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.
Never said it wasn't, but you have looked around and seen the state of our country lately? There are some pretty great young people still running around, but there sure a heck of a lot that aren't so great either, and that is down to parenting, or lack thereof. Wish all you want, it won't make it a reality.
Never said it wasn't, but you have looked around and seen the state of our country lately? There are some pretty great young people still running around, but there sure a heck of a lot that aren't so great either,
That could be said about people of any age including crusty old bitter trout. Maybe if THEY went away things would improve?
Parenting is both the hardest thing you will ever do and the most rewarding thing you will ever do.
It's not for the faint of heart but I would do it all over again. My kids made me who I am.
My mother told me before she died at age 98 that the thing in her life she was most proud of was having my sister and I as her children. I feel pretty similar about my own kids, despite the fact that they have caused me a lot of pain at times.
Some of my friends and family constantly ask about me having kids. They go on and on about how cute they are and how much fun they are. However, after a drink or two, they open up about how time consuming kids are and how much trouble they are. I've even had one friend who admitted she regretted having children.
Why do you think many people are dishonest about the realities of having children? If not dishonest, they never seem to be mention all of the negatives.
It's like marriage. There are good and bad aspects. At some point, everyone is angry with their spouse. They might have a conservation on how hard it is to deal with a spouse or in-laws. It doesn't mean that they want a divorce or regret marriage. It only means in that moment they are angry. Tomorrow, they will feel differently.
My mother told me before she died at age 98 that the thing in her life she was most proud of was having my sister and me as her children. I feel pretty similar about my own kids, despite the fact that they have caused me a lot of pain at times.
Yes, of course she was. What I feel that people who are adamantly opposed to having children sometimes seem to be missing is not that children aren't an expense, a worry, sometimes even a burden...they are all those things at times and we all know that...but they are also your family.
As we get older we lose our grandparents, then our parents and aunts and uncles, then if we live long enough our brothers and sisters and cousins too. If you have no children, at a certain point you run out of family, and that's sad. The relatively few years we parents were very busy and maybe overwhelmed or even struggling to raise our children fade into memory, but we are proud of our children because these now-adults who love us and make up our family would not be here if we hadn't taken on the job. At least, that's how it's supposed to be and how it usually is.
Disabled people didn't choose to be disabled. Misfortune visited them, and now they're coping as best as they can. We accommodate their needs, within reason, because we sympathize with their plight and feel a brotherly affection, as fellow humans. But in most cases, parenthood is a choice. It wasn't a misfortune visited upon said people. They did this intentionally. Now, if they suffer privations, I sympathize with the children - but not with the parents. It's no fault of the kids themselves. But it definitely is the fault of the parents!
Here's the nits I want to pick:
Does someone disabled by drug abuse, driving without a seatbelt, or otherwise engaging in risky behavior have no responsibility for their disability?
Does a parent who became a parent through "risky" behavior and refusal or lack of access to abortion have full responsibility for their parenthood?
Those are the nits. Here's the important part:
As you said, the child had no choice but to be born. Allowing parents minor accommodations to care for their children benefits the child. Should we begrudge them this because it also "rewards" the "responsible" party? I'm sure plenty of parents would be happy to work longer hours or get zero personal benefits if society paid whole-hog for the childcare, schooling, feeding, and college funds of their children.
Quote:
There's a pervasive argument that SOMEBODY out there better be reproducing, lest we all perish. I am not persuaded of this. Yes, my eventual Social Security depends on new workers paying taxes, so if not enough new future workers are born, there go my benefits. That would be unfortunate, and in all honesty, I do sincerely hope that when my turn comes, enough workers are still around. But while we're being honest, isn't that a bit selfish? I mean, if today's young adults better start having more kids, to sustain my future old-age benefits .... uh, "hope" notwithstanding, I'm quite willing to relent and to forego those darned benefits, if so doing, releases today's young adults from the travails of parenthood. That seems only fair.
If we reject that argument, then we're back to parenthood as a choice, not as a civic virtue. And if it's a mere choice, then ought we not be individually responsible for our choices?
If I buy a sports car, that supports all sorts of high-end value-added jobs, does it not? I'm doing something for the economy, am I not? So then, where are my sports car tax breaks? OK, that's not how it works. A sports car is a personal indulgence. If I want it, I better be able to pay for it. Why isn't parenthood a similar indulgence?
I think you don't fully comprehend the impact of a full stop of new workers entering the labor force. Society would collapse into a brief spasm of destruction. Expecting normal life to be able to continue for a decade from the cessation of any new humans being born is probably optimistic, since some smart humans would see the inevitable endgame of zero birth rate and rip society apart trying to make their own ends as comfortable as possible.
It would be far worse than a full thermonuclear exchange. You would not have to worry about your social security check, because you would be dead from starvation or be murdered by (or be murdering as one of the) roving bands of bandits fighting over the last of the resources after modern social networks and supply chains collapsed.
A similar scenario would happen if everyone (or 30%) stopped purchasing goods and services, or we had any other mass shock to the system. Anyone who does their own taxes will see dozens of write-offs designed to keep US consumer-driven society stable, and preserve or promote some industries. Your "sports car tax break" came in the form of those pandemic checks Uncle Sam wrote you (and everyone else) when consumers reacted to the pandemic by abruptly ceasing consumption. Child tax credits are basically the same thing as solar, EV, education, moving, etc. tax breaks. Unlike those tax breaks, however, any scraps tossed to parents by society are far outweighed by the burden of having children.
A person driven purely by cost/benefit analysis would not have children without ascribing some benefit to family, life experience, continuation of genes, love, etc.
Quote:
Parents are sometimes so clueless about kids. I really think we should make parents have a license before they can take a baby home from the hospital.
I wholly agree. I've lived in several countries where the state "gently" enforces parental education. This is usually done by providing benefits too good to pass up. For instance, in Taiwan, the national health care system provides "mothers hotels" where new mothers get 30 days free stay to recover from childbirth. Their infants are cared for, initially, by nursing staff, who do a few hours of one-on-on training with the parents each day so they are fully prepared when they go home. A similar level of civic engagement continues throughout childhood.
I noted that, despite having no private gun ownership, or mass shootings, elementary schools in Taiwan are fortresses. They have vehicle-proof gates that are attended by a guard (usually just a staff member) when schools are in session. Access is impossible without prior permission as the guard must buzz visitors (or tardy students, parents picking up children early, etc.) in.
If you travel to other developed nations--Germany is another--you'll see similar levels of prioritization of welfare of children and families. On the other side of the coin, there are countries--Cambodia is one--where less benefits are directed to parents and children.
All this social engagement in other developed nations comes at a cost, of course. Regulations and taxes in most of these countries make it much harder to become exceptionally wealthy. The more I have traveled, the more I recognize the "wild west" social structure of the USA compared to other countries.
I wholly agree. I've lived in several countries where the state "gently" enforces parental education. This is usually done by providing benefits too good to pass up. For instance, in Taiwan, the national health care system provides "mothers hotels" where new mothers get 30 days free stay to recover from childbirth. Their infants are cared for, initially, by nursing staff, who do a few hours of one-on-on training with the parents each day so they are fully prepared when they go home. A similar level of civic engagement continues throughout childhood.
30 days is excessive and stems from the traditional Chinese idea that a mother must do absolutely nothing for a month after childbirth except lie around and eat nourishing food. If she does anything strenuous, and that includes taking a shower, horrible physical ailments will ensue later in life relating to the part of the body that was "overworked." If she washes dishes, she'll end up with arthritis in her hands, if she sweeps she will develop a bad back, etc. etc.
It used to be that Chinese Grandma would move in for a month to take care of the new baby and make sure the new mom stayed put, but in modern cases where that's not practical, these hotels you mentioned take their place. From a Western point of view, it's very much unnecessary to put up new moms for a month in a special hotel at the expense of the state.
My personal opinion after having had three babies in the US is that 4-5 days in the hospital to recuperate and learn to feed and care for the baby would be nice. Maybe even as much as a week, depending on how difficult the delivery was. But on the other hand I had friends who insisted on being discharged the very next day after giving birth, because they wanted to get home, and they and their babies ended up just fine too.
The scary thing about having kids is you don't know what you're getting. You could have the most well-behaved child who grows up to be a great person. Or you could have a child with a severe mental disability or mental illness. That's not a gamble I'd want to make.
In today's world I would not want children and as to past we did have 4,we were part of stay at home for wife,I am 89'.
We have had nothing but grief,the oldest child boy,educable retarded.next daughter schoprenia,next son who had found and earned his way in life as a police officer at 30 years old died of brain tumor and our survivng daughter and husband have taken care of us going on three years.
I guess I can't answer the question fairly.
Allowing parents minor accommodations to care for their children benefits the child. Should we begrudge them this because it also "rewards" the "responsible" party?
The begrudging goes with the income of the parents. In contrast to the standard conservative trope, I am not much miffed, if poor parents (and kids) receive assistance. It far more irks me, if upper-middle-class people get generous tax-credits, just because of their reproductive choices. So if we have two upper management types at a tech company, one without kids and one with a large family, the latter will pay vastly less in income taxes. This - and not relief for the poor - is what I find to be so unjust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432
I think you don't fully comprehend the impact of a full stop of new workers entering the labor force. Society would collapse into a brief spasm of destruction. Expecting normal life to be able to continue for a decade from the cessation of any new humans being born is probably optimistic, since some smart humans would see the inevitable endgame of zero birth rate and rip society apart trying to make their own ends as comfortable as possible.
You have a point there. As a non-parent I often ponder why it is only the most extreme of the fringe are enamored of "disaster porn". Nearly every person with any smattering of self-awareness and social-awareness feels kind regard to a distant human future, that they'll never see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432
A person driven purely by cost/benefit analysis would not have children without ascribing some benefit to family, life experience, continuation of genes, love, etc.
Yes, very much so. If we behold the interaction of mothers and children at the local playground, and regard such bonding as an inscrutable and bizarre insanity, then we find ourselves at a loss, as to why able-bodied adults would compromise their lives, all for the sake of reproduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432
All this social engagement in other developed nations comes at a cost, of course. Regulations and taxes in most of these countries make it much harder to become exceptionally wealthy. The more I have traveled, the more I recognize the "wild west" social structure of the USA compared to other countries.
Again, no argument here. Even in America, the bite of taxes doesn't really snowball until reaching something like the top 5% of income. It is then in particular that one comes to resent the tax-breaks offered to parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
As we get older we lose our grandparents, then our parents and aunts and uncles, then if we live long enough our brothers and sisters and cousins too. If you have no children, at a certain point you run out of family, and that's sad. ....
This much depends on how we ourselves were raised. Did we grow up in a large family, or a small one? A broad and extensive kin-network, or none at all? As a child-free only-child of an only-child, there is something liltingly profound about the various generations converging to an apex, and finally concluding. One is reminded of a science fiction scenario where astronauts are in a space ship moving almost at the speed of light, experiencing extreme time-dilation. When their journey ends, it has been trillions of years in the universe's rest-frame. The galaxies have long ago disintegrated, and the stars extinguished. The astronauts are wholly alone.
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.
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.
