Completely Put Off Having Children

Tell me how

The One Doctor wrote: »

Wind up merchant.

Hardly a wind up given the thread has a few hundred posts on the topic without it regressing in to a shouting match between the 'haves and the have nots'.

s1ippy

Lillyfae wrote: »

The loan is interest free, nobody has to take it up. Free public transport is also provided so not entirely necessary to get a loan if people are living within an hour’s commute of the Uni, all of which are well connected. The fees are half of what is due to Irish universities. You can do 2 degrees at the same time and still pay the same fees. There is also a bigger hourly commitment so you can earn a bachelor’s in 3 years and a master’s in another 1. 4 years total for a masters. 3 years on top of that you would be fully funded @ €37,500pa for a PhD.

So you're expected to pay or get a loan for around €262,500 over 7 years if you want to get a PhD?

Are you trying to claim that this is good?

Edit: I just realised you're saying they'll fund you to the tune of €37,500 for the 3 years of PhD, apologies.

Fourier

s1ippy wrote: »

So you're expected to pay or get a loan for around €262,500 over 7 years if you want to get a PhD?

Are you trying to claim that this is good?

Edit: I just realised you're saying they'll fund you to the tune of €37,500 for the 3 years of PhD, apologies.

You don't pay for a PhD in the Netherlands as you are paid as a member of the university staff.

EDIT: Just saw your edit

riclad

Some people want to have children. Everyone is different
A lot of women will have children if they are in a long term relationship Maybe there's a lot if women out there who
are waiting for the right person to meet before they have
children. To be practical about it. We need a certain birth
rate to survive as a society Eg children grow up to be
workers and taxpayers. I think there's happy single people
out there and married people with children Eg having
children is no guarantee of happiness
It can be tiring and stressful and it's expensive Eg most
women are working now At some point they will have to
pay for childcare

Austria!

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

It's the whole risk of having a special needs child...i think too many folks are afraid to be honest about it...if you have a child who is severely disabled your life is pretty much over.

Yeah, being honest I think I'd probably prefer to be dead.

Tell me how

Austria! wrote: »

Yeah, being honest I think I'd probably prefer to be dead.

That is a horrifically insensitive statement to post on a forum where many people who have disabled friends or family members or even disabled people themselves who use Boards are probably reading it.

I can't tell you to think differently but have a bit of decorum for pity's sake.

s1ippy

I have a disabled family member and work in disability services I can tell you honestly that it's not an unfair assessment of what people in those circumstances feel. Obviously not every parent of children with disabilities will feel that way and many people are happy out. However, I know of a huge amount of people whose lives are completely taken over by the person they have to care for. They often alienate their friends and family looking for support because they're so exhausted. It's not that they don't want to give their time or they're selfish, it's that there is absolutely fúck all state support so it's just you and your child from now until you die and they stick them in a care home where they're 100% guaranteed to be neglected and mistreated. Imagine that being your future, you have to be a stone wall to not occasionally think about ending it all when everything is set against you.

About one in eight people born have a disability of varying degrees. One in five of those will be able to live with relative independence. It's not always a life sentence for a parent, but it is going to be a lot, lot more work than raising a typical child. It's a risk you take when you decide to give birth and that risk is increasing because of birth defects also rising in recent years. Hospital negligence is also a serious contributing factor in birth complications.

"......stick them in a care home where they're 100% guaranteed to be neglected and mistreated".

I agree with your post apart from the above. How can you know this? A person with a disability who is in a care home will 100% guaranteed be neglected and mistreated?

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

I like children, it's just the lifestyle that puts me off having a family. You're basically a full-time minder for at least 18 years of your life. Every choice you make in life, right down to the smallest little choices, is dictated by the needs of your children.

I've no problem making sacrifices for the things I feel are worth it in my life... but I just don't feel like sacrificing all the great aspects of the life I've built in order to have a family. It just doesn't feel that important to me.

I've looked after my nieces and nephews occasionally... and they are fun to hang out with. But then I get to give them back!

Money is a big one as well... my finances are in great shape the last few years. I've no debts and can plan for all sorts of different stuff, without worrying whether I'll have enough for this that or the other... it's a great relief to not be worrying about money or stressing about all the myriad of different expenses that crop up when you have a family!

I guess I've just weighed it all up logically and intelligently in my mind... and it doesn't make much sense to have a family. I don't think it would make me any happier than I already am currently. But I suppose most people don't really analyse these things as deeply or methodically as I do... it's probably more of a human instinct thing with most people.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Austria! wrote: »

Yeah, being honest I think I'd probably prefer to be dead.

I applaud your honesty.

You'll be heavily criticised for publicly stating this... but I think deep down, we all know that many people are privately thinking the same thing!

I'm sure parents love their special needs children. But nobody (if they're being completely honest with themselves) would choose to have a disabled child. And it can be a very difficult lifestyle for those parents - I know from being quite close to two such families. It's not really anything like the life they imagined, when they decided to start a family.

s1ippy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"......stick them in a care home where they're 100% guaranteed to be neglected and mistreated".

I agree with your post apart from the above. How can you know this? A person with a disability who is in a care home will 100% guaranteed be neglected and mistreated?

I carry out reviews of group homes as part of my job. In hundreds of clients down through the years, there have been no instances where all of their basic needs were met. Categories most commonly overlooked are
- Diet and Nutrition
- Social Needs
- Hygiene and Sanitation

If you're not cleaned, fed and don't get any attention for even one day and tell me how you feel. Now imagine that you can't verbalise that to anyone. Now imagine that you have immense difficulty expressing yourself, manage to tell someone but find they can't do anything or are ambivalent.

The main cause of these needs not being met are cost-saving measures and people not wanting to work in disability services due to the pay and conditions. Advocacy groups are made up of overstretched parents of people with disabilities or people with disabilities themselves who may need a lot of assistance figuring out how to effect change. They are completely ignored by the public and local politicians because until you've been them, you don't understand the adversity they grapple with every day for the most basic of requests.

bitofabind

I've a special needs sister. It's the easiest description of her, in reality she's completely physically and mentally incapacitated as a result of a mental illness that went from bad to worse to devastating more than half my lifetime ago. The fallout has been astronomical and we've all personally struggled emotionally and in our interpersonal relationships as a result. We are in perpetual unresolved grief. My 70+ parents are her full-time carers now because she "falls between the gaps" and the public health system has nothing for people so uniquely disabled like my sister.

There's a potential genetic component to her illness. I can honestly say if I gave birth to a child that inherited what she has, I would put the child up for adoption. I couldn't go there again. It's too dark. Which makes me feel sometimes like I'm not fit to be a parent as I simply could not and would not do what my parents do. The whole family suffers.

So yeah. While not PC to say, the reality can be impossible with children like this. Having a child is always a risk, but when you've seen the reality of life when that risk is realised, I wouldn't say it's inaccurate for a lot of people.

lazygal

I have children.
On my last pregnancy I had non invasive and invasive pre natal testing. If the test for one syndrome had been confirmed I'd have had a termination and I make no apology for saying so. I know my limits as a parent and I was unwilling to put such a burden on my children. Thankfully all was well.

s1ippy

s1ippy wrote: »

I carry out reviews of group homes as part of my job. In hundreds of clients down through the years, there have been no instances where all of their basic needs were met. Categories most commonly overlooked are
- Diet and Nutrition
- Social Needs
- Hygiene and Sanitation

If you're not cleaned, fed and don't get any attention for even one day and tell me how you feel. Now imagine that you can't verbalise that to anyone. Now imagine that you have immense difficulty expressing yourself, manage to tell someone but find they can't do anything or are ambivalent.

The main cause of these needs not being met are cost-saving measures and people not wanting to work in disability services due to the pay and conditions. Advocacy groups are made up of overstretched parents of people with disabilities or people with disabilities themselves who may need a lot of assistance figuring out how to effect change. They are completely ignored by the public and local politicians because until you've been them, you don't understand the adversity they grapple with every day for the most basic of requests.

I worked in residential care for 8 years. We did our absolute best for the service users. Now I can't speak for the whole organisation but certainly the house I was in was excellent. The categories you mention as being commonly overlooked were not in my experience. There were regular appointments with dentists and dieticians, healthy eating plans, exercise routines, social and community involvement, emotional needs being met. Encouragement of interaction between family members and service users. Parties. Nights out. Birthdays celebrated. You name it.

SusieBlue

I too have a sibling with special needs so I fully understand the complexities & sacrifices that go hand in hand with bringing up a child with a disability.
I know it’s not for everyone and also fully support termination/adoption for anyone who feels they couldn’t parent a child with additional needs.
It’s a monumental life changing sacrifice and I respect that not everyone is in a position to take on that kind of responsibility, or that they even want to take on that kind of responsibility.
I get it.
If I got such news while pregnant I’m not sure what course of action I’d take myself, either.

I just think there are kinder, more sensitive ways of saying that it isn’t for you than ‘I’d rather be dead’.
That’s quite an insensitive thing to say on a forum where there are parents/relatives of children and people with disabilities, and it could be very hurtful and offensive for them to read statements like that.

mr_fegelien

This is why for me antinatalism is the way to go. For those who don't know what it is, it's a philosophy that subscribes a negative view to birth. In other words, it believes there's generally more suffering than pleasure in this world. The suffering is easier to come across and doesn't have a limit to how long it lasts whereas pleasure takes effort to obtain and is fleeting.

Thinking of getting a vasectomy to ensure no mr_fegelien II's or mr_fegelien III's

Leg End Reject

mr_fegelien wrote: »

This is why for me antinatalism is the way to go. For those who don't know what it is, it's a philosophy that subscribes a negative view to birth. In other words, it believes there's generally more suffering than pleasure in this world. The suffering is easier to come across and doesn't have a limit to how long it lasts whereas pleasure takes effort to obtain and is fleeting.

Thinking of getting a vasectomy to ensure no mr_fegelien II's or mr_fegelien III's

What a cheery, positive post.

You've started numerous threads criticising your own looks, social skills in general and your inability to talk to women. A vasectomy isn't a priority.

Life has its challenges, most of us will experience grief and loss, but it's very definitely worth living. If someone has a severe physical or mental health condition it might skew their outlook, but that shouldn't be used as an argument against having children.

xzanti

lazygal wrote: »

I have children.
On my last pregnancy I had non invasive and invasive pre natal testing. If the test for one syndrome had been confirmed I'd have had a termination and I make no apology for saying so. I know my limits as a parent and I was unwilling to put such a burden on my children. Thankfully all was well.

So did I. Testing done at 11 weeks.

Thankfully all was well here too.

Harmony test is offered as standard in most hospitals now to women over 30 afaik.

auspicious

UNICEF estimates five thousand kids are orphaned daily.

bb1234567

These replies are just too sweet, little tear in my eye reading them.

Statutory Ape wrote: »

I have two (3 and 22 months) and its everything and more that I imagined. Yes its stressful, particularly when they are very small and wont stop crying. Yes, they wake up at 6 every morning and my free time is very limited and social life has taken a backseat, even before C19. Yes they are messy, expensive, annoying and obstreperous by times.

But they are so full of love and wonder that any minor annoyance is forgotten when they give me a hug and a kiss, when they tell me they love me, when they start randomly quoting lines from the gruffalo or peter rabbit, when they crawl into bed beside me for a snuggle, when they ask to hear a song they like, when they dance like monkeys while listening to music from the jungle book.

They have made life better in every way that actually matters and I'm trying to treasure the extra time we have together while they are not in creche.

mr_edge_to_you wrote: »

It's so hard to describe it. My kids are 8 and 5. Kids are flipping hard work, minding them becomes the most important thing in your life. They'll drive you to despair and cost you a fortune. They row with each other numerous times a day. I come home from work and my wife needs to go for a walk to clear her head.

At the same time, they're amazing little people. Watching their personalities develop. My daughter is super intelligent and looks like she has a talent for arts and crafts. My son is the funniest little man and kind. He's the best craic! We brought them to Disneyland Paris last year and it was the greatest feeling. My wife and I were blessed with our upbringings and all we want is to at least match the childhoods we had.

In saying all that, we do look forward to a weekend away without the kids every couple of months.

bb1234567

mr_fegelien wrote: »

This is why for me antinatalism is the way to go. For those who don't know what it is, it's a philosophy that subscribes a negative view to birth. In other words, it believes there's generally more suffering than pleasure in this world. The suffering is easier to come across and doesn't have a limit to how long it lasts whereas pleasure takes effort to obtain and is fleeting.

Thinking of getting a vasectomy to ensure no mr_fegelien II's or mr_fegelien III's

A very lazy and uninspiring outlook on life. Some people like a challenge , and feeling like they worked and deserve the pleasures they achieved in life. Most people would agree that life is still worth living and enjoyable even if it's not constant pleasure.

Nobody owes you anything in life. But if you're born here we have the capacity to achieve great things that result in enjoyable lifestyles for yourself and others , we could never do that if humans had expected only constant pleasure throughout their life with no intention of working to achieve that.

ladystardust

xzanti wrote: »

So did I. Testing done at 11 weeks.

Thankfully all was well here too.

Harmony test is offered as standard in most hospitals now to women over 30 afaik.

All women attending are informed, regardless of age but it is a private service, in that it must be paid for and is not offered as routine antenatal care. It is only offered as a standard of care in certain circumstances.

jaxxx

mr_fegelien wrote: »

This is why for me antinatalism is the way to go. For those who don't know what it is, it's a philosophy that subscribes a negative view to birth. In other words, it believes there's generally more suffering than pleasure in this world. The suffering is easier to come across and doesn't have a limit to how long it lasts whereas pleasure takes effort to obtain and is fleeting.

Thinking of getting a vasectomy to ensure no mr_fegelien II's or mr_fegelien III's

I've read some horsesh*t in my time but antinatalism is up there with the most idiotic crap ever. The very definition of life is procreation. Whether it's animals, plants, bacteria, etc or whether it's sexual or asexual reproduction; the whole point of life is continuation. This whole notion that giving birth to new life is morally wrong is as f*cking stupid as the notion that the planet is flat.


That being said, humans are among one of a few select species that actually need 'thinning the numbers' because we're far too overpopulated. If anyone disagrees with that, then ye're as thick as the the people I mentioned above. Humans ain't some special species that were 'gifted the planet', we're simply one of billions that calls this planet home. End of. The only difference is, we're the only ones actively f8cking it up.

Edit: As far as humans are concerned, Thanos was right!

One eyed Jack

jaxxx wrote: »

I've read some horsesh*t in my time but antinatalism is up there with the most idiotic crap ever. The very definition of life is procreation. Whether it's animals, plants, bacteria, etc or whether it's sexual or asexual reproduction; the whole point of life is continuation. This whole notion that giving birth to new life is morally wrong is as f*cking stupid as the notion that the planet is flat.


That being said, humans are among one of a few select species that actually need 'thinning the numbers' because we're far too overpopulated. If anyone disagrees with that, then ye're as thick as the the people I mentioned above. Humans ain't some special species that were 'gifted the planet', we're simply one of billions that calls this planet home. End of. The only difference is, we're the only ones actively f8cking it up.

Edit: As far as humans are concerned, Thanos was right!

So in the current circumstances in which we find ourselves, either giving birth is morally wrong, or it isn’t? I can’t tell which from your post.

Because that’s the whole argument for antinatalism which I agree is indeed a crock, is as much a crock as the world is overpopulated with humans argument. If as you suggest humans aren’t that special, then the extinction of the species shouldn’t be an issue. Promoting antinatalism simply achieves the same result, faster. It’s probably for the best if people who hold those points of view actually practice what they preached, I don’t imagine anyone is going to object.

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

I just think there are kinder, more sensitive ways of saying that it isn’t for you than ‘I’d rather be dead’.
That’s quite an insensitive thing to say on a forum where there are parents/relatives of children and people with disabilities, and it could be very hurtful and offensive for them to read statements like that.

To be fair to them, it was in response to another poster suggesting that their lives are pretty much over for people who have a child with special needs. The poster said they’d rather be dead, not that they wished the child were dead, or prevented from being born in the first place - I don’t have anything to offer that would be likely to change their perspective either, even though I disagree with the idea, they’re speaking from their own point of view.

Is it insensitive? Sure, but I don’t think trying to suppress the point of view or trying to couch it in fluffy euphemisms (I’ve never liked the term “special needs” as though they are somehow of lesser value to society than other people) is in any way actually helpful, it’s just misleading, the same as anyone expressing an opinion of the negative aspects of having children who they consider would have special needs, as though that’s how they should be defined. By that rationale, surely everyone has ‘special needs’ seeing as everyone has needs that are unique to them over and above another persons needs.

Everyone just has different needs is all, is the point I’m making, and differentiating people on the basis of their needs and therefore quantifying their value to society as to whether they are a drain on societies resources or not, is insensitive to the idea that they actually contribute to society and therefore are of equal value to society as anyone else.

Is it tough for some parents? I would suggest it’s what people themselves make of it, as opposed to being able to say for definite whether it’s any more or less difficult than caring for children and adults who aren’t incapacitated in some way. Regarding anyone as a burden on parents or as a burden on society is coming from an already formed prejudice against them, and overlooking the idea that if we were to actually define people according to their needs, at some stage society is likely to get around to examining our value to society with a more critical eye.

lazygal

ladystardust wrote: »

All women attending are informed, regardless of age but it is a private service, in that it must be paid for and is not offered as routine antenatal care. It is only offered as a standard of care in certain circumstances.

Which is disgraceful. It should be provided free as part of maternity care in every maternity unit. It's like some hospitals want to keep women in the dark about their own pregnancies.

Ave Sodalis

I have faced so much backlash for not wanting children. I'm not exaggerating when I say that some people are horrified at the idea that others don't want kids, and many people believe they have a right to a say in it. I've had some pretty ugly things said to me by almost strangers when they find out I don't want children. It isn't actually something I mention often, but I'm in a long term relationship so people pry.



My reasons for not wanting children are long and complicated. It boils down to numerous crappy experiences in life that seems to have killed any sort of desire to have children. I don't get that fuzzy feeling looking at kids that other people seem to get. I don't find babies cute. The idea of having children of my own gives me a sickly feeling of, quite frankly, revulsion. Don't get me wrong, I am good with children. I've had an active hand in helping to raise my siblings. However, the want to have my own is not there.



I can handle the comments and "opinions" of other people though. The most difficult part I feel is going to be my relationship. My partner, up to recently, has been in agreement with no children, but I've seen him start to smile when a baby goes past, or coo when a toddler waddles down the street. He even asked me again why I didn't want children. For that reason I've tried. I've tried meaning it when I compliment newborns. I've tried thinking happy thoughts when I see a toddler. I've tried making myself believe that that would be lovely when I see a family out enjoying themselves. I've basically tried to switch my entire way of thinking it an effort to trick myself into wanting children, but as soon as I stop trying, it's gone. So it's not the snide words of people I barely know (and people I know well) that's the hard bit. The hard bit of not wanting children is the probable doom of a relationship with one of the very few people I care about in life because it's not something that can be compromised on.

fits

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

I applaud your honesty.

You'll be heavily criticised for publicly stating this... but I think deep down, we all know that many people are privately thinking the same thing!

I'm sure parents love their special needs children. But nobody (if they're being completely honest with themselves) would choose to have a disabled child. And it can be a very difficult lifestyle for those parents - I know from being quite close to two such families. It's not really anything like the life they imagined, when they decided to start a family.

I have a special needs child. He has an intellectual disability. I won’t name the condition as not many children have it so it’s too identifiable. Before he was born I thought it would be the worst possible thing that could happen a family. I would never have chosen it and I will not have anymore children because of the risk of them getting it too. It’s a moderate intellectual disability and he doesn’t seem to have any associated physical issues besides delayed development.

However I am genuine when I saw this, he is a wonderful human being and he makes us all better people. I am a much less selfish person since he came along and have tapped strengths I never knew I had. He will contribute to society and deserves to be accepted as a full member of it. And I will do be damned utmost to make sure that happens.

And by the way the worst possible thing that could happen is to have a child who is severely ill and suffering for any reason. Thankfully we don’t see the insides of the children hospitals very often but what you can see there would haunt you.

Nika Bolokov

When has society not been in absolute squalor?

If anything its a hell of a lot better than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Bobblehats

Nika Bolokov wrote: »

When has society not been in absolute squalor?

If anything its a hell of a lot better than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Hudja Nika Bolokov.

Here you can only put it off for so long