Why people have so many children?

[GeorginaS]

Because the Earth has limited resources. If every couple has one or two, the population stays stable or shrinks. More than that and the population grows. Eventually there will be so many people that the Earth will not be able to support them all.

Eventually there would be. But! Spiffy new research:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807085839/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[thack45]

Because the Earth has limited resources. If every couple has one or two, the population stays stable or shrinks. More than that and the population grows. Eventually there will be so many people that the Earth will not be able to support them all.

Then wouldn't it be logical to have no children to make up for those among us who aren't aware of this?

 

[quickme]

I want to have more than 5 children
Because I do not want be alone when I am old
I don't want to waste my life for lonely death and fade
I would love to see my next generation
I can stay alive without food, water and shelter, but I can not live in loneliness

 

[Huckleberry]

You're kidding me, right? You're busting out semantics suggesting that by "having" you meant "raising" children rather than "pregnancy/bearing" children?

So in here

(emphasis mine)

you meant "rear" not "bear". If your intended use of language is so precise, maybe you'd like to use that precision when you write so you're clearly understood. Just a suggestion.

I did assume the OP meant the bearing to term and rearing of children in the use of the word 'have'. I thought it was more germane to the topic to discuss children that are a part of the population, rather than ones that died in infancy or were terminated during pregnancy. I'm sorry if I misunderstood the OP's use of the word 'have'.

Unplanned pregnancies may happen frequently as a result of subconscious drives, but at some point bearing a child becomes a conscious choice that is not unintentional. Hopefully you understand why I thought we were applying the word 'have' to different meanings. I was trying to clarify a misunderstanding, not trying to be semantic.

 

[bp_psy]

I can stay alive without food, water and shelter, but I can not live in loneliness

You should go out on the streets, don't eat and drink for a weak and then come and share the result.

 

[Office_Shredder]

You should go out on the streets, don't eat and drink for a weak and then come and share the result.

What? He said he can't stay alive without those things

 

[Jack21222]

What? He said he can't stay alive without those things

He clearly said "can," not "can't."

 

[bp_psy]

What? He said he can't stay alive without those things

Where? Unless i didn't get some form of sarcasms his post says that he can live without food, water and shelter

 

[Kerrie]

I don't have to have a child to see lots of other people raise children, or know how hard of a time my parents had with my sister.

Everyone should do what they want. I never want to tell anyone what to do. But I can express my opinion on the advantages and disadvantages of those choices.
People always say how children are a miracle and a blessing and how wonderful and glorious and whatever else it is. But that's not saying anything. If someone wants to list the advantages of having a child, they'd have to use more quantifiable terms. Even saying it's their "best" decision, isn't saying anything. "Best" is vague and almost always needs to be elaborated on.

Raising your own child and observing someone else are entirely two different experiences. Having been in both situations, raising my children has made me a better person. Many parents who do raise children also go through an amazing transformation of their perspectives that make them a better person. This is certainly something that can happen without having children, but a parent who has the dedication and love to raise a child NEVER regrets it.

Kudos to you that you have decided to not bring children in this world, it's probably for the best for you personally.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Where? Unless i didn't get some form of sarcasms his post says that he can live without food, water and shelter

Wow, I thought it said "cant" in his post. It seemed like a really profound proclamation at the time. Ignore me, I'll crawl away now

 

[rootX]

It is always wonderful and mesmerizing to see how happy a mom gets whenever you ask how her baby is doing and she goes into lengths explaining every single detail including changing diapers. One I encountered had only one baby at that time and were financially stable.

 

[Reshma]

I don't understand why someone in the first world would want more than 1-2 children. Even now, some people prefer to have more than 3 children.

The world population is not uniformly distributed and Asian countries like India, China and the South-east Asian countries comprise roughly 50% of the world's population! In such countries, I think it would be highly stupid to have more than two children (I would say one is enough). Both my parents come from large families but my parents and their siblings chose to have smaller families (1-2 children). But that doesn't seem to be the case with everyone.

But the situation seems different for sparsely populated nations like Australia and Canada and they are forced to rely on immigrants for human resource. Japan is facing a negative population growth with a high aged population. In fact the Japanese government is encouraging couples to have more than 2 children.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Raising your own child and observing someone else are entirely two different experiences. Having been in both situations, raising my children has made me a better person. Many parents who do raise children also go through an amazing transformation of their perspectives that make them a better person.

So one of the advantages of having children is that it makes you a better person. A better person in what ways?

but a parent who has the dedication and love to raise a child NEVER regrets it.

I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way. The cons of having the child for them is that their entire lives are rearranged. The pros are they may or may not become "better" sometime in the distant future.

 

[rhody]

I think that creating/nurturing/raising children is a great gift and a huge responsibility. That being said, part of me wonders a bit, (one can never truly know what their motivation is) is the case with Jim and Michele Duggar whose family has now grown to 19 children: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting#cite_note-9" and whose kid's names are (see list below), with Michele having been pregnant almost continuously for the last 22 years ! I don't even know where to begin, except to say that she must "like if that is possible, being pregnant, and can handle stress and multi-tasking better than most of us'". Beyond that, I have nooo idea...

1 Joshua James March 3, 1988 (1988-03-03) (age 22)
2 Jana Marie January 12, 1990 (1990-01-12) (age 20) Birth via C-section[18]
3 John-David
4 Jill Michelle May 17, 1991 (1991-05-17) (age 18)
5 Jessa Lauren November 4, 1992 (1992-11-04) (age 17)
6 Jinger Nicole December 21, 1993 (1993-12-21) (age 16)
7 Joseph Garrett January 20, 1995 (1995-01-20) (age 15)
8 Josiah Matthew August 28, 1996 (1996-08-28) (age 13)
9 Joy-Anna October 28, 1997 (1997-10-28) (age 12)
10 Jedidiah Robert December 30, 1998 (1998-12-30) (age 11)
11 Jeremiah Robert
12 Jason Michael April 21, 2000 (2000-04-21) (age 10)
13 James Andrew July 7, 2001 (2001-07-07) (age 8)
14 Justin Samuel November 15, 2002 (2002-11-15) (age 7)
15 Jackson Levi May 23, 2004 (2004-05-23) (age 5) Birth via C-section, featured in a Discovery Health special
16 Johannah Faith October 11, 2005 (2005-10-11) (age 4) Birth featured in a Discovery Health special
17 Jennifer Danielle August 2, 2007 (2007-08-02) (age 2) Birth featured in a Discovery Health special
18 Jordyn-Grace Makiya December 18, 2008(2008-12-18) (1 year 4 months) Birth via C-section, featured in a regular season episode
19 Josie Brooklyn December 10, 2009(2009-12-10) (4 months 16 days) Birth via emergency C-section, featured in a TLC special

Rhody...

 

[Kerrie]

I think that creating/nurturing/raising children is a great gift and a huge responsibility. That being said, part of me wonders a bit, (one can never truly know what their motivation is) is the case with Jim and Michele Duggar whose family has now grown to 19 children: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting#cite_note-9" and whose kid's names are (see list below), with Michele having been pregnant almost continuously for the last 22 years ! I don't even know where to begin, except to say that she must "like if that is possible, being pregnant, and can handle stress and multi-tasking better than most of us'". Beyond that, I have nooo idea...


Rhody...

I think this situation is of course extremely rare, but it has always struck me as a publicity stunt more than anything.

 

[Kerrie]

So one of the advantages of having children is that it makes you a better person. A better person in what ways?

I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way. The cons of having the child for them is that their entire lives are rearranged. The pros are they may or may not become "better" sometime in the distant future.

Maturity, patience, tolerance, acceptance, compassion.

Those who regret having children are most likely not ready for the responsibility of children. I think you are speaking from a viewpoint of disliking the responsibilities and obligations-which clearly you do not want in this time in your life. Kudos to you for recognizing this, but millions of people in this world obviously think the rewards of raising children is higher than the responsibilities.

 

[rhody]

I think this situation is of course extremely rare, but it has always struck me as a publicity stunt more than anything.

Kerrie,

Are you saying that from the beginning when they had say 5 children that they (husband and or wife) needed attention, recognition, etc... the dynamics of all of this blow my mind, that they hatched a plan like this ? I consider myself practical, rational (at least most of the time, hehe).

According to their wiki page (take that for what it is worth) they are entirely self sufficient, not in major debt. I hope this is the case. I can't imagine a case of (Octo 8 * 2 + 3) parents ! If I had to make a pro/con checklist for having this many children, I can't think of so many things on the plus side that would ever in my wildest dreams convince myself that I could pull it off successfully. It is beyond comprehension...

Rhody...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The number of children per couple is a difficult number to work with because a significant percentage of the population forms more than one couple during their child bearing years. It is simpler to consider the number of children per female. It is obvious that an upper limit of 2 children per female for an extended length of time will cause a decline in the population because of the number of women who would have 0 or 1 child.

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie,

Are you saying that from the beginning when they had say 5 children that they (husband and or wife) needed attention, recognition, etc... the dynamics of all of this blow my mind, that they hatched a plan like this ? I consider myself practical, rational (at least most of the time, hehe).

According to their wiki page (take that for what it is worth) they are entirely self sufficient, not in major debt. I hope this is the case. I can't imagine a case of (Octo 8 * 2 + 3) parents ! If I had to make a pro/con checklist for having this many children, I can't think of so many things in the plus side that would ever in my wildest dreams convince myself that I could pull it off successfully. It is beyond comprehension...

Rhody...

I think it is quite obvious they want attention for their large family. Whether it is monetary, or to just show the world they have a loving, close, religious family, I don't know what the motivation for attention is of course.

At this point I can imagine that there are so many children that are old enough to help out that the *overwhelming* feeling for mom and dad has subsided. I have a 13 year old who is wonderful about helping with my 4 year old, which is why I came to this assumption.

 

[Kerrie]

The number of children per couple is a difficult number to work with because a significant percentage of the population forms more than one couple during their child bearing years. It is simpler to consider the number of children per female. It is obvious that an upper limit of 2 children per female for an extended length of time will cause a decline in the population because of the number of women who would have 0 or 1 child.

Very good point!

 

[Jack21222]

The number of children per couple is a difficult number to work with because a significant percentage of the population forms more than one couple during their child bearing years. It is simpler to consider the number of children per female. It is obvious that an upper limit of 2 children per female for an extended length of time will cause a decline in the population because of the number of women who would have 0 or 1 child.

And this is bad because...?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And this is bad because...?

I place no moral value on it, it's just a fact. However, there is a downside to population decline and the details are well known. For instance, without enough young working people to pay into social security, your parents will have to move in with you. That's enough to scare most people into supporting the social security, liberal immigration policies, end-of-life counseling, and large families.

 

[pallidin]

For instance, without enough young working people to pay into social security, your parents will have to move it with you.

Hmmm... never thought of it that way. Good point!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Hmmm... never thought of it that way. Good point!

That should be "in with you". I edited my post accordingly.

 

[pallidin]

Right, I read it that way(move in with you). I'm used to spelling/grammar/context mistakes from others and myself.

 

[rootX]

I place no moral value on it, it's just a fact. However, there is a downside to population decline and the details are well known. For instance, without enough young working people to pay into social security, your parents will have to move in with you. That's enough to scare most people into supporting the social security, liberal immigration policies, end-of-life counseling, and large families.

1) Would you prefer brilliant immigrants or dumb locals? Quality matters as much as quantity.
2) Can people raise kids better if they can spend more time on the kid? If yes, less is better than more.
3)

because of the number of women who would have 0 or 1 child.

Educated/rich families tend to have less kids .. Are you saying that poor families should prefer more children so that can balance with less children in educated/rich families.

 

[DaveC426913]

People always say how children are a miracle and a blessing and how wonderful and glorious and whatever else it is. But that's not saying anything.

Clearly, it's not saying anything you understand.

Because you cannot empathize, does that mean it is to be dismisssed?

Or put another way: is the lack of understanding considered their inability? Or yours?

If someone wants to list the advantages of having a child, they'd have to use more quantifiable terms.

Why?

Even saying it's their "best" decision, isn't saying anything. "Best" is vague and almost always needs to be elaborated on.

And elaborating is bad how?


You are making a classic mistake: you see something that you do not understand, so you dismiss it as invalid (i.e.: "isn't saying anything", "have to be more quantifiable", etc.). Bzzt.


Having children often translates directly into joy, without intervening steps. Often, it simply fulfills the very thing that gives meaning to the lives of people. How do you quantify that?

Trying to quantify it is kind of like determining your personal worth simply by examining your salary or counting your material goods or determining the beauty of a painting by looking at its price tag.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Clearly, it's not saying anything you understand.

Because you cannot empathize, does that mean it is to be dismisssed?

Or put another way: is the lack of understanding considered their inability? Or yours?

Calm down. Don't get your feathers ruffled until you understand what I'm saying.
My point is it's just like saying something is "better". Saying something is better doesn't explain anything. If I said my bike is better than yours, you'd need me to elaborate in what way it's better.

Why?

Because just like my bike analogy, "better" needs to be elaborated on. If I said my bike is better and you asked for me to elaborate how it's better, "is the lack of understanding considered my inability? Or yours?"
By your reasoning, if you don't automatically understand what I mean by "better", when I say "my bike is better", then that's your problem.

And elaborating is bad how?

When did I imply elaborating was bad? That's the exact opposite of what I said. My entire post was advocating more elaboration.

You are making a classic mistake: you see something that you do not understand, so you dismiss it as invalid (i.e.: "isn't saying anything", "have to be more quantifiable", etc.). Bzzt.

I'm simply asking for further elaboration. If you ask someone why they did something, and they say "because", that should be good enough? You can't ask for further elaboration on anything lest you be the one who just doesn't understand?

Having children often translates directly into joy, without intervening steps. Often, it simply fulfills the very thing that gives meaning to the lives of people. How do you quantify that?

Things happen for a reason. Saying it's ineffable doesn't cut it for any other topic, so why is this one any different?

Trying to quantify it is kind of like determining your personal worth simply by examining your salary or counting your material goods or determining the beauty of a painting by looking at its price tag.

Personal worth can be quantified. Are you saying we can't say whether Gandhi had more personal worth than Hitler, since we can't put a price on a human being?

 

[DaveC426913]

My point is it's just like saying something is "better". Saying something is better doesn't explain anything. If I said my bike is better than yours, you'd need me to elaborate in what way it's better.

Not really, no.

A more apt analogy would be my "I prefer my bike to yours". You can ask for clarification, but not getting does not allow you to invalidate the claim. And your understanding or even acceptance is not required.

I refer you back to this:

... children are a miracle and a blessing and ... wonderful and glorious...

This statement (pretending that it is a legit person saying it, and not you putting words in a fictional person's mouth) requires neither defending nor quantifying.

But that's not saying anything.

This is an expectation on your part, because you did not get an answer you like.

By your reasoning, if you don't automatically understand what I mean by "better", when I say "my bike is better", then that's your problem.

If you prefer your bike to mine, and I don't understand why you feel that way, that's my problem, yes.

I'm simply asking for further elaboration. If you ask someone why they did something, and they say "because", that should be good enough? You can't ask for further elaboration on anything lest you be the one who just doesn't understand?

You weren't asking; you were dismissing the claim as inadequate for your purposes.

Things happen for a reason. Saying it's ineffable doesn't cut it for any other topic, so why is this one any different?

Because such things as what gives our life meaning do not require defending.

Personal worth can be quantified. Are you saying we can't say whether Gandhi had more personal worth than Hitler, since we can't put a price on a human being?

Really? So quantify it.

So far, the only comparison you used is "more"; that is not quantification, that is qualification.

 

[leroyjenkens]

A more apt analogy would be my "I prefer my bike to yours". You can ask for clarification, but not getting does not allow you to invalidate the claim. And your understanding or even acceptance is not required.

Well then this is about people's freedom to say whatever they want without having to explain themselves. But then that automatically excludes them from any discussion about it, which is what this was.
We were discussing the pros and cons of having children. The "pros" being that they're a blessing and a miracle. In a debate, that requires elaboration.
I could just as easily say it's a blessing NOT to have kids.

This statement (pretending that it is a legit person saying it, and not you putting words in a fictional person's mouth) requires neither defending nor quantifying.

Well it's not referring to someone specifically, but are you honestly going to tell me that you've never heard a child referred to as a "blessing"?

This is an expectation on your part, because you did not get an answer you like.

It's not about an answer that I like, it's about an answer that says something. If you ask me how old I am and I answer with "Cheetah", I'm sure that's an answer you're not going to like. It's a nonsensical answer, yet by your reasoning, it should be acceptable. The problem doesn't lie with my nonsensical answer, it lies with your expectation of an answer that at least includes numbers.

If you prefer your bike to mine, and I don't understand why you feel that way, that's my problem, yes.

First of all, why do you keep changing "better" to "prefer"?

But regardless of that, if we're trying to resolve whose bike is better in a legitimate discussion, "I prefer mine" doesn't automatically win. There has to be a reason why I prefer mine, it's not ineffable. Just because it's my preference doesn't exclude it from needing elaboration, IF you're in a debate about it. That's the key. In every day life, I don't need to explain anything I say or do, but that won't fly in a debate.

You weren't asking; you were dismissing the claim as inadequate for your purposes.

I was asking. I was asking for further elaboration. If you want to call that dismissing the claim as inadequate, then I guess that's what I did. If I ask for elaboration, then it obviously follows that the claim must be inadequate for me to need elaboration.

Because such things as what gives our life meaning do not require defending.

Theists say the same thing about religion yet that topic is debated frequently.

Really? So quantify it.

So far, the only comparison you used is "more"; that is not quantification, that is qualification.

So you're saying Hitler and Gandhi are equal in worth until someone can prove otherwise? Or that it's impossible to prove it?

And "more" is a quantity.

 

[Huckleberry]

So one of the advantages of having children is that it makes you a better person. A better person in what ways?

I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way. The cons of having the child for them is that their entire lives are rearranged. The pros are they may or may not become "better" sometime in the distant future.

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do? If they tell you they don't regret it you wouldn't believe it anyway, so the only testimony that matters are your own and those of people who agree with you. You defend the surety of an infallible position by demanding quantifiable love.

This is one of the ways that having children can make people better. It forces parents to care about someone other than themselves. They rearrange their lives around the needs of their children and come to find that their children have personalities and opinions separate from themselves. The idea is frightening for some people, some parents included, that the opinions of others may make a difference in their lives; that they are responsible and accountable for the well-being of another person.

Sometimes things are better after they are rearranged. From your perspective it may not appear so, but your perspective, and mine, are inconsequential to how parents love their children.

This reminds me, Mother's Day is coming up soon.

 

[MarCn]

I think because not all people can give more time for them.

 

[Kerrie]

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do? If they tell you they don't regret it you wouldn't believe it anyway, so the only testimony that matters are your own and those of people who agree with you. You defend the surety of an infallible position by demanding quantifiable love.

This is one of the ways that having children can make people better. It forces parents to care about someone other than themselves. They rearrange their lives around the needs of their children and come to find that their children have personalities and opinions separate from themselves. The idea is frightening for some people, some parents included, that the opinions of others may make a difference in their lives; that they are responsible and accountable for the well-being of another person.

Sometimes things are better after they are rearranged. From your perspective it may not appear so, but your perspective, and mine, are inconsequential to how parents love their children.

This reminds me, Mother's Day is coming up soon.

Perfectly stated :)

 

[DaveC426913]

Well then this is about people's freedom to say whatever they want without having to explain themselves. But then that automatically excludes them from any discussion about it, which is what this was.

They are excluded because they are not here. We only have your paraphrasing of what "some people" are saying, and it's extremely vague and biased. You are setting up your own target, doomed to fail, then shooting it down.

We were discussing the pros and cons of having children. The "pros" being that they're a blessing and a miracle. In a debate, that requires elaboration.

Again, they are not here. You are acting as both sides of the debate.

This is analagous to trying to have a discussion with a Creationist wherein the Creationist gives you Evolutionist arguments in his own words, then shoots them down.

Well it's not referring to someone specifically, but are you honestly going to tell me that you've never heard a child referred to as a "blessing"?

See above. You present your own case for your opponent, then shoot it down.

It's not about an answer that I like, it's about an answer that says something. If you ask me how old I am and I answer with "Cheetah", I'm sure that's an answer you're not going to like. It's a nonsensical answer, yet by your reasoning, it should be acceptable.

No. I think you will find that most people intuitively understand "blessing" and "miracle" and such. I believe you are the exception.

First of all, why do you keep changing "better" to "prefer"?

Because "prefer" is subjective. Like parents thinking that having children is a blessing.
I don't need to defned my preference for a bike, just like I don't need ot defend my beleief that children are a blessing.
"Better" is less subjective; it contains a comparison.

IF you're in a debate about it.

Which these hypothetical people you refer to are not.
The argument you are presenting to us is not from any real entity; it is from some people you have interacted with and whose mouths you have put words in. That doesn't mean it's not true, it simply means you holding up a pupper stuffed with rags and telling us to treat that as a real debating opponent. it's not; it's just a few statements.

That's the key. In every day life, I don't need to explain anything I say or do, but that won't fly in a debate.

One does not debate with statements; one debates with opponents.

So you're saying Hitler and Gandhi are equal in worth until someone can prove otherwise? Or that it's impossible to prove it?

No, I am saying their worth is not quantifiable, though it is qualifiable.

And "more" is a quantity.

And what quantity is it? Give me a number please.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do? If they tell you they don't regret it you wouldn't believe it anyway, so the only testimony that matters are your own and those of people who agree with you. You defend the surety of an infallible position by demanding quantifiable love.

I've had plenty of people tell me they wish they waited to have children. That's a regret.

They are excluded because they are not here. We only have your paraphrasing of what "some people" are saying, and it's extremely vague and biased. You are setting up your own target, doomed to fail, then shooting it down.

I'm setting up a target that I've seen before and shooting it down. What's the problem? I never claimed anyone here had that position, so it's not a straw man.

Again, they are not here. You are acting as both sides of the debate.

That's not the point. You were defending the phantom when you came in here, and now you're just saying that my debate with the phantom doesn't matter.

This is analagous to trying to have a discussion with a Creationist wherein the Creationist gives you Evolutionist arguments in his own words, then shoots them down.

So you're saying that a creationist wouldn't describe evolution accurately? Then that means you're saying it's not accurate when I say people call children blessings. Is that what you're saying?

See above. You present your own case for your opponent, then shoot it down.

I didn't attribute that argument to anyone here, so I don't see why you have a problem with it. Unless you think that's what I did, which I didn't.

No. I think you will find that most people intuitively understand "blessing" and "miracle" and such. I believe you are the exception.

And they understand that it means what? Could you explain what they mean? And remember that repeating the word itself isn't an explanation as to the meaning of the word.

Because "prefer" is subjective. Like parents thinking that having children is a blessing.
I don't need to defned my preference for a bike, just like I don't need ot defend my beleief that children are a blessing.
"Better" is less subjective; it contains a comparison.

Given the context of a debate, you would need to explain why your preference is the way it is. Otherwise there's nothing to debate.

Which these hypothetical people you refer to are not.

They may be. I never said they weren't, and since I made them up, I can say that they're in a debate.

The argument you are presenting to us is not from any real entity; it is from some people you have interacted with and whose mouths you have put words in. That doesn't mean it's not true, it simply means you holding up a pupper stuffed with rags and telling us to treat that as a real debating opponent. it's not; it's just a few statements.

I'm using them as an example of what's acceptable in a debate and what's not. Their explanation isn't acceptable. I don't see a problem with doing that.

No, I am saying their worth is not quantifiable, though it is qualifiable.

Why isn't it quantifiable?

And what quantity is it? Give me a number please.

It's not an exact number, just like "few". But they can both be used to indicate a quantity.

 

[Huckleberry]

I've had plenty of people tell me they wish they waited to have children. That's a regret.

That is a far cry from...

I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way.

They regret being unprepared for children, not ever having them in the first place. This regret doesn't support your argument.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why isn't it quantifiable?

It's not quantifiable because you cannot assign numbers to it.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Quantify Ghandi's worth versus Hitler's. Give me numbers (even if you make them up) that meaningfully show specifically how much more Ghandi is worth to the world than Hitler.

Alternately, quantify the emotional or spiritual effect of children on parents.

 

[GeorginaS]

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do?

No, I've not heard many parents calmly claim that they regret having children. Have you seen the stats on child abuse and neglect by their own parents? Have you lived with a parent who could barely tolerate the sight of you while telling anyone who would listen how much they "loved" being a parent? There are far, far too many damaged grown-ups who were harmed by their parents and far too many children currently being harmed by their parents to say there exists any universal test or standard for parents having little to not regrets about having procreated.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Kids are fun. They're fun to make and fun to watch and fun to see become real people.

I have to say, my only regret about fatherhood is that I only had one.

 

[Huckleberry]

No, I've not heard many parents calmly claim that they regret having children. Have you seen the stats on child abuse and neglect by their own parents? Have you lived with a parent who could barely tolerate the sight of you while telling anyone who would listen how much they "loved" being a parent? There are far, far too many damaged grown-ups who were harmed by their parents and far too many children currently being harmed by their parents to say there exists any universal test or standard for parents having little to not regrets about having procreated.

I have lived with a parent like that. Have you?

I never implied that parents "love" being parents or that there is a universal standard for testing whether parents regret having children or not. I implied that the overwhelming majority of parents love their children, and that basing an opinion the testimony of parents is better than basing it on an infallible, unsubstantiated and ultimately inconsequential opinion.

Where does the idea that because some parents are unhappy that they regret having children come from? Raising children isn't easy, and some people are dreadfully unprepared for the task. Just because circumstances are difficult and some parents don't cope well doesn't mean they regret their children, and just because a parent abuses their child doesn't mean they don't also love them.

 

[Jack21222]

just because a parent abuses their child doesn't mean they don't also love them.

Can you explain this to me slowly? Because apparently I'm an idiot and can't comprehend this. I'm not claiming you're wrong, I'm just saying that statement makes no sense at all to me the way it's currently phrased.

 

[leroyjenkens]

They regret being unprepared for children, not ever having them in the first place. This regret doesn't support your argument.

That implies they had the children on accident. If they wish they waited to have children, that implies the child wasn't an accident and they regret having the child.
Now, the way I say it sounds bad, but that's basically all it is. It's taboo to say you regret having your child, so people get around saying that by saying something else, which basically says the same thing.

It's not quantifiable because you cannot assign numbers to it.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Quantify Ghandi's worth versus Hitler's. Give me numbers (even if you make them up) that meaningfully show specifically how much more Ghandi is worth to the world than Hitler.

This would be new territory. Like if I was the first one to put numbers to volumes of liquids. If I just gave it a number; 42, it means nothing.
How do they assign numbers to something like your credibility? If it's never been done before, someone could say you can't assign a number to someone's credibility. But they did. It's called your credit score. And just like credit score, I could invent a new way of quantifying someone's worth.

Alternately, quantify the emotional or spiritual effect of children on parents.

I could quantify the chemical effects, which is what it is. I don't believe there's anything spiritual about it.

 

[Huckleberry]

Can you explain this to me slowly? Because apparently I'm an idiot and can't comprehend this. I'm not claiming you're wrong, I'm just saying that statement makes no sense at all to me the way it's currently phrased.

I remember my father screaming and shaking my infant brother until my brother stopped crying. Then he would throw my brother in the crib. My brother couldn't even speak yet, but he learned exactly when to stop crying before he would be thrashed. I assume my father thought the problem was solved with no further damage done.

I remember, many years later after I had left home, my brother told me how our father punched our mother in the face. She is schitzophrenic and supposedly he had to stop her from hurting herself or burning down the house.

I remember visiting home and going down to the basement to smoke and I heard a noise from a sealed 5 gallon bucket. There was a live squirrel in there suffocating. My father said he thought it was already dead, and he kills the squirrels because they dump the birdseed on the ground.

I also remember going out riding bikes with my sister and father. I went racing down a hill and around a corner and crashed into my sister. We both fell to the pavement hard. Our father was running between us frantically trying to see if we were alright. He wasn't pretending concern.

I remember we would go camping and I'd jump off his shoulders when we were swimming. We'd go fishing for bass, and the two of us would go canoeing on the lake for hours. He was enjoying himself as much as I was.

I remember when I left home because I couldn't stand the arguments and the anger, and watching my 10 year old brother and my father both crying on the steps as I drove away. They were real tears. He still calls me regularly and always tells me I should call my mother more often, but it is always him who I end up talking to. He has regrets he can't admit to himself, but I highly doubt that I or my siblings are one of them.

It's easy to view an abuser as a despicable, vile pig, incapable of love. I think that's rarely the truth, that a person is entirely one thing or another. My father is not a kind man by any estimation, but he's not completely devoid of kindness either. He is sometimes compelled beyond reason to create the illusion of self-control and self-esteem by controlling his environment and the people in it. To this day he still seems unaware of what he has done, but I don't doubt that he loves his children as best as he is able. For the moments when he was a genuine father I love him too.

I hope that at least makes my opinion of the matter understandable.

 

[Huckleberry]

That implies they had the children on accident. If they wish they waited to have children, that implies the child wasn't an accident and they regret having the child.
Now, the way I say it sounds bad, but that's basically all it is. It's taboo to say you regret having your child, so people get around saying that by saying something else, which basically says the same thing.

I'm assuming you mean that the child was an accident, and saying it wasn't is an error.

Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to say that all parents who have unplanned pregnancies regret having their children. I know that I won't convince you otherwise, so I'm just going to go scribble the word serendipity out of my dictionary.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to say that all parents who have unplanned pregnancies regret having their children.

I didn't say all do. But I was responding to someone who said none do. Some definitely do.

 

[Jack21222]

I hope that at least makes my opinion of the matter understandable.

None of your examples, except possibly the first one, are instances of child abuse. The original statement was about "abuse and neglect" of children. From the examples you provided, you were neither abused nor neglected as a child.

My belief is that a bona fide child abuser does not love his or her child. My parents, and I'm sure almost everybody's parents, have made stupid parenting mistakes from time to time. That's not what we're talking about here.

 

[DaveC426913]

This would be new territory. ...I could invent a new way of quantifying someone's worth.

Thank you. Twice you have agreed that there currently is no quantifiable way to measure these things.

I don't believe there's anything spiritual about it.

That is not your call. It is entirely a matter of the parents feeling that they are spiritually-enhanced by their children.

 

[DaveC426913]

My belief is that a bona fide child abuser does not love his or her child. My parents, and I'm sure almost everybody's parents, have made stupid parenting mistakes from time to time. That's not what we're talking about here.

No. Your viewpoint is far too black and white.

Just because a parent regrets what they did to their child, does not mean it was not abusive.

Examples:
- a parent might use excessive corporal punishment, such as using a strap or belt, for a particularly bad transgression. The parent may feel this is necessary, may even dislike it, but that does not mean they are not being abusive. Nor does it mean they don't love them (flawed as it may be).
- a parent may lash out at a child with a slap in anger or weakness (say, they were lacking sleep or had been drinking). It is abuse, but it does not mean they don't love their child (again, no argiung that these people need help to deal with their issues).

Nor are these simply "mistakes". This behaviour may be institutionalized, meaning, within the family, it is considered "normal".


Whether you disagree the above (or think it should be stopped or think the authorities should step in) is irrelevent; it is de facto. It is what it is. Some parents do love and abuse their children.

 

[Kerrie]

Kids are fun. They're fun to make and fun to watch and fun to see become real people.

I have to say, my only regret about fatherhood is that I only had one.

I have heard this regret from my own mother too-she had just me in her youthful energetic life. At age 40, she had my half brother who has Downs Syndrome as well as Autism. While this is an incredible responsibility, she does not regret the decision to raise him because it is humanistic to raise, care, and love another.

It is also humanistic to be afraid of or repulsed by the responsibilities to raise a child. To those who do fear this, I don't think any less of them because they are aware of what sacrifice it takes to raise a child who has the morals and decision making skills to be a productive member of society. At the same time, I don't need others questioning my decision to raise a child with my dedication and commitment to their well being in society-for one day they will be caretakers of those who question their existence.

 

[Huckleberry]

None of your examples, except possibly the first one, are instances of child abuse. The original statement was about "abuse and neglect" of children. From the examples you provided, you were neither abused nor neglected as a child.

My belief is that a bona fide child abuser does not love his or her child. My parents, and I'm sure almost everybody's parents, have made stupid parenting mistakes from time to time. That's not what we're talking about here.

Neglected, no, but it sure felt like abuse much of the time. A pattern of violent behaviour isn't a parenting mistake, and having to occassionally suffer it for no reason at all and constantly live under the threat of it is a kind of abuse. Whether that is bona-fide or not I'll leave to you. Though I'm sure some abusers do suffer from a form of antisocial personality disorder that renders them incapable of empathy, my point was to show that not all abusers (children,women,animals) have that extreme limitation. If only the most psychopathic forms of abuse are considered bona-fide, then maybe you are right, but rarely is the world so black and white.

I didn't say all do. But I was responding to someone who said none do. Some definitely do.

I suppose that is true, but I don't think it follows that because a parent says one thing they necessarily mean something different. It doesn't help your argument.

edit - I like this scene from Good Will Hunting about regret.
Warning: the clip is rife with bad language!