Are they worth it ?

Heckler

Just married. No kids.

Have nephews and nieces and loads of friends with kids and love them to bits but......

Everytime all the parents get together all they do is go on about what they could do if they didn't have kids.The meals they could go for, the holidays they could have, how great it is when they have a babysitter and they can head out.

These parents obviously still love their kids from their behaviour with them. My wife and I told people we had no immediate interest in having children and some people looked at us like we had two heads.

I can answer my own question for the parents reading this. Yes They are.

But for others like myself.....Kids are like farts. You're own are fine but other peoples are a pain in the ass.

I mean this seriously for the parents here. What are the benefits of having a child ?

Devia

I find its all down to how they're brought up. You get the good kids who rarely act up and then the ones who act up at every opportunity.

Regardless its quite obviously a massive commitment. Absolutely no problem with living the good life as a married couple for as long as possible before starting a family.

Heckler

Devia wrote: »

I find its all down to how they're brought up. You get the good kids who rarely act up and then the ones who act up at every opportunity.

Regardless its quite obviously a massive commitment. Absolutely no problem with living the good life as a married couple for as long as possible before starting a family.

My nephews and nieces are very well behaved yet everything is a major production from feeding to transporting. I find that people with kids only ever talk about their kids which gets very boring for others.

And I hate to tell ye parents but ye are the only ones who give a **** when your baby does.

up for anything

Regardless of how good or how naughty your child(ren) are, the real question about having children is are you prepared to put yourself second./third/fouth/fifth etc for the rest of your life? Forget that bollix about making sure you have time for yourself or downtime.
Are you prepared to never watch a film through to the end again?

Are you prepared to die a 1,000 deaths when your child comes home from school and asks if the teacher telephoned you/will be telephoning you?

Are you prepared to never have another gorgeous pair of shoes/takeaway/fabulous diet pills/fake tan or whatever it is that ticks all your boxes?

Are you prepared to miss the winning goal, except in action replay, in every football match for the foreseeable.

Are you prepared not to have sex again?

Are you prepared never to sleep properly again?

Are you prepared for life as you know it to end?

What are the benefits? Having someone who truly cares if you die or not.

NothingMan

up for anything wrote: »

Regardless of how good or how naughty your child(ren) are, the real question about having children is are you prepared to put yourself second./third/fouth/fifth etc for the rest of your life? Forget that bollix about making sure you have time for yourself or downtime.
Are you prepared to never watch a film through to the end again?

Are you prepared to die a 1,000 deaths when your child comes home from school and asks if the teacher telephoned you/will be telephoning you?

Are you prepared to never have another gorgeous pair of shoes/takeaway/fabulous diet pills/fake tan or whatever it is that ticks all your boxes?

Are you prepared to miss the winning goal, except in action replay, in every football match for the foreseeable.

Are you prepared not to have sex again?

Are you prepared never to sleep properly again?

Are you prepared for life as you know it to end?

What are the benefits? Having someone who truly cares if you die or not.

You're doing it wrong. I have 13 nieces & nephews and number 14 due soon. Yes there is a lot of sacrafice in having kids but not to the extreme extent you talk about. My sisters all have kept a decent quality social life, if a lot less frequent. They definitely still have sex, otherwise I'd have never gotten 14 nieces and nephews!

Some of them have re-educated or moved jobs to more fullfilling and less time consuming roles and are doing very well for themselves and can still afford to treat themselves once in a while.

Having kids is a radical change of lifestyle, no arguement here, but you make it sound like a death sentence. I definitely want kids, maybe not for another few years but at least 2 or 3 at some point.

up for anything

NothingMan wrote: »

Having kids is a radical change of lifestyle, no arguement here, but you make it sound like a death sentence. I definitely want kids, maybe not for another few years but at least 2 or 3 at some point.

I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek there! :rolleyes:

When I was little and used to ask my mother what she wanted for Christmas and she answered, 'peace and quiet', I couldn't understand what she meant. Now I'm older than she was when I used to ask her that question and if I query what she wants for Christmas her answer is now, 'peace of mind'. Unfortunately, I know only too well what she means these days.

ETA: Having children is not a death sentence, it's a life sentence.

gogo

Everyone wants to fall in love, right, well the benefit of kids is that I have never felt anything like the love that you feel for your own child. Im married for 5 years and love my husband dearly, but the feeling of pride, love, happiness you get when you look at your child and know that I made him, and he's great because im teaching him how to be great is incomparable.

Yes, Im knackered at the best of times, he likes to get up a half six, but then no-one else is as happy to see me at half six in the morning either. Who else would be waiting with the biggest grin at that time?

When I was in college, my newphew lived at home with us for a while. when he would kiss you he would hold your face in his hands, there was never anything like that kiss on a cold december evening, when your cold and tired and the day has been endless. Two little warm hands, a kiss and someone who's delighted to see you.

grizzly

I've always thought of having kids as a selfish act. We have enough people on the earth already — do we need more?

pickarooney

grizzly wrote: »

I've always thought of having kids as a selfish act. We have enough people on the earth already — do we need more?

I can never understand this argument. If you were in Bangladesh and said that, perhaps it might make some sense but in Western Europe... The people that are alive now will eventually die, so yes, there is a need to keep having children for the species to continue.

bonerm

pickarooney wrote: »

I can never understand this argument. If you were in Bangladesh and said that, perhaps it might make some sense but in Western Europe... The people that are alive now will eventually die, so yes, there is a need to keep having children for the species to continue.

Agreed. It's probably more selfish to not have children as it's effectively saying "all my time and money for me me me". The exception of course is if you are some sort of chronic welfare scrounger and you're setting your children o the path to being no better than you when their time comes. In which case kudos for keeping it zipped up.

grizzly

pickarooney wrote: »

I can never understand this argument. If you were in Bangladesh and said that, perhaps it might make some sense but in Western Europe... The people that are alive now will eventually die, so yes, there is a need to keep having children for the species to continue.

We're all living off the same finite resources — so I count everyone who lives on earth towards this; Bangladesh or Balbriggan.

pickarooney

grizzly wrote: »

We're all living off the same finite resources — so I count everyone who lives on earth towards this; Bangladesh or Balbriggan.

So should we just let the human race die out or should selective breeding be introduced?

Danbo!

Heckler wrote: »

My wife and I told people we had no immediate interest in having children and some people looked at us like we had two heads.

But yiz do have two heads.

easyeason3

Heckler wrote: »

Just married. No kids.

Have nephews and nieces and loads of friends with kids and love them to bits but......

Everytime all the parents get together all they do is go on about what they could do if they didn't have kids.The meals they could go for, the holidays they could have, how great it is when they have a babysitter and they can head out.

These parents obviously still love their kids from their behaviour with them. My wife and I told people we had no immediate interest in having children and some people looked at us like we had two heads.

I can answer my own question for the parents reading this. Yes They are.

But for others like myself.....Kids are like farts. You're own are fine but other peoples are a pain in the ass.

I mean this seriously for the parents here. What are the benefits of having a child ?[/QUOTE]

1) Childrens allowance.

2) Handy parking spaces in shopping centres near the door that are painted yellow.

Abrasax

pickarooney wrote: »

So should we just let the human race die out or should selective breeding be introduced?

Hitler ruined eugenics for everybody.

BarnhallBull

They're totally worth it.

Unless you get a ginger one, then what the hell would you do!?

stovelid

Pointless discussing it, as it's a subjective, personal thing which you don't fully comprehend until it happens.

If you want them, hopefully you will be able to have them; if you don't, more power to you.

That said, having kids would disabuse people of commonly held views such as the idea that a, say, 2 year-old acting up in public is automatically down to slack parenting.

There's also the chance your kid could end up famous and/or rich. and you can retire early. Kerching!

grizzly

pickarooney wrote: »

So should we just let the human race die out or should selective breeding be introduced?

Selective breeding sounds extreme, I'd prefer common sense breeding. Our population has doubled in the last 40 years – I think it we should care better for the current population rather then blindly produce more people.

grizzly

grizzly wrote: »

Selective breeding sounds extreme, I'd prefer common sense breeding. Our population has doubled in the last 40 years – I think it we should care better for the current population rather then blindly produce more people.

You want to care for the current population and then blindly produce more people?

easyeason3

BarnhallBull wrote: »

They're totally worth it.

Unless you get a ginger one, then what the hell would you do!?

Ask serious questions if you & your partner have olive skin & dark hair.

grizzly

Abrasax wrote: »

Hitler ruined eugenics for everybody.

and national socialism and toothbrush mustaches.

deman

For thousands of years, the wisest of the human race have searched in earnest for the meaning of life. They have also searched for immortality and everlasting life. These secrets can be found in our children. I have four children that make my life a bundle of joy. Yes, there are sacrifices to be made. But isn't that sacrifice worth it when you know that some part of you will be around when you are long gone? If this sounds selfish to some, then what about those who choose not to have children? To me this sounds like the ultimate act of selfishness. Also, Europe has an ageing population and yes we do need more families having children here.

deman

deman wrote: »

If this sounds selfish to some, then what about those who choose not to have children? To me this sounds like the ultimate act of selfishness. .

Not having the biological urge to procreate isn't exactly being selfish :rolleyes:
I wish people on both sides would stop moaning about selfishness, it makes absolutely no sense from either side.

bronte

If it's something you two eventually want in time, go for it.

Expect everything to change!

My cousin got married three years ago and has been enjoying just being married...going on holidays...great social life etc.
Of course everyone in the family is on at them to have kids but they're both scarcely 30. Where's the fire?

opinion guy

bluewolf wrote: »

Not having the biological urge to procreate isn't exactly being selfish :rolleyes:
I wish people on both sides would stop moaning about selfishness, it makes absolutely no sense from either side.

Or, if it is selfish. So what? People are entitled to be selfish if they want.

pickarooney

grizzly wrote: »

Selective breeding sounds extreme, I'd prefer common sense breeding. Our population has doubled in the last 40 years – I think it we should care better for the current population rather then blindly produce more people.

So what is common sense breeding? You said having a child was selfish, whoever or wherever the parents were. Surely, when resources are limited, bringing more people in to share them is the opposite of selfish? Selfish people would want to get rid of all the people who don't bring them any immediate benefit so they could continue to use all the resources they want, no?

I see a marked difference in the breeding patterns of rich and poor people - the richer ones tend to have a small number of children and try and control their destinies from cradle to grave, essentially cloning themselves whereas the poor have lots of children in the hope that one of them might make a difference and improve things for the family/community as a whole.

You could call either strategy many things - conceited, ill-advised, narcissistic, plain stupid - but selfish is not a word I would use.

Wibbs

grizzly wrote: »

We're all living off the same finite resources — so I count everyone who lives on earth towards this; Bangladesh or Balbriggan.

+1 the human population goes up by one million every 4 days. This is not sustainable. We're already screwing the planet. Less people = less destruction of resources, less CO2, more habitat left alone, more and better resources for the ones left. The list is long.

pickarooney wrote: »

So should we just let the human race die out or should selective breeding be introduced?

Eh we're a long away away from dying out. Way back in the day we hit a bottleneck and nearly went extinct when we got down to 20,000, but we came back from that. Currently we're at six and a half billion. We're the most common large mammal on the planet. We could lose 6 billion people and still be fine. Two billion would be optimum.

deman wrote: »

For thousands of years, the wisest of the human race have searched in earnest for the meaning of life. They have also searched for immortality and everlasting life. These secrets can be found in our children. I have four children that make my life a bundle of joy. Yes, there are sacrifices to be made. But isn't that sacrifice worth it when you know that some part of you will be around when you are long gone? If this sounds selfish to some, then what about those who choose not to have children? To me this sounds like the ultimate act of selfishness.

I agree with bluewolf on the selfishness argument, but if we do want to go down that route, adding to a growing population thats harming the rest of the planet for ego purposes is surely a better example of same? Adding one new person is debatable and a better bet as then the population would stabalise, but adding 4 or 6, sometimes more? I can understand that need in some parts of Africa as an insurance against old age and child mortality, but in a society where child mortality is very low? Its not selfish so much as self centered and succumbing to baser subjective biology over long term objective logic. I love my kids. They give me so much pleasure. A part of me will live on through them.

Also, Europe has an ageing population and yes we do need more families having children here.

Nope we dont. if we kept the population levels current then fine, but adding to them is frankly daft. Pretty much every current ill to do with humanity on this planet is down to over population. Looking back over the history of this planet it seems nature doesnt like this either and sooner or later tries to redress the balance. Not always to a bad end result, though the mechanism can be terrible. The black death a good example. Without it it's unlikely the enlightenment, the industrial revolution and modern commerce would exist in the modern world. Most of us would probably be serfs.

pickarooney

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh we're a long away away from dying out.

We're about 90 years from complete extinction if we stop having kids.
If you're proposing birth restrictions, at least get off the fence and say how they should be implemented.

Would it not be far more beneficial for the long-term survival of humanity to stop vaccinating, give up trying to salvage anything from natural disasters, stop operating on people with possibly fatal injuries/diseases, quit interfering in wars/genocides and just let the world population thin itself out rather than proposing nonsense ideas like not having any more children?

Wibbs

pickarooney wrote: »

So what is common sense breeding? You said having a child was selfish, whoever or wherever the parents were. Surely, when resources are limited, bringing more people in to share them is the opposite of selfish? Selfish people would want to get rid of all the people who don't bring them any immediate benefit so they could continue to use all the resources they want, no?

Not really. The drive to reproduce is obviously a very old and strong one. Objectivity and logic go out the window. Look at populations in areas where resources are tight or damn near non existent. They usually have huge families. Logic would suggest the poor in resources would limit their families, yet they almost never do. It's less selfish than ego and biology driven.

Its not unlike our expanding waistlines in the west. Biologically we select for laying down fat in case of famine. A good tactic, but we dont have famine in the west. We've an overproduction of food. Clearly being fat is bad for the individual, yet individuals keep getting fatter. It's not objective selfishness, but biology and self centredness.

Jagera

I have 3, so here's my input. It's hard to describe the change in feelings and perspective you have, after you have a child.

So let's make an analogy.. Say you're a young one, adventurer, no plans to have a child because its hard work. You spend all your time skydiving, for example.

However to explain to someone all the preparation, costs, travelling, etc, etc, that goes with having one jump out of a plane would put them off.

It's vaguely similar to that, only having a child is far more bred into our genes than jumping out of a plane. However you do it for the thrill & enjoyment, so you do it again.

xsiborg

Heckler wrote: »

But for others like myself.....Kids are like farts. You're own are fine but other peoples are a pain in the ass.

I mean this seriously for the parents here. What are the benefits of having a child ?

you just reminded me of an incident a few years back when i was travelling on a bus from limerick to nenagh. there was a couple sitting behind me, the father with a small baby (maybe three months old) in his arms. so we had barely left the outskirts of limerick city when i felt the urge to break wind. i leaned my arse back in the seat and let off a silent but deadly, took a good five minutes to rise, but i couldn't have anticipated what happened next...

the woman behind me started giving out something fierce to her husband who was still holding the baby-

"aaahhh jaysus, i told ya to change him before we left!",

i didnt hear much of the rest of how it went because the smell had knocked out my senses and i was trying so hard not to burst out laughing while tears were streaming down my face at the same time. felt so bad for the poor kid, thought to myself the only thing that could top this is if the kids first words were "it wasnt me mam!"

Wibbs

pickarooney wrote: »

We're about 90 years from complete extinction if we stop having kids.

:eek: That's so incorrect it's actually funny. We are nowhere near extinction. We would have to get down to the 10's of 1000's on our species to get near a species extinction event. Seriously that's a bit out there as a claim. Obviously if we never had kids again we would go extinct but who the hell made that suggestion?

If you're proposing birth restrictions, at least get off the fence and say how they should be implemented.

One child per family basically.

Would it not be far more beneficial for the long-term survival of humanity to stop vaccinating, give up trying to salvage anything from natural disasters, stop operating on people with possibly fatal injuries/diseases, quit interfering in wars/genocides and just let the world population thin itself out rather than proposing nonsense ideas like not having any more children?

Eh hardly. Having one child per family would be like the rich people example you gave earlier. More resources aimed at the individual. More value placed on same. The population would drop over time. The impact of us on the planet would also drop.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

:eek: That's so incorrect it's actually funny. We are nowhere near extinction. We would have to get down to the 10's of 1000's on our species to get near a species extinction event. Seriously that's a bit out there as a claim. Obviously if we never had kids again we would go extinct but who the hell made that suggestion?

I think the point was anyone born now would be around 90 years off death, so literally no more kids = extinction in 90 years' time...

up for anything

Wibbs wrote: »

One child per family basically.

What would you do with the accidents and mistakes?

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

I think the point was anyone born now would be around 90 years off death, so literally no more kids = extinction in 90 years' time...

Oh yea but like I said no one is daft enough to suggest that. It would be akin to tackling the expanding weight problem by complete starvation.

Elessar

"Are they worth it?"

You're going to get very biased answers to that OP. Everyone who has them is obviously going to tell you they're great, they love them, etc. I've never come across someone who doesn't actually like his/her kids and said they were a mistake that shouldn't have happened and hates their life. Even people who think this, are not going to openly admit it.

Ceart

I think it differs per person, honestly. I never wanted children. My benefits did not exist until they came into the picture. I saw no purpose in procreating, lol. Now that I have them, though, they are my every heartbeat. The benefits to having them go hand-in-hand with their setbacks:

They stress me out when they do something bad...but they make me feel like the world is perfect when they randomly tell me that they love me.

They piss me off when they lie to me...but they make me feel like I am doing something right when they show me that they have learned their lesson and understand.

I enjoy my time away from them once in a blue moon...but I would die without them.

It just depends on the person: children are not for everybody.

You said people stare at you weird when you say you're not planning on kids any time soon...well, when mates of mine tell me that they are expecting, my first question is always: "Am I happy for you...or sorry?" Some people want to have babies: for them, I am happy. Some people do not, though: for them, I am sorry and supportive, lol. Kids are not for everybody...and I love my babies, but there are few children outside of my close circle of family and friends that I can stomach. This is why I teach secondary rather than primary: children piss me off. ;-)

ibarelycare

It could be my age, but right now kids have absolutely no appeal to me. I'm not particularly fond of children anyway, unless they're related to me. I have two nephews, who I absolutely adore, but I'm usually dying to give them back to their parents after a few hours minding them.

Perhaps my feelings will change in a few years time but right now I just look at all the positives a life without children will offer:

More money
More freedom
Better sex life
Better holidays
Nicer houses
Less stress

etc etc.

The way I see it right now is that I'll be happy enough playing auntie to any nephews and nieces I'll have, and that will be enough for me.

Wibbs

up for anything wrote: »

What would you do with the accidents and mistakes?

More freely available and cheaper contraception. Education in same. More money and research into better long term contraception. Male pill/injection for a start. Tax penalties for extra kids. Less support for extra kids. That would knock a fair few mistakes on the head. Given that many couples are going to be childless, by design or because of low fertility the numbers would still go down.

Oh sure it would come with issues, but 1 million extra people every four days is going to bring far far more. That figure will keep growing as those people reproduce. In Ireland we are lucky in that our population density is pretty low for a western country, so maybe we see it as less of an issue?

pickarooney

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh hardly. Having one child per family would be like the rich people example you gave earlier. More resources aimed at the individual. More value placed on same. The population would drop over time. The impact of us on the planet would also drop.

I don't believe it would. It's the rich nations with their small families who are consuming the vast majority of the world's resources. China adopted a one-child-per-family policy and it has done nothing to reduce the world population. The richer the individuals get, the more they consume per head.

If you want to talk about selfish - imagine an entire planet of spoiled, only children.

Large-scale war or a global outbreak of an incurable disease is a much more effective, fair way of bringing the population under control, but nobody wants that as it might affect them personally. Failing that, at some point we'll have a massive famine and people will die out, slowly and painfully.

opinion guy

Wibbs wrote: »

That would knock a fair few mistakes on the head.

Wibbs !! Knocking kids on the head ??? I'm shocked :D

pickarooney wrote: »

China adopted a one-child-per-family policy and it has done nothing to reduce the world population.

This is a ridiculous statement. I did not reduce world population because it was never intended to do that. Nor could it. What it did do is reduce population expansion in China. There would be alot more of Chinese people if they didn't have this policy.

This all being said - there have been some horrendous abuses of human rights in the name of this policy - infanticide etc.

pickarooney

opinion guy wrote: »

This is a ridiculous statement. I did not reduce world population because it was never intended to do that. Nor could it. What it did do is reduce population expansion in China. There would be alot more of Chinese people if they didn't have this policy.

The subject at hand was active population reduction and Wibbs, unless I'm mistaken, suggested a one child per family policy as a means to this end.

However as he failed to large, bold and italic font, it's possible that I misunderstood.

Wibbs

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't believe it would. It's the rich nations with their small families who are consuming the vast majority of the world's resources.

I agree and that needs to be stopped. That said if the world population halved in the next 50 years we'd use less resources even at present rates of consumption.

China adopted a one-child-per-family policy and it has done nothing to reduce the world population.

Like opinion guy said it wasnt meant to in that case, but it has reduced their growth.

The richer the individuals get, the more they consume per head.

The less individuals the less they will consume.

If you want to talk about selfish - imagine an entire planet of spoiled, only children.

I call shenanigans on that. Cliche TBH.

Large-scale war or a global outbreak of an incurable disease is a much more effective, fair way of bringing the population under control, but nobody wants that as it might affect them personally. Failing that, at some point we'll have a massive famine and people will die out, slowly and painfully.

Probably a flu or similar. If HIV went airborne we would be in trouble. Unlikely in that case though. The black death could come back. It's still out there. People still get infected, but it's virulence is a lot less than in the middle ages. If it mutated again, we would be in serious trouble. Yes its a bacterial infection and antibiotics could cure it, but you need to get them in quick and it would quickly overwhelm the medical communitys ability to cope. If it went pneumonic or septicemic even with antibiotics it would be game over very rapidly for the majority exposed. Our vulnerability is way higher than in the past. Rapid global travel could spread it within weeks. Higher populations living together would be a holiday for it. European populations would probably have some resistance as every european reading this is the descendant of the small groups of people who survived wave after wave of plagues over 100's of years, but Africa and a lot of Asia would be decimated.

minister poxbottle

Heckler wrote: »

Just married. No kids.

Have nephews and nieces and loads of friends with kids and love them to bits but......

Everytime all the parents get together all they do is go on about what they could do if they didn't have kids.The meals they could go for, the holidays they could have, how great it is when they have a babysitter and they can head out.

These parents obviously still love their kids from their behaviour with them. My wife and I told people we had no immediate interest in having children and some people looked at us like we had two heads.

I can answer my own question for the parents reading this. Yes They are.

But for others like myself.....Kids are like farts. You're own are fine but other peoples are a pain in the ass.

I mean this seriously for the parents here. What are the benefits of having a child ?

in your case i would strongly advise against having childern just get yourself a fcuking cat

Greyfox

For me I think life's too short to bother with them. I'm nearly 30 and theirs too many good films, tv shows, books, computer games that I already don't have enough time for and theirs nearly always plenty of good sport on tv to look forward to. Theirs so many places I haven't traveled to, theirs trying to make time for playing football and going to the gym, making time for friends and my love life and theirs even delutions of going back to college, thing is I'm 28 and not 22 and can't see myself ever changing.

Kids/babys is small dose's are grand as they can be so cute but having your own is so, so bloody expensive. Even if your lucky enough to afford to be able to go for a few pints the odd weekend when you get a babysitter you'd probably be too wrecked from the busy week to really enjoy it.

Funny thing is I've heard of people changing from where I'm at now to actually been happy with a kid, apparently seeing a smaller version of yourself develop and become a grown up is great....but it's a bloody 18 year risk, actually more as most 18 years olds wait another few years to move out.

We'll.....I actually feel like saying that writing this post is the exact moment in my life when I decided I never want to have kids, actually it is the EXACT moment I decided I don't want kids. Up to now I always thought I shouldn't rule kids out as you don't know what's around the corner in life, you could change your opinion etc but for me the "risk" is far too big

Yep, writing this post has led me to make my final decision, I don't think it's been selfish as I don't see where anybody is obliged to reproduce. The way I see it, no matter what way you look at it having kids comes with a huge risk. They could financially ruin you, you could resent not having enough quality time with your parner, you could badly miss the peace and quiet or just not like having so much responsibility....theirs also the possibility that I could become a great father and enjoy the company of my kids....but I stand to lose 18+ years if I'm wrong..18 years is just far too big of a risk!

This is a much longer post then I expected....sure if I'm wrong and I regret it i can't see it having that big of an effect on my life, but if you have kids and then regret it your absolutely fooked. I'm going to the pub for a cavary lunch and a pint to think about the massive decision i've just made and how great it is to never have to change a poxy nappy, this post has been quite a rewarding experience for me, sorry it's so long and sorry for anybody who thinks I've just wasted 5 minutes of their lives

PeterIanStaker

grizzly wrote: »

I've always thought of having kids as a selfish act. We have enough people on the earth already — do we need more?

I agree we are already overpopulated. Besides they cost a lot to raise. This gerneration is lucky imho with contraception there'll be no 12 kid famillies like there were.

Heckler

minister poxbottle wrote: »

in your case i would strongly advise against having childern just get yourself a fcuking cat

I only asked a question. Have nothing against kids, only parents who think that everyone should find their screaming, running riot offspring "adorable". They're not. They're a pain in the hole.

PeterIanStaker

Elessar wrote: »

"Are they worth it?"

You're going to get very biased answers to that OP. Everyone who has them is obviously going to tell you they're great, they love them, etc. I've never come across someone who doesn't actually like his/her kids and said they were a mistake that shouldn't have happened and hates their life. Even people who think this, are not going to openly admit it.

I remember someone said that to me about their kids, she had 3, having got married to Gobdaw secondary school crush when she was 20. She genuinely regretted having them and she wasn't being selfish, I dont think.

stovelid

I find it really boring when people discuss their kids ad nauseam, but child-free people discussing the 65 reasons why they personally don't want children: who could ever tire of this riveting subject?

goodmum

'For me I think life's too short to bother with them'

Have to disagree with that one and say that life's too short NOT to bother with them.

I was one of the the 30-sumthings who used to get bored senseless listening to women all around me yabbering on about their offspring, wondering why they just didn't get themselves a life without talking bout their kids all the time.

Roll on a few years and I am now that woman. Thing is, the child/ren become your life. You have no choice - yes, you can continue to have a social life apart from the kids, but ultimately you, well, I, would die for my child.

You actually have to live it to feel it though. I would have asked all the same questions you did OP, a few years back because I really just didn't 'get' this kid thing. But no other human being on this planet has ever made me feel the way my kid does, about myself....

ibarelycare

goodmum wrote: »

'For me I think life's too short to bother with them'

Have to disagree with that one and say that life's too short NOT to bother with them.

I was one of the the 30-sumthings who used to get bored senseless listening to women all around me yabbering on about their offspring, wondering why they just didn't get themselves a life without talking bout their kids all the time.

Roll on a few years and I am now that woman. Thing is, the child/ren become your life. You have no choice - yes, you can continue to have a social life apart from the kids, but ultimately you, well, I, would die for my child.

You actually have to live it to feel it though. I would have asked all the same questions you did OP, a few years back because I really just didn't 'get' this kid thing. But no other human being on this planet has ever made me feel the way my kid does, about myself....

No offence, but this is exactly what I would hate. It sounds like your child defines your life!