Are kids really worth all the hassle

ermahgerd · 01-09-2012 06:06PM

Madam_X wrote: »

comments like "Bet most people who have children regret it and are lying to themselves/others", "lots of people only have children because it's what's societally expected of them" are rendered fallacy when you consider people whose hearts are shattered because they can't have children.

They're actually not rendered fallacy simply because there's a subset that cannot physically have children.

Lots of people do have children only because it's what is expected from them.
Lots of people have children and regret it.
Lots of the second people will also try to lie to themselves and others in a bid to make their situation more tolerable.

Neither of these become fallacy simply because there are people out there who can't have kids yet would like to. That would imply that simply because such people exist the aforementioned statements are rendered incorrect or invalid, which they're not.

Even if they were statements such as:
ALL people who have children regret it
ALL people who have children only do so because they feel it's what society expects of them

Are not rendered fallacy simply because the aforementioned infertile people exist. The latter statements are incorrect in nature, but not because of the existence of the mentioned subset.

Abi · 01-09-2012 06:12PM

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Like when people who have/want children think you should want them too, and you're abnormal if you don't?

floggg wrote: »

And what about all the people "projecting" that a childless life is shallow and empty?

You're actually both shouting your cases so loudly you can't even see what she IS saying. She has stated she doesn't know if she wants children or not, and sits on the fence. What she does believe is that neither party should make assumptions.

But do carry on.

Daisy M · 01-09-2012 06:16PM

ermahgerd wrote: »

They're actually not rendered fallacy simply because there's a subset that cannot physically have children.

Lots of people do have children only because it's what is expected from them.
Lots of people have children and regret it.
Lots of the second people will also try to lie to themselves and others in a bid to make their situation more tolerable.

Neither of these become fallacy simply because there are people out there who can't have kids yet would like to. That would imply that simply because such people exist the aforementioned statements are rendered incorrect or invalid, which they're not.

Even if they were statements such as:
ALL people who have children regret it
ALL people who have children only do so because they feel it's what society expects of them

Are not rendered fallacy simply because the aforementioned infertile people exist. The latter statements are incorrect in nature, but not because of the existence of the mentioned subset.

I have a real problem with this part of your statement. This is at best guess work, especially if you are saying people will not admit to regretting having children, how is it possible for you to know this so?
As for the ambiguous term lots? Whats lots to you, I would consider lots to be 75%. If it were through that lots of people regretted having kids then there would be a high percentage of one child families.

I could come out with statements that lots of people over 50 regret not having children it doesn't mean thats true.

Families in Ireland with more than 4 children made up 64.2% of all families. Did it take them up until they had child 4 or more to realise they made a mistake?

shopaholic01 · 01-09-2012 06:18PM

Abi wrote: »

You're actually both shouting your cases so loudly you can't even see what she IS saying. She has stated she doesn't know if she wants children or not, and sits on the fence. What she does believe is that neither party should make assumptions.

But do carry on.

Her post was edited - the highlighted part was added later after I responded. The point still stands however, she has an issue with people who don't want children projecting their opinions because of those who have difficulty conceiving. Well, I'm entitled to respond that people who have/want children judge those of us who don't and assume we lead sad, empty lives.

ermahgerd · 01-09-2012 06:25PM

Daisy M wrote: »

I have a real problem with this part of your statement. This is at best guess work, especially if you are saying people will not admit to regretting having children, how is it possible for you to know this so?
As for the ambiguous term lots? Whats lots to you, I would consider lots to be 75%. If it were through that lots of people regretted having kids then there would be a high percentage of one child families.

I could come out with statements that lots of people over 50 regret not having children it doesn't mean thats true.

Families in Ireland with more than 4 children made up 64.2% of all families. Did it take them up until they had child 4 or more to realise they made a mistake?

Yes well "lots" does not mean 75%, it just means a great quantity in terms of numbers, not %. Just because you consider a word to mean something does not mean that it does.

"Lots" does not even have to mean the majority, which only has to be >=51% of an individual set also, not your bizarre notion of 75% being the only thing rendered significant.

The statement of "lots of people over 50 regret not having children" would undoubtedly hold true.

Families in Ireland? You mean Catholic Ireland where until not so long ago, contraception was actually illegal? Not going to put much meaning in those figures until the generation who had no access to contraception yet succumbed to nature's calls has passed on, to be honest.

Just because you take issue with something, does not invalidate it. Maybe use the noggin before falling into emotive, impulsive replies again.

ermahgerd · 01-09-2012 06:27PM

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Her post was edited - the highlighted part was added later after I responded. The point still stands however, she has an issue with people who don't want children projecting their opinions because of those who have difficulty conceiving. Well, I'm entitled to respond that people who have/want children judge those of us who don't and assume we lead sad, empty lives.

You're 100% correct, her post was originally only targeted at those who didn't want children and amounted to "people who don't want children should keep their opinions to themselves lest they offend those who can't have them".

It was edited heavily and to something more rational then.

Abi · 01-09-2012 06:27PM

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Her post was edited - the highlighted part was added later after I responded.

I edit my posts too though, to better explain what I'm trying to say.

The point still stands however, she has an issue with people who don't want children projecting their opinions because of those who have difficulty conceiving.

I think she can sympathise with those on either side of the fence. I do too, believe it or not. While I feel sorry for childless couples that desperately want children, I also see the POV for people that prefer not to have children and get it constantly rammed down their necks.

Well, I'm entitled to respond that people who have/want children judge those of us who don't and assume we lead sad, empty lives.

I get your frustration, but I think you've gone past the point of putting your response out there to looking for an argument where this is not one in the first place.

shopaholic01 · 01-09-2012 06:32PM

Abi wrote: »

I edit my posts too though, to better explain what I'm trying to say.

In fairness the edit changed the tone of her post and it was the edited bit that you referred to.

I think she can sympathise with those on either side of the fence. I do too, believe it or not. While I feel sorry for childless couples that desperately want children, I also see the POV for people that prefer not to have children and get it constantly rammed down their necks.

I get your frustration, but I think you've gone past the point of putting your response out there to looking for an argument where this is not one in the first place.

I'm not looking for an argument, merely responding to a perceived lack of empathy/sensitivity from the 'childless by choice' among us.

shopaholic01 · 01-09-2012 06:35PM

Abi wrote: »

I edit my posts too though, to better explain what I'm trying to say.

Sorry, blond moment, the first part of my post didn't appear!

When that post was edited it changed the tone. You have referred to the edited part which was not what I had responded to.

I hope this makes sense as I'm starting to confuse myself now!

Daisy M · 01-09-2012 06:39PM

ermahgerd wrote: »

Yes well "lots" does not mean 75%, it just means a great quantity in terms of numbers, not %. Just because you consider a word to mean something does not mean that it does.

"Lots" does not even have to mean the majority, which only has to be >=51% of an individual set also, not your bizarre notion of 75% being the only thing rendered significant.

The statement of "lots of people over 50 regret not having children" would undoubtedly hold true.

Families in Ireland? You mean Catholic Ireland where until not so long ago, contraception was actually illegal? Not going to put much meaning in those figures until the generation who had no access to contraception yet succumbed to nature's calls has passed on, to be honest.

Just because you take issue with something, does not invalidate it. Maybe use the noggin before falling into emotive, impulsive replies again.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am not using my noggin or am replying impulsively or emotively. I believe you are wrong and am happy to say why so please try not to dismiss my posts in such a manner.

Read my reply I said you used the ambiguous term lots and that I would take lots in general to mean 75%, look up the term ambiguous and you will be clearer as to what I meant.

The data I gave was from the last couple of years and contraceptive has been widely available in Ireland for longer than that. Parents of all children under 18 or under have had the choice of contraceptive available to them.

When I consider the families in my childrens local school the majority have 3 or more children.

Abi · 01-09-2012 06:46PM

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I'm not looking for an argument, merely responding to a perceived lack of empathy/sensitivity from the 'childless by choice' among us.

You just seem so het up about it. I'm sure you've received a lot of insensitive comments of your own, people assuming you should want children etc. I've been on the receiving end of it myself so I'm not against what you are saying at all. There is a point however that you have to say to people like that 'hey I've got a great idea, why don't you let me decide what I want to do with my life' and be done with it.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Sorry, blond moment, the first part of my post didn't appear!

When that post was edited it changed the tone. You have referred to the edited part which was not what I had responded to.

I hope this makes sense as I'm starting to confuse myself now!

Okay, well I didn't see the original version, but I just don't get the impression that she means to target women that prefer to remain childless. Her other posts don't seem to indicate that, so it's why I assume it was a re-wording to better explain herself.

mitosis · 01-09-2012 06:47PM

I have children so they will take care of me in my dotage. Why else would you do it?

anncoates · 01-09-2012 06:51PM

TPD wrote: »

I find this genuinely confusing. What does 'mot' or 'moth' mean when referring to your husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever?

It is Dublin slang for a girlfriend or wife only, not a husband or boyfriend.

ermahgerd · 01-09-2012 06:51PM

Daisy M wrote: »

Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am not using my noggin or am replying impulsively or emotively. I believe you are wrong and am happy to say why so please try not to dismiss my posts in such a manner.

Read my reply I said you used the ambiguous term lots and that I would take lots in general to mean 75%, look up the term ambiguous and you will be clearer as to what I meant.

Yes well then you're an exception because nobody else takes "lots" to mean 75% of a given sample.

I wouldn't bother with the condescension to be honest, you're just making yourself look even worse.

The data I gave was from the last couple of years and contraceptive has been widely available in Ireland for longer than that. Parents of all children under 18 or under have had the choice of contraceptive available to them.

Source please? Because I'm not seeing massive numbers of families with 4 children under 18 these days.

According to the CSO, of the 1,462,296 households in the country, 54,618 are households with 6 people (3%)

Households with 6 or more people - 77,656 (5%)

So you're saying that the 5% of households in the CSO constitute 62.4% of families in the country?

Seems very awry but I welcome a decent source confirming that is the case.

When I consider the families in my childrens local school the majority have 3 or more children.

Source please.

say_who_now? · 01-09-2012 06:55PM

Thread needs more nappies! Feckin' smell in here!

SmilingLurker · 01-09-2012 07:07PM

ArtSmart wrote: »

starbelgrade wrote: »

I wouldn't swap being a dad for all the money in the world.

ok, 10,000 billion. in ur pocket. tonight. u gonna say no?

As a father, I would say no to all money. I do not expect you to understand, something has to be hard coded into DNA. I would not have thought this a few years ago.

Don't have kids unless you really want them and you are with the right person.

Daisy M · 01-09-2012 07:09PM

ermahgerd wrote: »

Yes well then you're an exception because nobody else takes "lots" to mean 75% of a given sample.

I wouldn't bother with the condescension to be honest, you're just making yourself look even worse.

Source please? Because I'm not seeing massive numbers of families with 4 children under 18 these days.

According to the CSO, of the 1,462,296 households in the country, 54,618 are households with 6 people (3%)

Households with 6 or more people - 77,656 (5%)

So you're saying that the 5% of households in the CSO constitute 62.4% of families in the country?

Seems very awry but I welcome a decent source confirming that is the case.

Source please.

Once again you are choosing to spout facts that you have no idea of, you do not know whether or not I am an exception and if nobody else would take lots to mean 75%. If you consider me to be condesending because I am correcting your incorrect statements then so be it, if I see an inconsistency I will point it out.

Here is the link.
http://www.thejournal.ie/census-shows-family-size-still-declining-but-at-a-slower-pace-400539-Mar2012/

Also when it refers to families it refers to people who live together married or otherwise not only those with children.

Are you seriously asking me for a link to my childrens primary school?

Are you able to give any sources for the facts you have spouted?

shopaholic01 · 01-09-2012 07:22PM

Abi wrote: »

You just seem so het up about it. I'm sure you've received a lot of insensitive comments of your own, people assuming you should want children etc. I've been on the receiving end of it myself so I'm not against what you are saying at all. There is a point however that you have to say to people like that 'hey I've got a great idea, why don't you let me decide what I want to do with my life' and be done with it.

Abi, it was the two of you who had an issue with a lack of sensitivity! That was what I responded to
.

Abi wrote: »

Okay, well I didn't see the original version, but I just don't get the impression that she means to target women that prefer to remain childless. Her other posts don't seem to indicate that, so it's why I assume it was a re-wording to better explain herself.

The edit changed the context, you replied to my post which was a response to the unedited post. However, you responded in the context of the edited post.

We should probably just go with your 'each to their own' sentiment!

shopaholic01 · 01-09-2012 07:28PM

SmilingLurker wrote: »

As a father, I would say no to all money. I do not expect you to understand, something has to be hard coded into DNA. I would not have thought this a few years ago.

Don't have kids unless you really want them and you are with the right person.

I don't think this point has been made before. It's so true, a lot of people panic if they haven't settled down at a certain age and adapt an 'anyone is better than no one' mentality. They have children and then the inevitable happens. That's not to say that couples who were compatible at one stage won't separate, but they stand a better chance.

Daisy M · 01-09-2012 07:35PM

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I don't think this point has been made before. It's so true, a lot of people panic if they haven't settled down at a certain age and adapt an 'anyone is better than no one' mentality. They have children and then the inevitable happens. That's not to say that couples who were compatible at one stage won't separate, but they stand a better chance.

Yes it is unbelievably true and before you have children you need to be sure your views on how to bring them up are pretty compatible.

Its amazing how much angst different parenting styles can cause even if the issues are only trivial like will you allow them to get ears pierced or haid coloured. I can only imagine how hard it must be if parents have huge issues like whether or not they will have a religious education or not and if so which one, or which school you want them to attend.

As a parent you have to learn to sing from the same hymn sheet and to discuss any differences away from the children and also to compromise.

Abi · 01-09-2012 08:04PM

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Abi, it was the two of you who had an issue with a lack of sensitivity! That was what I responded to

Do you not see that I think BOTH extremes are as bad as the other?

The edit changed the context, you replied to my post which was a response to the unedited post. However, you responded in the context of the edited post.

We should probably just go with your 'each to their own' sentiment!

I'm not being smart here, but you should go with your own advice. You've a heavy stance on the no children front to the point, that I don't think you're ever willing to even attempt to understand the pain that people that can't have children have to go through. That is no more wrong however, than the people who judge you.

Before any assumptions are made about me, I used to not understand why people wanted children, and I'll be quite frank, I found them just purely annoying. My niece is the biggest diva I've ever met at the age of 4, but she knows her crap won't wash with me from an early age. She used to throw herself on the floor looking for attention from me, which she never got. When she was done with the dramatics I talked to her. She knows my gig and I know hers, and we get on much better as a result. I think there is no room to be lazy in parenting though, or you'll suffer for it. My sister spoils her rotten, and I know she has her work cut out for her as a result.

I think in the earlier stages of a womans life, certainly in this day and age, we're more career driven, and hate to be slotted into the wife and the mother bracket. There actually is nothing wrong with being either, if you can understand that theres no stigma attached to being a working mother too. It is not the be all and end all.

With all that said, I'm not trying to sway you in any way. I believe neither end of the spectrum should pass any judgement on the other. Both have made choices, but ought not to make assumptions.

Cienciano · 01-09-2012 08:29PM

CathyMoran wrote: »

My husband and I have always wanted children but when we were getting married it looked like we would not be able to have them (it also was unlikely that I would be alive 5 years later due to severe health issues), the fact that my husband gave up the chance (he is adopted) is amazing. I became pregnant but then had a series of hertbreaking miscarriages - I remember going into Boots and buying birth control and a pregnancy test and getting odd looks (my husband could not bear seeing us loose another child) - he is 2 years and 5 months tomorrow and we were lucky enough to have a little girl just under 14 months afterwards.

We love them and treasure them - we love seeing them smile and they mean everything to us, helping someone grow up is wonderful.

My 10 month old has learned to hug. Every point you made is invalid.

Madam_X · 01-09-2012 08:50PM

I don't have time for people giving others crap for not having children either. I think it's appalling. Fail to see where I suggested otherwise...

uberalles · 01-09-2012 09:05PM

Amazing experience being parents. Getting hugs and kisses from a toddler is so great. To know that your DNA didnt hit a cul de sac is important.

Materially you will do better without kids but you will miss the joys of parenting.

I Know couples with no kids but pets which reminds me of this joke ....

My dog is not a child subsitute. At least, that what his piano teacher says.

keith16 · 01-09-2012 09:16PM

ermahgerd wrote: »

What I will say is the following, and I believe that it applies to the majority:
To the unambitious, kids provide a reason to life. To the ambitious, kids stand in the way of your reasons for life.

WTF? What does ambition have to do with it? Isn't raising a family a valid ambition in life?

And if not, does having kids preclude you from fulfilling other ambitions in life? If you think it does, you are sadly mistaken.

Mr_Spaceman · 01-09-2012 09:34PM

gsxr1 wrote: »

Really hard work
cost alot of money
ends your social life as you know it.

But ye will never love anyone as you do your own child ,

Your body will not let you socialize like you do when you are in your 20s for long. (your view on life changes as each decade passes)

When you are old and grey, will you still think the value of a few pound was worth not having your own family around you??

Feck money. People is where its at.

I sometimes think I would be better off, but in the bigger picture im a richer man than any pay packet could bring.

I would hate to be one of those people who have loads of cats to replace their hidden want for children to care for.

It's hard to argue with what you say in general.

However, when you're "old and grey" you can't always assume your family will be around you.

Mr_Spaceman · 01-09-2012 10:07PM

mitosis wrote: »

I have children so they will take care of me in my dotage. Why else would you do it?

Seriously? I find this line rather naive, frankly.

What happens if they move away? Do you expect them to be at your side all the time at the expense of their own lives just to suit you? If so, it's rather selfish.

scoob70 · 01-09-2012 10:15PM

gsxr1 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to7uIG8KYhg

http://youtu.be/to7uIG8KYhg

You would have to have a heart of stone not to smile at this.

LOOK AT MY CHILD, LOOK AT MY CHILD, LOOK AT MY CHILD - give it a rest.

01-09-2012 10:23PM

If that's what you think then your parents must have been no good.

Also, its not about having to stay home and mind the kids, what the hell is wrong with you guys? that's not what parenting is about.

For me, my parents are the best in the world.
I have a sister and brother, we did everything, all the time and effort they spent.
I really do mean they are amazing parents and the amount of stuff we did is just amazing, like really.

Never at home, we were always learning fun stuff/out on nature walks -> all everything else ( I mean always, never watched the tv as we lived lifes our selfs.

Also:
It must be awesome to be them, they are so happy just have always been there and always perfect. always happy and always doing everything for us.

What It must feel like:
Always waking up happy and always something to do. Life has a point.

if you don't like parenting then your parents were never good or you never had a good child hood.
MY PARENTS ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD. Not only I say that as they are my parents and I love them BUT seriously I really do mean the best parents as in the best.

all the people here saying kids are a waste of time must be very unhappy and were always unhappy, I feel sorry for you.

01-09-2012 10:29PM

wow, reading back on some of the posts.

you guys must be really sad in life if that's what you think, seriously.
I am 14 and like wow, are you guys over 20 or what?

WOW some of people must just be so sad.

Are kids really worth all the hassle

Comments