U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-15-2009, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,273,555 times
Reputation: 10915

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Well TKramar.. if we all went by that rule no one would be having children. You are aware that cost of living has gone up so much, yet incomes down.. that now it takes 2 parents working just to maintain "middle class" without sinking below their station??

MOst families I know have two parents working. Although some may be lucky to work part time from home so that they can be home with their kids.. but it's not quite as simple as you'd like to make it out be.
Then it's probably better for the planet if people stop having kids. I have no doubts I could afford a third person--none of my girlfriends worked--but I don't have the patience for kids. Which is another reason for me to simply get a second 40 hour a week job--so I wouldn't have to be around them.

 
Old 06-15-2009, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,273,555 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73 View Post
The ideal parenting situation is exactly what you described. One parent earns the wages while the other parent stays at home to care for the children. Unfortunately, our economical situation does not afford many couples this luxury. People's financial situation can and do change especially in this unstable economy we live in which may force the stay at home parent to enter the workforce.
Depends on the "luxuries" they have. Would you shut down cable, or eat less, just to make sure your child got fed?
 
Old 06-15-2009, 04:34 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,461,476 times
Reputation: 3869
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Depends on the "luxuries" they have. Would you shut down cable, or eat less, just to make sure your child got fed?
Actually, I would - and I have.

It was only 6 months ago that we signed up for cable for the very first time. We didn't have it when our kids were growing up. Didn't need it. Didn't want to waste the money on it. Didn't want all that crap being piped into our house.

My wife and I have always lived frugally, partially so that we could be good parents. We're not into name brands. We never eat at expensive fancy restaurants. We live in a very nice, but not fancy, house. All our vehicles are older and paid for. We garden. We walk places. And we've instilled all these values in our kids.



The bottom line is that people who don't want kids shouldn't have kids. All other arguments about "regretting it later" or "you're being selfish" are irrelevant. But people who don't want to have kids should not be talking crap to/about those of us who do. My wife & I decided to have 3 kids. It was our choice and it's our business. We are better people because we're parents. That's reason enough for me.
 
Old 06-15-2009, 04:48 PM
 
16,487 posts, read 20,337,485 times
Reputation: 16136
The reality is there are some people who should never be parents, some of them are and some of them chose not to be. I respect anyone that knows their boundaries and chooses to not have children if that is their desire. I have 4 children but I have a sister who chose in her teens to not have children and was sterilized in her 20's. Our jails would be less crowded, we would have less violent crimes, Health and Welfare would have far less children in foster homes, and our society would be more balanced if more people chose to not have children that do not want them, cannot support them financially, cannot handle children emotionally, or have issues with abuse.
 
Old 06-15-2009, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,112,847 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Then it's probably better for the planet if people stop having kids. I have no doubts I could afford a third person--none of my girlfriends worked--but I don't have the patience for kids. Which is another reason for me to simply get a second 40 hour a week job--so I wouldn't have to be around them.
First off.. you're not obviously in a relationship that "works"or "worked out". And if being in one is a criteria for you (as it was for me) then no, you should not have kids. Going it alone is very hard. Going it in a relationship that isn't working is also not very good prospect. Quite honestly, if something were to happen between me and my husband I would be fine because I have my son and he is the most important thing. I probably wouldn't even date or care to much to. But fortunately I am married, so it's okay. I did have a back up plan should I find myself without a mate after 35 to have children.. because I wanted to be a MOM and knew I did.

Secondly, if you are not willing to sacrifice material things and work a little more hours for having kids.. then NO you should not have them.

That is your choice. I'm not knocking your choice.

But YOUR criteria of one parent being able to stay home is not feasible in this nation and in this economy at this time. i don't know about the rest of the world. if that was a criteria we would all follow it very well may be that the human race would die out.

That is your set of criteria for having children. Mine are different and to me having a child is worth any sacrifice. There is nothing better in this world. It may not be that way for you or the OP and that is fine. That is your choice. Just as having a child, even if I have to work in addition to raising them, is mine.
 
Old 06-15-2009, 05:46 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,366,957 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
But YOUR criteria of one parent being able to stay home is not feasible in this nation and in this economy at this time. i don't know about the rest of the world. if that was a criteria we would all follow it very well may be that the human race would die out.
While I don't have the study in front of me, I won't cite specific numbers but, more and more women are now putting their careers on hold (quitting work) when they have a child and do not return to work until that child enters school.

This use to be the case and was the reason we could not use a womans income to qualify for a loan (unless she got a certification of sterility from her doctor) - but that changed with new laws in the mid 70's -

But, it seems as if history DOES have a way of repeating itself!
 
Old 06-15-2009, 07:00 PM
 
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
38,803 posts, read 19,570,928 times
Reputation: 35847
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Depends on the "luxuries" they have. Would you shut down cable, or eat less, just to make sure your child got fed?
Of course. I'm talking about basic essentials such as food, shelter, health care, clothing, etc ... I have very few luxury items right now as a single person so I definitely can forego luxuries when I choose to have children. In fact, I don't even have cable as it is just a waste of money.
 
Old 06-16-2009, 05:31 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
9,286 posts, read 16,128,557 times
Reputation: 11269
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73 View Post
Raising a child is a 24/7 job so even though you have to pick up the slack for your coworkers, at least you can go home at the end of the day and pretty much do as you please. Working parents don't have this luxury.
but that was their choice to forgo the luxury of free time.......

if the childless are "picking up the slack" for those with children, should they not be compensated to reflect that??

but THAT won't happen because our society is so geared to "families"
 
Old 06-16-2009, 06:05 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,461,476 times
Reputation: 3869
Quote:
Originally Posted by latetotheparty View Post
but that was their choice to forgo the luxury of free time.......

if the childless are "picking up the slack" for those with children, should they not be compensated to reflect that??

but THAT won't happen because our society is so geared to "families"
Those who claim that they are picking up the slack for a co-worker often aren't. Even so, picking up the slack for somebody at work has nothing to do with whether or not the persons involved have children. It has to do with individual work ethic.
 
Old 06-16-2009, 08:15 AM
 
12,450 posts, read 13,091,627 times
Reputation: 8893
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Quite honestly, if something were to happen between me and my husband I would be fine because I have my son and he is the most important thing. I probably wouldn't even date or care to much to.
it is an unfair burden to put on a child, and an unhealthy relationship as well, to expect and demand our children to fill our emotional needs as an adult. Kids are not supposed to "take the place" of our lover or fill our need for emotional intimacy as an adult.

I see so many parents do this and it just makes me cringe. It cripples the children, including the grown children, and sucks the life out of them, and deprives them of their own right to live their own life when we look to them to fill our emotional void.

If I am without a date or a lover or a spouse or a companion, that is up to ME to address, and not manipulate and control my children to fill that hole. Yikes. Yuk. Please don't poison your children in this way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top