are some people just not fit to be parents?

SafeSurfer

Spiritual wrote: »

I know of a lot of cases where the children's allowance day is party day on the estate.

This sounds like they are spending all their money on drink and drugs.

Might it not be true that dole day is the 1 day of they week they have the money for life's little luxuries like a nice 24 pack, its not dear.

HeyThereDeliah

Geekness1234 wrote: »

No,it's just they have never had good parents themselves.
Quite depressing really.

I don't necessarily think this is true, having crap parents can make some people good parents when the time comes.
If your childhood was crap then you can make sure not to make the same mistakes your parents did.
No one knows how good a parent they will be until they have a child.
Its possible for good parents to have crap kids who turn out really bad and it's nothing to do with the upbringing.

Stheno

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Totally agree.
Wasn't feeling a bit maternal/broody for ages myself, and could totally understand then, now after kids it's different. Still understand logically, but hard to not feel a pinch for ladies who decide it's not for them.

There could be an element of the role of long term contraception here?

I use one which means I don't have periods, can't remember the last time I did, so I've almost forgotten it?

However in 20 years of being regularly at christenings etc and surrounded by small children, I've never felt the "yearning" to have one of my own.

Rather strangely small children seem to be attracted to me like flies, I get on incredibly well with them, but am very happy to hand them back My Oh and I are well known in my family for being the ones to bring treats for the kids to family occasions, so much so, it's become a joke.

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

I do not understand what you mean when you say women start panicking about having children when they start to hit the menopause, at that stage you are well aware that having children is not an option.

I do to be honest, I've plenty of friends/acquaintances in their early forties who regret not having children/are doing everything they can to have children having put it off in the expectation that medicine will help them conceive long past what would be classed as geriatric pregnancy. There are some women who put childbearing on the long finger and then to their eternal regret discover they have left their dream too late to be realised.

OT: For AH, this has turned into a very serious discussion!

goodie2shoes

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

I do not understand what you mean when you say women start panicking about having children when they start to hit the menopause, at that stage you are well aware that having children is not an option.

some women keep putting it off, but only when the realization that menopause is about to "start" (say in the next few years), that their mind really focuses on the issue.
by then it's often too late.

Stheno

goodie2shoes wrote: »

some women keep putting it off, but only when the realization that menopause is about to "start" (say in the next few years), that their mind really focuses on the issue.
by then it's often too late.

TO give you an idea of my belief in not wanting kids, I've discussed being sterilised with my gynaecologist, who is happy to arrange it based on my age and history, so that option is there for me.

I know what you are talking about though, have seen it a fair bit.

I've also seen the flip side, women wanting to have it all, and it not working out for them at all..

goodie2shoes

Stheno wrote: »

TO give you an idea of my belief in not wanting kids, I've discussed being sterilised with my gynaecologist, who is happy to arrange it based on my age and history, so that option is there for me.

I know what you are talking about though, have seen it a fair bit.

I've also seen the flip side, women wanting to have it all, and it not working out for them at all..

so this brings us to the question.
does society still view women's role as primarily child bearing/rearing?
i guess the answer is yes.

LETHAL LADY

I do to be honest, I've plenty of friends/acquaintances in their early forties who regret not having children/are doing everything they can to have children having put it off in the expectation that medicine will help them conceive long past what would be classed as geriatric pregnancy. There are some women who put childbearing on the long finger and then to their eternal regret discover they have left their dream too late to be realised.

OT: For AH, this has turned into a very serious discussion![/QUOTE]

I agree there are some women who put it off and regret it, but most of the women I know are well aware from a young age how their body works, its not like you wake up one morning and say right I am going to have a baby.

Most women I know who are trying to concieve at that late stage have had ongoing fertility problems throughout their lives and it is a last ditch effort for them.

I would seriously hate to think that there are lots of women out there who do not understand their bodies.

Stheno

goodie2shoes wrote: »

so this brings us to the question.
does society still view women's role as primarily child bearing/rearing?
i guess the answer is yes.

Yes absolutely, and from that perspective, I feel sorry for women who cannot conceive due to difficulties that they or their partner suffer from.

In the case of the person I reported, my conflict with him ended when I told him after multiple conversations that I was unable to have kids, at which point he turned into a blubbering mess. (I don't know if I can or cannot, but the fact I'd to resort to such a response says a lot)

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

I would seriously hate to think that there are lots of women out there who do not understand their bodies.

I think it's more hope springs eternal to be honest, they know they have a low chance of conceiving but look at the stats and see rising ages of first time mothers and skew them in their favour?

The old lies, damned lies and statistics? SHure it's fine, I'm forty didn't x up the road have her 20th last year at 45? Why whouldn't I have my first at 44.5?

Bit of an exaggeration there, but same sort of thinking? I've a colleague who just had her second at 43

Smidge

I have several female friends in their 40's now who regret not trying for children earlier(having gone through failed IVF etc) and some who are still under the illusion that at 43 are going to magically conceive, no hassle, for the first time!

I wonder have women adopted some form of "Brainwashing" for want of a better expression because we have tried to AVOID pregnancy for most of our lives until the "time is right" ?

Stheno

Smidge wrote: »

I have several female friends in their 40's now who regret not trying for children earlier(having gone through failed IVF etc) and some who are still under the illusion that at 43 are going to magically conceive, no hassle, for the first time!

I wonder have women adopted some form of "Brainwashing" for want of a better expression because we have tried to AVOID pregnancy for most of our lives until the "time is right" ?

It's a combination of lack of willingness to understand when the time is right, and in the case of successful women a fallacy that "when I want it, it will happen to me" that is the problem with such women in my opinion.

Optimum time to be/get pregnant is before 35, earlier as it can take years, the time when women very focused on careers are most likely to be working on their careers and putting off life changing decisions.

Smidge

Stheno wrote: »

It's a combination of lack of willingness to understand when the time is right, and in the case of successful women a fallacy that "when I want it, it will happen to me" that is the problem with such women in my opinion.

Optimum time to be/get pregnant is before 35, earlier as it can take years, the time when women very focused on careers are most likely to be working on their careers and putting off life changing decisions.

And tbh honest I don't think that a lot of women get the difficulties health wise with late pregnancies.
I get the optimism though, where there is life there's hope and all that.

I think we have gone completely off topic though:o

Stheno

Smidge wrote: »

And tbh honest I don't think that a lot of women get the difficulties health wise with late pregnancies.
I get the optimism though, where there is life there's hope and all that.

I think we have gone completely off topic though:o

Not really, you could ask if such women who have put it off for so long, and are only doing it after years of delaying it, are suitable as parents?

How are they better than a 25 year old in a modest career who has always dreamed of being a mother and nothing greater, and willing to put life outside of mother hood aside to bring up her children?

Now there has to be a balance, women have to have both opportunities, but from practical experience in my working life, it's very very hard to achieve.

Lots of it down to Irish society, poor childcare, over expectations of how much time people are willing to commit to work etc.

A fundamental shift would be required to achieve it.

LETHAL LADY

Smidge wrote: »

I have several female friends in their 40's now who regret not trying for children earlier(having gone through failed IVF etc) and some who are still under the illusion that at 43 are going to magically conceive, no hassle, for the first time!

I wonder have women adopted some form of "Brainwashing" for want of a better expression because we have tried to AVOID pregnancy for most of our lives until the "time is right" ?

Your empathy knows no bounds.;)

Smidge

Stheno wrote: »

Not really, you could ask if such women who have put it off for so long, and are only doing it after years of delaying it, are suitable as parents?

How are they better than a 25 year old in a modest career who has always dreamed of being a mother and nothing greater, and willing to put life outside of mother hood aside to bring up her children?

Now there has to be a balance, women have to have both opportunities, but from practical experience in my working life, it's very very hard to achieve.

Lots of it down to Irish society, poor childcare, over expectations of how much time people are willing to commit to work etc.

A fundamental shift would be required to achieve it.

Lord Chiiiillllll
Yo is preachin to the choir
Had my first very early 20's (special needs) so we waited until the time was right(for the child and us)to have another.
Guess what??
Number two was special needs as well :pac:

I have two friend in particular who are "trying" at the min, both great jobs etc but what would they do if they get "my luck"????

goodie2shoes

Smidge wrote: »

And tbh honest I don't think that a lot of women get the difficulties health wise with late pregnancies.
I get the optimism though, where there is life there's hope and all that.

I think we have gone completely off topic though:o

the reason many women put-off getting pregnant is partly because of the advances in medical science enabling "older" women to conceive, often involving egg donors, surrogacy.
the other reason is, imo to do with the "i want it now" consumer society we live in, which (through advertising etc.) tells us, if we got the money/education then we can get whatever we want, whenever we want.
both can be misleading.

i agree we're way off topic.

Smidge

goodie2shoes wrote: »

the reason many women put-off getting pregnant is partly because of the advances in medical science enabling "older" women to conceive, often involving egg donors, surrogacy.
the other reason is, imo to do with the "i want it now" consumer society we live in, which (through advertising etc.) tells us, if we got the money/education then we can get whatever we want.
both can be misleading.

i agree we're way off topic.

Actually G2S I think stheno is right are we are not that way off topic.
I know you may be talking about people who are neglectful, abusive etc but this is also valid in keeping with the thread title.

flutterflye

Stheno wrote: »

Not really, you could ask if such women who have put it off for so long, and are only doing it after years of delaying it, are suitable as parents?

How are they better than a 25 year old in a modest career who has always dreamed of being a mother and nothing greater, and willing to put life outside of mother hood aside to bring up her children?

Now there has to be a balance, women have to have both opportunities, but from practical experience in my working life, it's very very hard to achieve.

Lots of it down to Irish society, poor childcare, over expectations of how much time people are willing to commit to work etc.

A fundamental shift would be required to achieve it.

Yeah, I'm the opposite end - had kids very early, and yet to even get a degree.
Time is ticking away and I'm afraid I'll never have a career - Well the career I want anyway.
I'd always choose kids over career, but I'd like to have both.
So I think taking all aspects into consideration, the best time to start kids would be mid to late 20's.

tan11ie

Smidge wrote: »

I have several female friends in their 40's now who regret not trying for children earlier(having gone through failed IVF etc) and some who are still under the illusion that at 43 are going to magically conceive, no hassle, for the first time!

I wonder have women adopted some form of "Brainwashing" for want of a better expression because we have tried to AVOID pregnancy for most of our lives until the "time is right" ?

I think a lot of women fall into this, but the fact is that the time is never really right when you put so much thought into it.

In answer to the OP - some people are not fit to look after pets never mind children...my heart breaks for some of the kids I've have pass through my life over the years, and all they want is the love of their parents....who in turn just don't deserve to be given such a gift.

Stheno

goodie2shoes wrote: »

the reason many women put-off getting pregnant is partly because of the advances in medical science enabling "older" women to conceive, often involving egg donors, surrogacy.
the other reason is, imo to do with the "i want it now" consumer society we live in, which (through advertising etc.) tells us, if we got the money/education then we can get whatever we want.
both can be misleading.

i agree we're way off topic.

Given there is no clear answer from everything I have looked at in terms of nature verus nurture, who is to say we are off topic?

What is the best type of parent?

One who will nurture you, provide you with every opportunity they can, while scrimping and saving and supporting you?

One who packs you off to nannies and boarding schools?

One who can't be arsed that you are the seventh in seven years and is more interested in the booze?

Obviously the third is not ideal, but plenty of children rise above such circumstances, just as many in one and two go on not to do well or deviate against societal norms?

I'd argue that until faced with parenthood, and I came to it late and with late stage teenagers as a step parent, it's about having boundaries, yet allowing a child feel they can talk to you and look to you for guidance.

If you can't do that you are not fit to be a parent.

goodie2shoes

Smidge wrote: »

Actually G2S I think stheno is right are we are not that way off topic.
I know you may be talking about people who are neglectful, abusive etc but this is also valid in keeping with the thread title.

ironic that often those people who put the most thought into having kids cannot, and those that put little or no thought procreate so readily.

sometimes it's better to follow the NIKE advice on family planning?

LETHAL LADY

goodie2shoes wrote: »

the reason many women put-off getting pregnant is partly because of the advances in medical science enabling "older" women to conceive, often involving egg donors, surrogacy.
the other reason is, imo to do with the "i want it now" consumer society we live in, which (through advertising etc.) tells us, if we got the money/education then we can get whatever we want.
both can be misleading.

i agree we're way off topic.

Most woman know when it is best to concieve, we are taught it from very early age. May be off topic but why are women the ones at fault it takes two to tango and all that.

goodie2shoes

Stheno wrote: »

Given there is no clear answer from everything I have looked at in terms of nature verus nurture, who is to say we are off topic?

What is the best type of parent?

One who will nurture you, provide you with every opportunity they can, while scrimping and saving and supporting you?

One who packs you off to nannies and boarding schools?

One who can't be arsed that you are the seventh in seven years and is more interested in the booze?

Obviously the third is not ideal, but plenty of children rise above such circumstances, just as many in one and two go on not to do well or deviate against societal norms?

I'd argue that until faced with parenthood, and I came to it late and with late stage teenagers as a step parent, it's about having boundaries, yet allowing a child feel they can talk to you and look to you for guidance.

If you can't do that you are not fit to be a parent.

this topic has become overtly philosophical imo.
we're splitting hairs now on what constitutes good parenthood.

my reason for starting this thread was simply to ask, is it right to remove kids from their biological parents in certain (extreme) circumstances? ie where there is gross, extreme abuse and neglect.
in those circumstances, does not a parent forego their rights to parenthood?

i'm not pondering did little johnnie not get sufficient attention from his mum/dad. that's being foolish/pedantic.

Smidge

Stheno wrote: »

Given there is no clear answer from everything I have looked at in terms of nature verus nurture, who is to say we are off topic?

What is the best type of parent?

One who will nurture you, provide you with every opportunity they can, while scrimping and saving and supporting you?

One who packs you off to nannies and boarding schools?

One who can't be arsed that you are the seventh in seven years and is more interested in the booze?

Obviously the third is not ideal, but plenty of children rise above such circumstances, just as many in one and two go on not to do well or deviate against societal norms?

I'd argue that until faced with parenthood, and I came to it late and with late stage teenagers as a step parent, it's about having boundaries, yet allowing a child feel they can talk to you and look to you for guidance.

If you can't do that you are not fit to be a parent.

I agree, I have seen both ends of the spectrum believe me.

I have friends who. for the life of me, I can't understand why they bothered to have kids at all as they see the kids before the send them to daycare and for about 30 mins in the evening after they collect them and before they put them to bed(and tbh they don't even know what to do with them in that 30 minutes).

Also people with kids who I would trust a bowl of fruit with, never mind children.

goodie2shoes

i'm off to bed guys.
thnx for an interesting discussion.

we'll see who prevails tomorrow, and ultimately what difference it will make?:)

Smidge

goodie2shoes wrote: »

this topic has become overtly philosophical imo.
we're splitting hairs now on what constitutes good parenthood.

my reason for starting this thread was simply to ask, is it right to remove kids from their biological parents in certain (extreme) circumstances? ie where there is gross, extreme abuse and neglect.
in those circumstances, does not a parent forego their rights to parenthood?

i'm not pondering did little johnnie not get sufficient attention from his mum/dad. that's being foolish/pedantic.

I don't think you got the stabfest of vitriol you were expecting G2S :pac: