Childlessness Page 9

  • Page

    of 15 First / Last

  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 12:16:52
    Psychotext wrote:
    Hence what I say at the end of mine.
    Anyone who has kids who genuinely can't afford to raise them well is being irresponsible. I'd have thought that went without saying, but fine, it's a valid point. Not really what's under discussion here though.
  • silentbob 2 Jan 2013 12:21:48 29,025 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    It wasn't Psycho, I was addressing the wider question.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • Psychotext 2 Jan 2013 12:21:51 54,810 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    brokenkey wrote:
    What with getting them in bed at 7-8pm, after school club and working, I'd say children seeing their parents for 1 hour a day is the norm when both parents work full time. And both parents working full time is pretty much the norm, due to the way the economy has changed the price of housing, childcare etc.
    Yeah, see that's fucked in my opinion, but I can see right now just how offended many hard working parents here would be if anyone suggested that this sort of thing was far from ideal for their kids.
  • morriss 2 Jan 2013 12:22:45 71,283 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I think they'd agree with you. But you do what you can.
  • Psychotext 2 Jan 2013 12:25:27 54,810 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Sure, but I think for me that would be another line I just couldn't cross. I appreciate that life is about compromises, but then I also think that some things you shouldn't compromise on.

    We're pretty entitled as a general rule though, and I don't think people would like arbitrarily being told that they should spend a certain amount of time with their kids or not have them. ;)
  • nickthegun 2 Jan 2013 12:26:17 61,056 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Psychotext wrote:
    Hence what I say at the end of mine.
    Anyone who has kids who genuinely can't afford to raise them well is being irresponsible. I'd have thought that went without saying, but fine, it's a valid point. Not really what's under discussion here though.
    The thing is, the state provides. I had this conversation with someone last year. He was a bit of a tyrone in that his mrs was a nutter and he wanted to leave her and take the baby, but he was out of work and couldnt afford to provide for the kid as well as the mum.

    I said that government makes sure you have the basics and the rest is up to you. You dont *need* a massive amount of money to make sure your kid is well loved and brought up properly.

    There are plenty of kids on council estates who are well brought up and have good lives despite the parents being fucking skint.

    I know thats overly simplistic, but I do genuinely believe anyone can bring a kid up properly, regardless of financial circumstances.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • silentbob 2 Jan 2013 12:27:08 29,025 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I won't be offended. We still get the entire weekend* to spend with our Son and he gets to have an awesome time with his friends at Nursery / Grandparents during the day.

    It's about the quality of the time not the quantity. Spending every waking moment with your kid != an awesome kid.

    *Minus any shite my work throws at me

    Edited by silentbob at 12:27:45 02-01-2013

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • andytheadequate 2 Jan 2013 12:27:40 8,322 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Finances* and not wanting to lose your lifestyle are good reasons to delay having children, but a shit excuse not to have them at all.

    There are many valid reasons not to want children though.


    *as in you will be less well off, not being on the poverty line. Someone who haw no money at all would be a bit daft to have children if they couldn't provide for them.
  • Psychotext 2 Jan 2013 12:28:03 54,810 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    The thing is, the state provides. I had this conversation with someone last year. He was a bit of a tyrone in that his mrs was a nutter and he wanted to leave her and take the baby, but he was out of work and couldnt afford to provide for the kid as well as the mum.

    I said that government makes sure you have the basics and the rest is up to you. You dont *need* a massive amount of money to make sure your kid is well loved and brought up properly.

    There are plenty of kids on council estates who are well brought up and have good lives despite the parents being fucking skint.

    I know thats overly simplistic, but I do genuinely believe anyone can bring a kid up properly, regardless of financial circumstances.

    Do they? I genuinely don't know.

    I don't recall a massive amount of help when I was young... but I obviously didn't have a lot to do with the details. :)

    Edited by Psychotext at 12:28:46 02-01-2013
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 12:30:34 44,737 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    The thing is, the state provides.
    Robot or not, this is something I find appalling. It fits right in with something else I find bizarre, that people seem to assume that having children is some kind of right they have.

    Edit: to clarify before the landslide, I mean that the thought 'I'll have kids, and then if I can't look after them it'll be fine because other people will' is what I dislike. I totally understand state support for needy families.

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 12:33:10 02-01-2013

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • nickthegun 2 Jan 2013 12:30:50 61,056 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Housing benefit, family allowance and so on. Its not loads but its enough to stay warm, clean and fed.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 12:31:43 8,091 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    JoeBlade wrote:
    Why do people continue to insist on terms like "reason" or "purpose" when talking about human life, or even life in general?
    It's pure arrogant self-importance. Like everything in the uni/multiverse (or whatever else the sum of all reality may be) we just happened, period.

    Nothing and no one in gives one microfuck whether we reproduce or not except for ourselves. Nothing and no one but ourselves gives a microfuck whether the human race continues to exist or not.

    If having children makes your life more fulfilling: good on you. If it doesn't: good on you.
    There are no right or wrong, meaning or purpose or whatnot involved anywhere in any of that. It all just is.
    Good attempt at putting what you personally believe over as fact, but no dice I'm afraid. Everyone's opinion on the subject is a guess informed to various degrees but still a guess, yours has no more gravitas than anyone else's.
  • brokenkey 2 Jan 2013 12:32:11 7,121 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    brokenkey wrote:
    What with getting them in bed at 7-8pm, after school club and working, I'd say children seeing their parents for 1 hour a day is the norm when both parents work full time. And both parents working full time is pretty much the norm, due to the way the economy has changed the price of housing, childcare etc.
    Yeah, see that's fucked in my opinion, but I can see right now just how offended many hard working parents here would be if anyone suggested that this sort of thing was far from ideal for their kids.
    But in our case that's only 3 days a week, and that's only while the kids are very, very small. The children have fun at nursery (such things become very important), and my children's lives are more balanced in terms of activities than mine was, which is driven by money. flip side is they spend more time inside the house, whereas I had to play outside.

    Its all a balance - if my wife didn't work, I might have to work harder, and be less inclined to go with them to rugby or music at the weekend - but they'd see more of their mum in the evenings.

    3DS 3497-0122-1484
    XBL/PSN/NNID: CptnBrokenkey

  • silentbob 2 Jan 2013 12:32:36 29,025 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    Sure, but I think for me that would be another line I just couldn't cross. I appreciate that life is about compromises, but then I also think that some things you shouldn't compromise on.

    We're pretty entitled as a general rule though, and I don't think people would like arbitrarily being told that they should spend a certain amount of time with their kids or not have them. ;)
    Any decision is based on current circumstances (and any short term outlook). You can never predict what might happen.

    To take your argument to it's extreme, if your financial circumstances did change, would you feel duty bound to give your kid up? An inflammatory question I realise, but I'm interested in the response.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 12:32:50
    Psychotext wrote:
    brokenkey wrote:
    What with getting them in bed at 7-8pm, after school club and working, I'd say children seeing their parents for 1 hour a day is the norm when both parents work full time. And both parents working full time is pretty much the norm, due to the way the economy has changed the price of housing, childcare etc.
    Yeah, see that's fucked in my opinion, but I can see right now just how offended many hard working parents here would be if anyone suggested that this sort of thing was far from ideal for their kids.
    I'm not offended as I can see why you'd think that, but I think you're lacking perspective.

    My wife spent the whole first year of his life with him, and that was what he needed, but nursery is better for him now. He needs to be with other children and other people. He's learning how to share and behave with others, and he's learning about other races and cultures - in short he's learning to be a human being, and that the world doesn't begin and end with mummy and daddy, and our house. He frankly loves it. And then at weekends we pour attention on him and have quality family time.

    Is that really so fucked?
  • nickthegun 2 Jan 2013 12:33:10 61,056 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    nickthegun wrote:
    The thing is, the state provides.
    Robot or not, this is something I find appalling. It fits right in with something else I find bizarre, that people seem to assume that having children is some kind of right they have.
    Its less that more making sure children arent neglected. These things arent there to benefit the parents, its to make sure the kids are ok.

    I know people froth at the gash when people with 8 kids are given an eight bed mansion but what are you going to do? Either start sterilising people or let the kids suffer in cramped conditions.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • Deckard1 2 Jan 2013 12:34:28 29,182 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    Either start sterilising people...

    Bingo

    Fish fingers and chips pretty straight forward.

  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 12:34:37 44,737 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    nickthegun wrote:
    The thing is, the state provides.
    Robot or not, this is something I find appalling. It fits right in with something else I find bizarre, that people seem to assume that having children is some kind of right they have.
    Its less that more making sure children arent neglected. These things arent there to benefit the parents, its to make sure the kids are ok.

    I know people froth at the gash when people with 8 kids are given an eight bed mansion but what are you going to do? Either start sterilising people or let the kids suffer in cramped conditions.
    Yeah we're coming from the same place with this I think. And I want to stay miles away from the idea that there be qualifying criteria for children, which is where this line of thought leads, because that's disgusting.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Steve_Perry 2 Jan 2013 12:34:45 5,001 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    I honestly think some people should be sterilised. Fearn Cotton should not be allowed to clone herself.

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • silentbob 2 Jan 2013 12:35:15 29,025 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    nickthegun wrote:
    The thing is, the state provides.
    Robot or not, this is something I find appalling. It fits right in with something else I find bizarre, that people seem to assume that having children is some kind of right they have.

    Edit: to clarify before the landslide, I mean that the thought 'I'll have kids, and then if I can't look after them it'll be fine because other people will' is what I dislike. I totally understand state support for needy families.
    I believe it is, along with affordable / free healthcare.

    That is of course tempered with rationality here, I accept the extreme cases where it would just be ludicrous to consider having a child. But generally yes, it is indeed a human right.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • brokenkey 2 Jan 2013 12:36:14 7,121 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    silentbob wrote:
    It's about the quality of the time not the quantity. Spending every waking moment with your kid != an awesome kid.

    Plus it would drive you and your kids fucking mad. Or to put it another way "I'm not getting married because I can't spend every minute of my life with my wife" - sounds bonkers, right?

    I mean, look at Paul McCartney.

    3DS 3497-0122-1484
    XBL/PSN/NNID: CptnBrokenkey

  • Psychotext 2 Jan 2013 12:36:25 54,810 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    And then at weekends we pour attention on him and have quality family time.

    Is that really so fucked?
    No, because you're spending time with him on the weekend. I'm talking about parents who don't even do that.


    silentbob wrote:
    To take your argument to it's extreme, if your financial circumstances did change, would you feel duty bound to give your kid up? An inflammatory question I realise, but I'm interested in the response.
    How bad are we talking? If it's coming to the point where you can't feed your kids properly or you'll be living on the street... yeah. Though as I was informed earlier there is apparently help for if you get into that situation so I guess it shouldn't come to that.

    Edited by Psychotext at 12:39:15 02-01-2013
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 12:36:40 44,737 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    silentbob wrote:
    But generally yes, it is indeed a human right.
    OK, we're going to have to disagree on that.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 12:37:33 8,091 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    Housing benefit, family allowance and so on. Its not loads but its enough to stay warm, clean and fed.
    These sorts of things only apply when you have absolutely nothing, and no job so you have time to care for your child. We can support our single child but when we have two we'll have to double all our childcare fees and it'll make more sense financially for one of us to stop working but that really shouldn't be the answer and neither of us want to. We're reasonably well off so we don't get any tax breaks, benefits etc, so we just have to suck up the extortionate costs of child care. There aren't any free nurseries taking on 3 month olds for 10 hours a day round my way.
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 12:38:20
    Psychotext wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    And then at weekends we pour attention on him and have quality family time.

    Is that really so fucked?
    No, because you're spending time with him on the weekend. I'm talking about parents who don't even do that.
    OK, well I doubt brokenkey meant that in his post about full-time working parents only seeing their kids for an hour a day. Most parents these days don't see much of their kids in the week, but then weekends are family time.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 12:39:19 44,737 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    There aren't any free nurseries taking on 3 month olds for 10 hours a day round my way.
    Move to Denmark, everyone has to pay for them over there whether they have kids or want kids or don't want kids or whatever.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deckard1 2 Jan 2013 12:39:44 29,182 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Steve_Perry wrote:
    I honestly think some people should be sterilised. Fearn Cotton should not be allowed to clone herself.
    I think it's definitely something that should be looked in to. If there was a way to make a harmless gas bomb that would sterilise people, and then set them off at predetermined areas where the lowest forms of life are known to congregate. Like an apple store. Or a Liverpool home game.

    Fish fingers and chips pretty straight forward.

  • FWB 2 Jan 2013 12:41:11 45,216 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I was a kindergarten teacher for many years. Sending your child off there is vital to his/her development. They need to know how to interact with others their age, learning social skills; skills which, quite frankly, are probably the singularly most important thing they will need in life. Molly-coddling them is not helping and pretty selfish.

    Edited by FWB at 12:44:28 02-01-2013
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 12:42:16 8,091 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    There aren't any free nurseries taking on 3 month olds for 10 hours a day round my way.
    Move to Denmark, everyone has to pay for them over there whether they have kids or want kids or don't want kids or whatever.
    They'll all be paying for the pensions in 30 ears time though.
  • ModishNouns 2 Jan 2013 12:43:24 4,656 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Tell you what, though, since we had children, the wife has let the garden go to fucking ruin.
  • Page

    of 15 First / Last

Log in or register to reply