If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why have kids?
"Marie" wrote in message news:CjqGf.541816$084.31372@attbi_s22... "Mike" wrote in message oups.com... Hello All, I am 37 years old and have never wanted children. My loving hubby of 5 years agreed to no children when we married. Now after over 5 years of marriage, he is beginning to rethink his position. Specifically, he is concerned about what our life will be in our 50's/60's/70's when we do not have children. I am the oldest of 5 girls and spent a significant portion of my childhood/ teen years watching my younger sisters ( 7yrs, 10 yrs, 15 yrs and 21 yrs younger than I). I adore my sisters but understand the amount of work involved and do not want to go down that path again. I love my husband but need some insight into how to convince/ negotiate our original decision to not have children. Am I wrong? Please advise, Tammy No, you are not wrong. He did agree to no children. His most specific reason to have kids so they will take care of him is one of the worst reasons. There is no guarantee in that. It's possible that he will outlive the kid, the kid is born disabled or may become disabled, or may refuse to take care of your husband. It does happen. ANd you actually have to raise them first, whcih is no easy feat even with fully engaged and interested parents. If your husband is worried about how he can be taken care of in his old age, he can save up his money and find someone if not you to be his legal advocate. Having kids, however, will eat up a huge chunk of money, particularly if one of them is disabled or is an expensive troublemaker. Have a long good talk with him. And please don't have a baby for his sake. This is something you should want for yourself, too. If you don't, then don't have one. And there is nothing wrong with not wanting a child. Good luck and keep us posted. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why have kids?
"Nan" wrote in message ... As others have said, this is not a good reason to have children. I have 3 children and there are no guarantees that any of them will step up to the plate and 'take care' of us when we're elderly, and I wouldn't place that expectation on any of them. Yes, it's really an awful reason to have kids. My dad, who I think is just as good a dad as I could have ever gotten, used to remind us all the time that he took good care of us now so we could care for him in his old age. It made me feel like he wasn't doing it all out of love (of course he was, but there was that ulterior motive). If you aren't doing it all for love, the kids will know it and possibly resent it. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why have kids?
"Marie" wrote in message
news:CjqGf.541816$084.31372@attbi_s22... He did agree to no children. Must everything a couple agreed to before they got married remain set in stone, though? I know that over the course of 16 years of marriage, some of the things that my husband and I agreed to when we got married wound up changing. For example, we said we'd wait five years to have kids, but then waited a little more than seven. We said we'd have two kids, but decided later to have three. We both NEVER wanted to own a minivan, and now, we have one. Of course, changing your mind on whether or not to have kids at all is hardly a trivial matter, but at the same time, I don't think it is UNREASONABLE to expect that one or both partners might change their minds about things they'd previously agreed to. For example, it's entirely possible for this to go the other direction: one partner in a couple that once agreed to have children has decided he/she no longer wants children. Does the fact that there was a prior agreement mean that the ONLY resolution of a subsequent disagreement can be reverting to the original agreement? Because in the latter case, I don't think it's any more "right" to force a person who previously wanted children to HAVE them after he/she has had a change of heart than it is to force a person who has never wanted them to have them? (Was that convoluted enough for you?) A marital relationship evolves and changes as the partners in it evolve and change. A relationship that doesn't evolve and change stagnates, after all, and that's not good, either. -- Be well, Barbara |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why have kids?
"Circe" wrote in message news:8ztGf.24272$sA3.11775@fed1read02... "Marie" wrote in message news:CjqGf.541816$084.31372@attbi_s22... He did agree to no children. Must everything a couple agreed to before they got married remain set in stone, though? Where kids are concerned, it takes 2 to decide TO and only one to decide NOT. Life is not fair, but having kids is that big of a deal, as of course you know. I know that over the course of 16 years of marriage, some of the things that my husband and I agreed to when we got married wound up changing. For example, we said we'd wait five years to have kids, but then waited a little more than seven. We said we'd have two kids, but decided later to have three. We both NEVER wanted to own a minivan, and now, we have one. Of course, changing your mind on whether or not to have kids at all is hardly a trivial matter, but at the same time, I don't think it is UNREASONABLE to expect that one or both partners might change their minds about things they'd previously agreed to. For example, it's entirely possible for this to go the other direction: one partner in a couple that once agreed to have children has decided he/she no longer wants children. Does the fact that there was a prior agreement mean that the ONLY resolution of a subsequent disagreement can be reverting to the original agreement? Because in the latter case, I don't think it's any more "right" to force a person who previously wanted children to HAVE them after he/she has had a change of heart than it is to force a person who has never wanted them to have them? (Was that convoluted enough for you?) A marital relationship evolves and changes as the partners in it evolve and change. A relationship that doesn't evolve and change stagnates, after all, and that's not good, either. -- Be well, Barbara |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why have kids?
Circe wrote: A marital relationship evolves and changes as the partners in it evolve and change. A relationship that doesn't evolve and change stagnates, after all, and that's not good, either. A decision to have kids or not is a rather significant one that requires two partners to be committed 100%, IMO. Change is good, but parenthood is not something which can be comprised between two who believe differently. There is no middle ground between being a parent and not. Not saying it shouldn't be open for discussion, one is allowed to change their mind. But then they have to decide if the partner hasn't changed their feeling on it, are they willing to give up the notion of parenthood or the person their married to? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why have kids?
oops, *they are* not their.
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why have kids?
Mike wrote:
Hello All, I am 37 years old and have never wanted children. My loving hubby of 5 years agreed to no children when we married. Now after over 5 years of marriage, he is beginning to rethink his position. Specifically, he is concerned about what our life will be in our 50's/60's/70's when we do not have children. I am the oldest of 5 girls and spent a significant portion of my childhood/ teen years watching my younger sisters ( 7yrs, 10 yrs, 15 yrs and 21 yrs younger than I). I adore my sisters but understand the amount of work involved and do not want to go down that path again. I love my husband but need some insight into how to convince/ negotiate our original decision to not have children. Am I wrong? Please advise, Tammy Well, why not have kids? OK, I'm being a little facetious, but DH and I are wondering at this from a slightly different direction. We don't feel a "calling" to parent that cjr mentioned upthread - at best we're somewhat curious. I'd like, in a general way, to know what it's like to be pregnant, give birth, parent, and watch someone grow - but I can't say I really want it 24/7. DH is about the same - we both keep waiting for the other person to make up their mind. ( This is, incidently, pretty typical for us ) Also we do look at our parents, and think it'd be nice to be where they are now - good relationships with independant adult children. I'm not worried about being cared-for - I can and do save for retirement - but perhaps a bit about being lonely. About reaching a point where we've travelled everywhere we could possibly want to travel and purchased everything we could possibly want and looking around and thinking "now what". Again, no guarantees, but so far so good, people in my and my inlaw's families tend to get along pretty well. Time is, of course, a factor - realistically, if I want to avoid the magic '35' cutoff, I should start trying now. Any advice? Any ideas? I've been lurking here for *cough* several years, so it's not like I have no idea what to expect. And I'm aware that a lot of people will say "when in doubt, don't". But I suspect that if we did have kids, we'd enjoy it - if only because most people seem to. Turnip -- turnip |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why have kids?
"cjra" wrote in message
oups.com... Circe wrote: A marital relationship evolves and changes as the partners in it evolve and change. A relationship that doesn't evolve and change stagnates, after all, and that's not good, either. A decision to have kids or not is a rather significant one that requires two partners to be committed 100%, IMO. Change is good, but parenthood is not something which can be comprised between two who believe differently. There is no middle ground between being a parent and not. Not saying it shouldn't be open for discussion, one is allowed to change their mind. But then they have to decide if the partner hasn't changed their feeling on it, are they willing to give up the notion of parenthood or the person their married to? Oh, I agree that it's a huge decision and that it's not an issue that should be forced on either partner. By the same token, however, I don't think that just because a couple agreed to have/not have children when they got married means that either one of them has to stick with the initial agreement if they change their minds. I know a fair number of people who thought they would have no children who later mutually decided they wanted children. I also know a fair number of people who thought they would have children who wound up not having them, again by mutual agreement. All I'm saying is that when one party changes his/her mind about something previously agreed, the OTHER party shouldn't necessarily be ASSUMED to have the upper hand in resolving the conflict. -- Be well, Barbara |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why have kids?
Circe wrote:
"cjra" wrote in message oups.com... Circe wrote: A marital relationship evolves and changes as the partners in it evolve and change. A relationship that doesn't evolve and change stagnates, after all, and that's not good, either. A decision to have kids or not is a rather significant one that requires two partners to be committed 100%, IMO. Change is good, but parenthood is not something which can be comprised between two who believe differently. There is no middle ground between being a parent and not. Not saying it shouldn't be open for discussion, one is allowed to change their mind. But then they have to decide if the partner hasn't changed their feeling on it, are they willing to give up the notion of parenthood or the person their married to? Oh, I agree that it's a huge decision and that it's not an issue that should be forced on either partner. By the same token, however, I don't think that just because a couple agreed to have/not have children when they got married means that either one of them has to stick with the initial agreement if they change their minds. I know a fair number of people who thought they would have no children who later mutually decided they wanted children. I also know a fair number of people who thought they would have children who wound up not having them, again by mutual agreement. All I'm saying is that when one party changes his/her mind about something previously agreed, the OTHER party shouldn't necessarily be ASSUMED to have the upper hand in resolving the conflict. I'd say that the person probably has the moral high ground as the one who's keeping the agreement. It's just that it doesn't *matter* very much in practical terms. If both agree to no children, and then one's heart changes and he or she really wants children, it's not like there was deception in the beginning or the person is just being a PITA now. So, it doesn't really matter who has the moral high ground. It just matters that there's a problem in the marriage and *two* people have to be committed to working through that issue and coming to some sort of resolution both can live with. There is also an obligation to the child-to-be-or-not-to-be to ensure that a child only comes into the marriage with two parents completely committed to parenting, so you can't resolve the issue by dragging the reluctant spouse into having children willy nilly. But ultimately, both spouses have to come to a resolution that they can both live with, or else the marriage is almost certain to founder--and if it does, moral high ground or not, both parties are equally responsible for being unwilling/unable to reach a workable resolution. Best wishes, Ericka |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why have kids?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | October 19th 05 05:36 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | March 30th 05 06:34 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | July 29th 04 05:16 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |
Do Plant and Droaner claim insufficient spanking for Klebold and Harris caused Columbine? | Kane | Spanking | 13 | May 21st 04 03:29 AM |