such a huge job to take on - plenty of people find themselves having to go it alone and some do well at it, but I don't think it should be a deliberate choice from the start. I have always been concerned about how I would cope with post natal depression (my mum got it very badly, though perhaps doctors are better at treating these days) - certainly wouldn't choose to risk that without having a husband to help out when it was getting a bit much.

In any case, I think pretty much everyone wants to know who their real parents are - if I ever have a child I want them to have a good chance of growing up living with both of theirs, not having to track them down through some donor register. And yes, I know there is more to being a parent than being biologically related. But I think nature / genes still has quite a big impact on what you grow up like, nuture can only help develop latent talents that already exist.

[Moos]

Bellenden Belle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

And personally under "why having kids is the best

> thing ever" - I imagine being able to go out with

> food spilt down your top and to wave any comment

> away with a "ooooh, kids... what can you do?"

> would suit me just fine. I could definitely

> embrace being a slummy, rather than yummy, mummy!

That really made me laugh. However, I am constantly finding myself blushing for the hideous state I find myself in. Just the other day I was dressed up in my smart raincoat thinking myself tr?s tr?s chic when I looked down to find a kneehigh smear of snot across the hem where the Moosling had got me on my way in the night before. I don't think that's what they mean by 'customising' ones clothes, is it?

On a more serious note, TLS makes some really good points about the difficulties of single parenthood and the importance of fathers. I agree that it should be a very brave and well-resourced woman who actively decides to go it alone. I'll leave the rights and wrongs of that choice to another post.

The fact remains that sometimes single parenthood is forced on a woman, or more rarely a man (let's say a widower with children). A woman finding herself accidentally pregnant is in a very, very difficult situation. I'd go to the stake for her right to choose, but speaking personally as an adult woman - even were I single - I'd find abortion an almost impossible choice to make. So when TLS says "I have no admiration whatsoever for someone who brings any child into this World with the clear disadvantage of Single Parenthood(which is NOT insurmountable)... " I can't agree. If a child comes into the world through you and you do your utmost without the 'normal', desirable assistance of a partner, well done you. Yes, there are disadvantages, and yes you'll have to work three times as hard. And that is why other people should go out of their way to support and help you, rather than condemn you.

TLS also raises the male/female role model argument. Again I think it's an important point. But what about gay couples raising children? Obviously it's a question they have to bear in mind, but aren't there ways around it - grandparents, godparents, friends?

[Moos]

OK, I have to stop all this long posting now. I hope I haven't ignited too many flames, but if I can't take much part today in ongoing discussion, it's not because I think I've said the last word..