Are kids really worth all the hassle

NegativeCreep

gsxr1 wrote: »

Wish I did.

Its moments like that with your own kid that make all the nappies changing worth it.

They are worth the hassle.

Most peoples kids aren't as cute and cool as them though :cool:

Madam_X

Friend of mine is longing for a child - has to go down the IVF route now. People who don't want children really should think before they project their preference on others.

Abi

Madam_X wrote: »

Friend of mine is longing for a child - has to go down the IVF route now. People who don't want children really should think before they project their preference on others.

I completely agree. It was always something that bothered me, I've often witnessed terrible parenting, parents with a house full of kids and minimal parenting and yet there are people that would give a limb away just to have children. A little sensitivity wouldn't go astray.

Wompa1

Madam_X wrote: »

Friend of mine is longing for a child - has to go down the IVF route now. People who don't want children really should think before they project their preference on others.

Abi wrote: »

I completely agree. It was always something that bothered me, I've often witnessed terrible parenting, parents with a house full of kids and minimal parenting and yet there are people that would give a limb away just to have children. A little sensitivity wouldn't go astray.

Personal Issues is data way

---

>

Abi

Wompa1 wrote: »

Personal Issues is data way

---

>

Yeah... we're well aware that it's a big ask in AH.

Wompa1

Abi wrote: »

Yeah... we're well aware that it's a big ask in AH.

It's kind of a big ask in general. I went out with a girl who's dad killed himself. During that relationship it opened my eyes to how many tv shows joke about it. People acting out killing themselves during an awkward moment for their characters or whatever. Bertie talkin out his arse etc.

Had thought it was a bit insensetive but then how many other taboos would have to be danced around.

Only taboos for me is disabled people and cruelty to animals just because neither have the capacity for evil

ejmaztec

mishkalucy wrote: »

I'll be honest here.
There are moments of tremendous joy and times of utter heartbreak.
Combined with a side of monotony;)

You forgot the bit about kids being weapons of mass destruction.

hoodwinked

best of both worlds have one!


with nappies/bottles, you do it as its a novelty, knowing it will be over for good soon,

with one child they tend to follow the parents example as there are no siblings to lead them astray, so quieter household.

if they get lonely invite their friends over (no other sibling saying "hey what about my friends?" - double bonus you dont end up with a house full of noisy children)

everything is cheaper as there is only 1 extra to you two.

there is still a child there to stick you in a home...


all the benefits without the negatives :pac:

floggg

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It all comes down to pros and cons of each choice and what you value you now most as well as what you expect to value most throughout your life. A lad I know had four kids by 25 and got a vasectomy, he runs his own business and is better off financially than me, and I have a degree and work in finance. His youngest is two, at age 27 his nappy changing days are nearly behind him forever, on top of that he has te joy of his 4 kids in his life. The oldest are seven and don't take much work to look after. By the time he's 35 he'll be pretty much free of the responsibilities of children.

The ****? Free of the responsibilities of kids by the time the youngest is 10?

Please never have kids if you think they can look after themselves at that age!

He will be responsible for them, their care, their education, their supervision, their safety until they are at least 18, and likely supporting them financially until the leave college.

Abi

Wompa1 wrote: »

Had thought it was a bit insensetive but then how many other taboos would have to be danced around.

Only taboos for me is disabled people and cruelty to animals just because neither have the capacity for evil

Well it's quite simple really. People can choose to be a dick, or they can choose not to be. I'm just saying that it is a choice that people make.

Media999

hoodwinked wrote: »

best of both worlds have one!


with nappies/bottles, you do it as its a novelty, knowing it will be over for good soon,

with one child they tend to follow the parents example as there are no siblings to lead them astray, so quieter household.

if they get lonely invite their friends over (no other sibling saying "hey what about my friends?" - double bonus you dont end up with a house full of noisy children)

everything is cheaper as there is only 1 extra to you two.

there is still a child there to stick you in a home...


all the benefits without the negatives :pac:

Single children turn out to be spoiled little freaks!!! Did you not go to school and see this?

never only have one.

floggg

Madam_X wrote: »

Friend of mine is longing for a child - has to go down the IVF route now. People who don't want children really should think before they project their preference on others.

Has anybody proposed forced sterilisation of people? Or confiscating their babies?

Nobody was projecting a preference, they were stating one.

Just because some find it difficult to have children, it doesn't mean that others can't state their preference not to have one. Having kids or not is generally a choice. One choice isn't anymore valid than the other.

Abi

Media999 wrote: »

Single children turn out to be spoiled little freaks!!! Did you not go to school and see this?

never only have one.

Hoodwinked run girl run!!!!!


Media is one of the 'ah they need a little brother or sister brigade'!!! :eek:

shopaholic01

Madam_X wrote: »

Friend of mine is longing for a child - has to go down the IVF route now. People who don't want children really should think before they project their preference on others.

I don't think anybody is 'projecting their preference on others'. The OP is asking for people's personal opinion. Posters are free to debate and discuss their opinions. Those of us who don't want children are entitled to express our views, I have already acknowledged that I admire good parents.


You are also judged more for choosing not to have children - a lot of people tell me it's abnormal for a woman not to want them, assume I'm infertile and pity me or worst of all, tell me to have one because I'll feel differently afterwards.

Nobody is being insensitive to those who can't have them. What do you suggest - we just have children for the sake of it because we may lucky enough to be fertile?

Abi

shopaholic01 wrote: »

What do you suggest - we just have children for the sake of it because we may lucky enough to be fertile?

Yep. Thats EXACTLY what she meant.

Madam_X

What I mean by "projecting" is: 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.
One aspect of projecting is when people feel everyone else deep down feels the same way as they do.

I am not referring to people merely saying they don't want to have children. I'm not sure I want to either. Well not until my late 30s/early 40s, and that is risky and could be too late.

shopaholic01

Madam_X wrote: »

What I mean by "projecting" is: 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.
One aspect of projecting is when people feel everyone else deep down feels the same way as they do.

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

floggg

Madam_X wrote: »

What I mean by "projecting" is: 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.
One aspect of projecting is when people feel everyone else deep down feels the same way as they do.

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

shopaholic01

floggg wrote: »

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

And will condemn you to a life of loitering and perving in night clubs, because what else could you possible do with your life it you don't have children to fulfill it?

Daisy M

Motorist wrote: »

Ive spoken to many parents who say having kids is absolute $hit. They long all day for 9pm when they get to spend a miserable two hours in peace.

They can't do anything, they are broke financially because of the kids, they have no lives anymore.

Frankly I think this is an exaggerated statement. If you look at this anonymous thread there are no parents saying they regret having children and if they could turn back time they would never have them. Surely an internet forum is the place you could be most honest as no one will ever know who you are.

I know many parents and I can only think of one lady who while she didnt regret having her kids did begrudge the amount of effort (not commitment) involved.
I often read threads on here mentioning haggared parents who complain about how hard been a parent is on a non stop basis but I have never met aside from the lady I mentioned any other parents who are like that. Everyone has a moan from time to time be it about you job, partner, family home ect but it does not mean you wish you never had these things just that you are letting off steam.

If you choose not to have children great, enjoy life and be comfortable with your choice, don't try and make out that been a parent means you are living a substandard life because that isn't true.

If you choose to have children accept that while you are more happy and content than you have ever been that it is not for everyone and that people who choose not to have children do not live a less fufilled life than you do.

ermahgerd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anncoates

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

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?

Thread needs more nappies! Feckin' smell in here!

SmilingLurker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

2218219

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.

2218219

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.