Disagreement about third child

In article , Kathy Cole says...

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Kathy Cole wrote:

Walking into a discussion saying 'no, absolutely not' means you're not
walking into the discussion. That's a relationship I would assume isn't
particularly healthy, and not all that likely to last.

That's not the point.

It's the point I've been making, though apparently not very well.

The point is that it's *also*
unhealthy for one partner to walk into the discussion going,
"Sure, I'm willing to entertain the argument, but I know that
ultimately, because I'm the one who's leaning towards no more
kids, I don't *really* have to compromise as much as my
partner because he/she can't go forward without my consent"
and the other partner to go in thinking, "I have to make a
really good case here and sweeten the pot however I can,
because the other person holds all the power and can shut
me down whenever he/she decides to stop entertaining my
arguments."

I agree that's also an unhealthy dynamic. But I read that describing
two people who've already made a decision as to what they want. They're
both wrong.

That's not a soft no and a soft yes, or two soft nos or two soft yeses,
walking in looking to figure out what they both want so they can make
the right decision for both of them (and the rest of the family).
That's a firm no and a firm yes, and a knowledge on one side that they
can make their no stick, and a hope on the other that they can wear down
the no if they talk long enough.

If each walks in with a prior conclusion that they have to have their
way, well, they're both ultimately going to be disappointed.

That is NOT an equal starting position, and
that's what happens when you give out a priori veto power.

I just don't know how else to describe everyone's inherent ability to
say no to a request. There is no grant of a priori veto power. There's
nothing to grant. It's there all the time. It may never be used, but
the capacity is always there to decline a request.

But who has what inherent ability??

Either side can have a sterilization procedure upon themselves, and therefore no
child. From them. But, either side can have a child - the wife by conceiving
elsewhere or by donor insemination (and in most if not all states all children
born within a marriage are treated the same by law), the husband by conceiving
with a mistress, girlfriend, or surrogate - taking on responsibilities by law
thereby.

As long as you're going to postulate people doing *whatever* it takes to get
what they want, and call that "veto", there are any number of possibilities.

Such that I really dont' think this is a useful tack to approach any such
discussion.

Banty

In article ,
Banty wrote:

But who has what inherent ability??

Me to say no for me, my husband to say no for him.

Either side can have a sterilization procedure upon themselves, and
therefore no child. From them. But, either side can have a child - the
wife by conceiving elsewhere or by donor insemination (and in most if not
all states all children born within a marriage are treated the same by
law), the husband by conceiving with a mistress, girlfriend, or surrogate -
taking on responsibilities by law thereby.

The part you missed is where the couple breaks up before conceiving the
child the other party does not want to create or raise, if the member of
the couple who wants the child decides s/he wants the child more than
the relationship, and/or the one who does not want the child values not
having the child more than the relationship.

Yes, people can decide they will reject their partner's no, and try to
force yes *while keeping the partner*, whether through deceit or by
being up front about what they're going to do. That's likely to kill
the relationship just as dead as deciding there is something that is an
irreconcilable difference, and splitting up because of it.

As long as you're going to postulate people doing *whatever* it takes to get
what they want, and call that "veto", there are any number of possibilities.

I am not calling doing whatever it takes to get what you want a veto.