If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Omaha World Herald)   Today, the Omaha World Herald decides to play "Let's make everyone feel guilty about not having children"   (omaha.com) divider line 197
    More: Fail, World-Herald, Let's, Omaha, University of Nebraska Medical Center  
•       •       •

9943 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2013 at 6:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



197 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-25 09:45:11 PM  
When I was a youth counselor taking care of five- and six-year-olds, I truly loved my kids, and I loved teaching and playing with them. I would have taken a bullet for any one of them, no questions asked. But I got to give them back at the end of the day. As for kids of my own, no freakin' way.
 
2013-08-25 09:46:01 PM  
By far, the worst parents I know are the ones who had children because it was the right thing to do. Or worse, the ones who had children "so they can take care of me" when old age arrives--those are the real monsters.

Do what you think you should do with love in your heart and all will be well.
 
2013-08-25 09:49:01 PM  
The only way I'm going to have kids is if I collect them like Angelina Jolie.
 
2013-08-25 09:49:24 PM  

August11: By far, the worst parents I know are the ones who had children because it was the right thing to do. Or worse, the ones who had children "so they can take care of me" when old age arrives--those are the real monsters.

Do what you think you should do with love in your heart and all will be well.


If you are more worried about what impact having children will have on your life than how much of an impact you can have on a child's life, then you aren't approaching it right. And if you can't make that adjustment, there 's nothing wrong with not having kids.
 
2013-08-25 09:50:04 PM  
What if everybody thought like that??   All people care about is money, happiness and other STUFF!!!!

Oh, no ... the death of the white race!!  Cries and screams of loneliness!!  Anyone who's left will being speaking either Spanish or Arabic because of the selfish people!!

/happy to be unchilded
//childless is just tragic and patronizing
 
2013-08-25 09:50:52 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Really at the end of the day, it all comes down to energy production. If we ever manage to crack the technology behind affordable controlled nuclear fusion, we could probably triple the population of the world with no ill effects because we'd have cleanish power and more than enough energy for increased food production and massive desalination projects. At the end of the day, it really comes down to energy, and another quantum leap in energy production capability similar to the beginning of the petroleum age could change the game completely in terms of the carrying capacity of the Earth.


I tend to think that way too, but I think we'll need some major social changes to go along with that. The corruption, incompetence, and waste at the municipal level are appalling. We need to realize that not everyone needs to work, especially when that "work" can be done by four cells in a spreadsheet.

We'll need to have massive changes especially if we don't find this magical energy source.
 
2013-08-25 09:51:39 PM  

Witness99: profplump: Witness99: if not have our own children

If we stopped treating children like property and instead recognized them as full-fledged citizens in their own right, with their own claim to societal resources, this wouldn't be a problem. Assisting in child rearing is something that everyone would do by paying taxes in working in child-support jobs and volunteer positions. But as it stands we hold at most 2 people responsible for essentially 100% of each child's rearing tasks and expenses and we teach parents to refuse help from others on the basis of insufficient genetic relationship.

Exactly. For example, my gay male friends that complain about paying the "school tax" cause they will never have kids. Very short sighted.


I'd tell you to tell them to eat a dick, but it's too late.

I didn't know anybody unironically said that shiat.  People really think it's okay for everybody else's kids to be dumb and inherit the world someday for the sake of, what?  A little money they're going to blow on more plastic Chinese crap from the mall?  Tell your gay friends to enjoy all the extra money they're not spending on kids otherwise and remind them they live in a society.
 
2013-08-25 09:53:37 PM  

Nabb1: August11: By far, the worst parents I know are the ones who had children because it was the right thing to do. Or worse, the ones who had children "so they can take care of me" when old age arrives--those are the real monsters.

Do what you think you should do with love in your heart and all will be well.

If you are more worried about what impact having children will have on your life than how much of an impact you can have on a child's life, then you aren't approaching it right. And if you can't make that adjustment, there 's nothing wrong with not having kids.


I'm not sure but I think you are agreeing with my statement.

Yes?
 
2013-08-25 09:54:43 PM  

August11: Nabb1: August11: By far, the worst parents I know are the ones who had children because it was the right thing to do. Or worse, the ones who had children "so they can take care of me" when old age arrives--those are the real monsters.

Do what you think you should do with love in your heart and all will be well.

If you are more worried about what impact having children will have on your life than how much of an impact you can have on a child's life, then you aren't approaching it right. And if you can't make that adjustment, there 's nothing wrong with not having kids.

I'm not sure but I think you are agreeing with my statement.

Yes?


Yes. I should have made that clear. Been a long day.
 
2013-08-25 09:57:12 PM  

Nabb1: August11: Nabb1: August11: By far, the worst parents I know are the ones who had children because it was the right thing to do. Or worse, the ones who had children "so they can take care of me" when old age arrives--those are the real monsters.

Do what you think you should do with love in your heart and all will be well.

If you are more worried about what impact having children will have on your life than how much of an impact you can have on a child's life, then you aren't approaching it right. And if you can't make that adjustment, there 's nothing wrong with not having kids.

I'm not sure but I think you are agreeing with my statement.

Yes?

Yes. I should have made that clear. Been a long day.


Ah. Roger that. Me too and a longer day tomorrow.
 
2013-08-25 10:00:54 PM  
www.replikultes.net
 
2013-08-25 10:01:41 PM  
The purpose of adults is not to produce children, the purpose of children is to produce adults.
 
2013-08-25 10:01:52 PM  

Godscrack: More anti gay propaganda from Christian 'pro family' groups.

They want to you procreate and have many children, then they turn around and push for stricter immigration laws that rip families apart.


They know that their republican-leaning demographic is literally dying out. They need fresh drones to carry on the evil.
 
2013-08-25 10:04:07 PM  
 
2013-08-25 10:04:41 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: How 'bout we try getting global population to a sustainable level? There are about 4 billion surplus people on this planet. I'm not saying I'm not one of them.


Sounds like I'm not the only one who has read Dan Brown's latest book. Yep, about 4 billion.
 
2013-08-25 10:05:56 PM  
I'd impregnate that.
spacebison.com
 
2013-08-25 10:08:07 PM  
No one can know what the future holds.  So all the people who have kids with the idea that they are leaving a living breathing legacy blah blah blah, um, your kids may die relatively soon after you do.   They may kill themselves, OD on drugs, get hit by a bus, die as a victim of crime, etc.

You and I live and do what we do, and that's it.   If I die childless then I have left as much in this world as the person who had 8 kids, because the lives of those 8 kids are not guaranteed and there's no telling if any of the ones who do live will contribute positively or negatively.   When you die you don't know if you left anything in the future for humanity.  This is why if contributing to humanity means that much to you, you need to do it yourself while you're alive in the here and now.

As far as providing future workers and such, it's not necessary.   Humans overall have hit critical mass and barring some catastrophe, no individuals need to worry about reproducing so as do their part to send in more reinforcements.   Those reinforcements are coming in whether anyone wants them to or not.
 
2013-08-25 10:10:37 PM  
I knew when I was about 15 that I didn't want to be the dad.  Fifty now.  I like to do what I want to do when I want to do it.  Never felt a moment of guilt.

/ 7 sisters and one brother


// More nieces and nephews than I can keep track of


/// Unless it's a mass suicide, everyone dies alone
 
2013-08-25 10:14:41 PM  

rpm: Massagonist: Don't want kids?  Don't have 'em.
Want kids?  Have 'em.
Either way, you're just as special as the gazillion other people who have or don't have kids.

I think this needs to be qualified some.

If you want kids, have them. Don't have them just because it's what's done; don't confuse that with wanting.


I think it needs to be amended again. If you want kids, have them, but follow zero growth rules: one per person.

I don't have any, never wanted any, and have never for one second felt the least bit guilty about it.
 
2013-08-25 10:22:02 PM  

Koodz: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Ideal number is 2 or 3 kids for a couple in a developed country. Replace yourself and your spouse and maybe have one more for good measure/replace the kids who die before procreating (drown, sick, poisoned, etc).
Breeding like rabbits, while fun, is what's done in the third world because 2/3 of those kids will die before procreating.

Why replace the kids who die?  What's wrong with slowly stepping down the population in a controlled manner until people have breathing room and resources again?


Because some of the kids who die didn't die of their own stupidity. If you could magically enforce only one boy and one girl per couple, you'd have a population decline due to accidental death (carbon monoxide poisoning as an example), choosing the celibate monastic life, the retarded, the natural death ones (baby was born with severely shriveled lungs and died in two days), and those who turn out homosexual (assuming they didn't spread seed before discovering their preference). That extra kid offsets the accidents of history and keeps population stable for future commitments (like pensions and insurance pools) rather than allowing more variable swings in growth/death like we have now with the Boomers.

While some people do think that we as a species are maxed out, I would disagree because famine and healthcare problems exist in the world because of political and geographic distribution issues (like aid workers being target practice in tribal Africa) not production limitations from the developed nations. I think that somewhere between 15 and 20 billion would be a more natural limit if renewable energy and cloning were to be really boosted (if cows don't have souls, who cares if you're eating the same one ten thousand times). The biggest problem is water, but desalination can work if sunlight and wind and thorium reactors can be more universal.

And as a second bonus, having larger populations means a greater push into reducing the cost per pound for orbit, which leads to the desire to become a multi-planet species.
 
2013-08-25 10:22:27 PM  
I've had two kids, both nearly grown now. I was still in my teens when I had the oldest and she ended up being raised by my parents. I was in my early twenties when I had the second one and she was with me til she was 11. Her father and I had split up, and she'd always been a daddy's girl and wanted to live with him. I want her to be happy so I agreed. She got what she wanted and I got my freedom back. I had my tubes tied in 2006, so no accidental babies for me. I love it. I'm happy to wait longer for grandkids too. I want my girls to be more ready for motherhood than I was. My oldest wants kids, the youngest is undecided (she's16.5 yrs old)
 
2013-08-25 10:24:12 PM  

Koodz: Witness99: profplump: Witness99: if not have our own children

If we stopped treating children like property and instead recognized them as full-fledged citizens in their own right, with their own claim to societal resources, this wouldn't be a problem. Assisting in child rearing is something that everyone would do by paying taxes in working in child-support jobs and volunteer positions. But as it stands we hold at most 2 people responsible for essentially 100% of each child's rearing tasks and expenses and we teach parents to refuse help from others on the basis of insufficient genetic relationship.

Exactly. For example, my gay male friends that complain about paying the "school tax" cause they will never have kids. Very short sighted.

I'd tell you to tell them to eat a dick, but it's too late.

I didn't know anybody unironically said that shiat.  People really think it's okay for everybody else's kids to be dumb and inherit the world someday for the sake of, what?  A little money they're going to blow on more plastic Chinese crap from the mall?  Tell your gay friends to enjoy all the extra money they're not spending on kids otherwise and remind them they live in a society.


I have told them that. One understands, the other doesn't think he should be held accountable whatsoever.

I get the whole idea about its everyone's, society's responsibility to put time, effort, resources to the next generation. I ended up with two long term relationships in my thirties that didn't end in marriage/children, so, I hope to adopt.

I'm not lesbian (yet), but gays and lesbians can adopt too. Some think we have enough people and want to avoid over population (I disagree, we have the tech to overcome that). But if nothing else, we all can sponsor a child in some way, whether by Big Brothers Big Sisters Mentoring or adopting a kid out of the huge pool of kids without families. Kids that are already here, but have no love or guidance.
 
2013-08-25 10:36:07 PM  
Little kids are constant work and worry, but they're also constant entertainment.

Like when my 2 year old dropped his fork on the floor, then started screaming "fork, fork, fork!"

He couldn't pronounce his "r's"

He ate with a spoon til he was 4.
 
2013-08-25 10:37:43 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Koodz: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Ideal number is 2 or 3 kids for a couple in a developed country. Replace yourself and your spouse and maybe have one more for good measure/replace the kids who die before procreating (drown, sick, poisoned, etc).
Breeding like rabbits, while fun, is what's done in the third world because 2/3 of those kids will die before procreating.

Why replace the kids who die?  What's wrong with slowly stepping down the population in a controlled manner until people have breathing room and resources again?

Because some of the kids who die didn't die of their own stupidity. If you could magically enforce only one boy and one girl per couple, you'd have a population decline due to accidental death (carbon monoxide poisoning as an example), choosing the celibate monastic life, the retarded, the natural death ones (baby was born with severely shriveled lungs and died in two days), and those who turn out homosexual (assuming they didn't spread seed before discovering their preference). That extra kid offsets the accidents of history and keeps population stable for future commitments (like pensions and insurance pools) rather than allowing more variable swings in growth/death like we have now with the Boomers.

While some people do think that we as a species are maxed out, I would disagree because famine and healthcare problems exist in the world because of political and geographic distribution issues (like aid workers being target practice in tribal Africa) not production limitations from the developed nations. I think that somewhere between 15 and 20 billion would be a more natural limit if renewable energy and cloning were to be really boosted (if cows don't have souls, who cares if you're eating the same one ten thousand times). The biggest problem is water, but desalination can work if sunlight and wind and thorium reactors can be more universal.

And as a second bonus, having larger populations means a greater push into reducing the cost per pound for orbit, which leads to the desire to become a multi-planet species.


I like how you think.
 
2013-08-25 10:42:18 PM  

Pharmdawg: Little kids are constant work and worry, but they're also constant entertainment.

Like when my 2 year old dropped his fork on the floor, then started screaming "fork, fork, fork!"

He couldn't pronounce his "r's"

He ate with a spoon til he was 4.


Like this afternoon when my 16 month old granddaughter was seeing how far she could jam her finger up her nose. Then she went into the living room and decided to play dentist with her mother. I didn't tell my daughter where her daughter's finger had been until midway through the dental exam.

/now that's entertainment!
 
2013-08-25 10:42:26 PM  
I have one baby. It is a joyous pain in the ass. There is something amazing about creating a little poop machine replica of yourself. Having freedom is cool, but so is having a family.
 
2013-08-25 10:43:39 PM  

Witness99: Mugato: Witness99: I do feel somewhat guilty for not having kids

Why? We have more than enough people here already.

I believe that with creative R&D and technological advances, we can support far more people than we have on the planet today. But that also requires political cooperation and a worldwide civilization that does not go full Neanderthal.

I can't boil this down enough for a readable Fark post. But I think that responsible, productive people should reproduce and pass on those values. This tiny rock spinning through space needs young problem solvers, and we have a duty to, if not have our own children, at least spend some time mentoring and supporting children.


No, we don't.
If you believe that you have a duty to do so, then by all means go right ahread
 
2013-08-25 10:44:36 PM  
Can we just say it's not a good idea to shame anyone for their life choices (unless they choose to be a Scientologist)?
 
2013-08-25 10:46:26 PM  
As a mom of four well adjusted, much loved, intelligent children, I'm honored to have been able to take your place in contributing to the future population zero growth policies.

Thanks again for your patronage.
 
2013-08-25 10:49:00 PM  

Witness99: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Koodz: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Ideal number is 2 or 3 kids for a couple in a developed country. Replace yourself and your spouse and maybe have one more for good measure/replace the kids who die before procreating (drown, sick, poisoned, etc).
Breeding like rabbits, while fun, is what's done in the third world because 2/3 of those kids will die before procreating.

Why replace the kids who die?  What's wrong with slowly stepping down the population in a controlled manner until people have breathing room and resources again?

Because some of the kids who die didn't die of their own stupidity. If you could magically enforce only one boy and one girl per couple, you'd have a population decline due to accidental death (carbon monoxide poisoning as an example), choosing the celibate monastic life, the retarded, the natural death ones (baby was born with severely shriveled lungs and died in two days), and those who turn out homosexual (assuming they didn't spread seed before discovering their preference). That extra kid offsets the accidents of history and keeps population stable for future commitments (like pensions and insurance pools) rather than allowing more variable swings in growth/death like we have now with the Boomers.

While some people do think that we as a species are maxed out, I would disagree because famine and healthcare problems exist in the world because of political and geographic distribution issues (like aid workers being target practice in tribal Africa) not production limitations from the developed nations. I think that somewhere between 15 and 20 billion would be a more natural limit if renewable energy and cloning were to be really boosted (if cows don't have souls, who cares if you're eating the same one ten thousand times). The biggest problem is water, but desalination can work if sunlight and wind and thorium reactors can be more universal.

And as a second bonus, having larger populations means a greater push into reducin ...


Thank you. The idea of reducing the growth rate of humanity is a reasonable one and I can see the appeal of trimming back from 7 billion right now, provided that we're limited to a single chunk o' rock. But for innovation and development of business, it's a huge bonus for production and efficiency if you know approximately how many people will be around in 50 years. A stable population means that farmers don't worry about not having a market to sell their goods and doctors not having to worry about famine (surplus and malnourishment are two separate issues, I admit). And taxation/spending levels in government can be more linear rather than the spastic levels of funding we have. Assuming no major spontaneous losses of life (like a nuclear war), a stable population can ride out the tragedies of history (Hurricane Katrina as an example) much easier as well.

I'm an admitted futurist who thinks that reducing the cost per pound of launch should be one of the highest scientific priorities for us (along with energy research). The results aren't sexy like bionic arms and ocular implants, but being able to justify sending a ship to Europa or Proxima Centauri in 300-400 years is absolutely worth the investment.
 
2013-08-25 10:50:40 PM  

give me doughnuts: Witness99: Mugato: Witness99: I do feel somewhat guilty for not having kids

Why? We have more than enough people here already.

I believe that with creative R&D and technological advances, we can support far more people than we have on the planet today. But that also requires political cooperation and a worldwide civilization that does not go full Neanderthal.

I can't boil this down enough for a readable Fark post. But I think that responsible, productive people should reproduce and pass on those values. This tiny rock spinning through space needs young problem solvers, and we have a duty to, if not have our own children, at least spend some time mentoring and supporting children.

No, we don't.
If you believe that you have a duty to do so, then by all means go right ahread


I think we do, and I'm currently working on global projects to do just that.

Our problem on this planet is the age old issue of ego, Stone Age ideas about religion, and inability to cooperate on a world scale. That being the case, you're right. No, we don't.
 
2013-08-25 10:54:01 PM  
What's that? I didn't hear you over the sound of me having a day off tomorrow, and having no responsibility to watch a kid.
 
2013-08-25 10:54:12 PM  
So... what about us parents who only have one child?  I only have 8 years left until she's off to college.  Doing my part to reduce the population in a manageable fashion.
 
2013-08-25 11:03:58 PM  
I've had a few drinks so I'm gonna get a little politically incorrect here. I would like to see productive members of society reproducing at the same level as those who are not productive, who live on welfare and refuse to raise their children properly (i.e. without fathers or supervision). I would like it to be possible for women who get a degree and establish careers also marry and reproduce, as much as those who don't.
 
2013-08-25 11:05:49 PM  
Stepchildren.

You skip all the baby stuff this way.
 
2013-08-25 11:10:13 PM  
img607.imageshack.us
 
2013-08-25 11:10:38 PM  
If you want kids because you love kids, your focus is on the kid and you will probably be a decent parent.
If you are having kids so that someone will take care of you in your old age, I got news for you - They won't.
They'll have lives (and possibly kids) of their own and be too busy for you. Ask around - how many people do you know who spend significant time nursing an elder relative? How much time did they spend at an old folk home visiting an elder relative? How many were in a gathering surrounding a relative's death bed? Now compare that number with the number of elderly in rest homes, hospices, and nursing homes.

My grandparents moved to Arizona a couple decades before they died. We visited a couple times, but no, we did not support my grandparents in their old age. They did that with the money they had saved up over their lifetimes. You need to plan to support yourself in your old age and not plan to be a leach on your kids. If the only reason you have kids is to leach off them later in life, you will not be a parent worthy of their time or money when you get old.
 
2013-08-25 11:15:45 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Koodz: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Ideal number is 2 or 3 kids for a couple in a developed country. Replace yourself and your spouse and maybe have one more for good measure/replace the kids who die before procreating (drown, sick, poisoned, etc).
Breeding like rabbits, while fun, is what's done in the third world because 2/3 of those kids will die before procreating.

Why replace the kids who die?  What's wrong with slowly stepping down the population in a controlled manner until people have breathing room and resources again?

Because some of the kids who die didn't die of their own stupidity. If you could magically enforce only one boy and one girl per couple, you'd have a population decline due to accidental death (carbon monoxide poisoning as an example), choosing the celibate monastic life, the retarded, the natural death ones (baby was born with severely shriveled lungs and died in two days), and those who turn out homosexual (assuming they didn't spread seed before discovering their preference). That extra kid offsets the accidents of history and keeps population stable for future commitments (like pensions and insurance pools) rather than allowing more variable swings in growth/death like we have now with the Boomers.

While some people do think that we as a species are maxed out, I would disagree because famine and healthcare problems exist in the world because of political and geographic distribution issues (like aid workers being target practice in tribal Africa) not production limitations from the developed nations. I think that somewhere between 15 and 20 billion would be a more natural limit if renewable energy and cloning were to be really boosted (if cows don't have souls, who cares if you're eating the same one ten thousand times). The biggest problem is water, but desalination can work if sunlight and wind and thorium reactors can be more universal.

And as a second bonus, having larger populations means a greater push into reducing the cost per pound for orbit, which leads to the desire to become a multi-planet species.


I've lived in Japan and spent time in Hong Kong. I don't want your 20 billion pop world. I'll be happy to die before we get there.
 
2013-08-25 11:16:33 PM  
I've had a few drinks so I'm gonna get a little politically incorrect here. I would like to see productive members of society reproducing at the same level as those who are not productive,

Unfortunately, the act of having kids, and raising them properly, makes a productive person less productive. You can't stay at the same level of productivity while giving a child the time and energy they need. So you either need to educate the children of unproductive parents (ie spend money on schooling) while letting the productive people produce, or accept a reduction of GDP.
 
2013-08-25 11:17:45 PM  
WTF?  You can't guilt someone into something when they only have a heart big enough to love themselves exclusively.  Take that weak sauce to a breeder forum.
 
2013-08-25 11:22:01 PM  

Koodz: I've lived in Japan and spent time in Hong Kong. I don't want your 20 billion pop world. I'll be happy to die before we get there.


I like how the number (and not the parts about expanded energy, evolving distribution methods, post-planetary exploration, or cloning) is the thing you focused on.

BIG NUMBERS ARE SCARY!
 
2013-08-25 11:28:15 PM  
I don't have kids. I am in fact sterile, now. And I put up with endless amounts of crap about it at work. Coworkers trying to set me up, people getting shocked when I say I'm never having kids. "You don't know that!" "You'll change your mind!" One guy gave me so much crap this spring I had to take it to supervision because he would not shut it down.

Look, I'm pretty sure it's best for people who don't like kids to not have them, and I'd really appreciate it if society would ease back on the pressure. There are lots and LOTS of crappy parents out there who should have never, EVER had children but felt like they had to. Almost half the pregnancies in the US aren't planned and that is not a good thing. Kids should only be born into homes that want them.

/aromantic cis straight chick
//every day a news story pops up that makes me glad I'm fixed
 
2013-08-25 11:46:48 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Koodz: I've lived in Japan and spent time in Hong Kong. I don't want your 20 billion pop world. I'll be happy to die before we get there.

I like how the number (and not the parts about expanded energy, evolving distribution methods, post-planetary exploration, or cloning) is the thing you focused on.

BIG NUMBERS ARE SCARY!


I'm going to jump on QA's space nutter bandwagon for tonight. It's cute that you think all that sci fi technology will solve the pink goo problem
 
2013-08-25 11:52:17 PM  
I have a simply brilliant idea.

We should spay and neuter the Quiverfull folks.

From orbit.
 
2013-08-26 12:08:12 AM  
I just had a baby within the past month. My husband is one of those people who always wanted to be a father. I'm one of those people who's been ambivalent toward becoming a mother. Caring for a newborn is the most stressful thing I've ever done in my life. It's more stressful than my comprehensive exams; it's more stressful than when the economy tanked and both of us were working full-time jobs and still not making quite enough money. I'm still reeling from hormones and sleep deprivation, and I'm breastfeeding, so I'm literally being drained of my energy--and here's a helpless human being who demands all my attention. It's tough. I tell myself I made the right decision, but that's mostly because there's really no going back now.

So, I respect people who decide to have kids. I respect people who decide not to have kids. It's not for everyone. I'm not entirely convinced it's for me...but my little guy is really adorable, and he's going to smile someday.
 
2013-08-26 12:09:28 AM  

Anthracite: When i'm old ill be surrounded by grandkids and family.

Love is reason enough.


Just curious, how much time do/did you spend with your grandparents?
 
2013-08-26 12:25:39 AM  

Forty-Two: I just had a baby within the past month. My husband is one of those people who always wanted to be a father. I'm one of those people who's been ambivalent toward becoming a mother. Caring for a newborn is the most stressful thing I've ever done in my life. It's more stressful than my comprehensive exams; it's more stressful than when the economy tanked and both of us were working full-time jobs and still not making quite enough money. I'm still reeling from hormones and sleep deprivation, and I'm breastfeeding, so I'm literally being drained of my energy--and here's a helpless human being who demands all my attention. It's tough. I tell myself I made the right decision, but that's mostly because there's really no going back now.

So, I respect people who decide to have kids. I respect people who decide not to have kids. It's not for everyone. I'm not entirely convinced it's for me...but my little guy is really adorable, and he's going to smile someday.



It gets better, and easier. The first few months are the hardest. Once you are able to start pumping and storing your milk, the best piece of advice I can give you is this...alternate nights where one of you gets up so that the other one can sleep. Alternating shifts only leaves you both tired and grumpy. My wife and I figured this out early and it saved us lots of grief.

Also...the baby blues are a real thing. If these feelings persist, talk to someone about it. Doesn't make you a bad mom. Lots of women go through it.
 
2013-08-26 12:28:23 AM  

Ringshadow: /aromantic cis straight chick


img.4plebs.org
 
2013-08-26 12:29:49 AM  

KrispyKritter: there is no shortage of unemployed/underemployed white trash morans cranking out ankle biters. the sooner we start spaying and neutering the masses the better.


F*ck that. Neutron bombs. Destroy the people and leave the infrastructure intact.
 
2013-08-26 12:32:35 AM  

profplump: lostcat: She looks miserable most of the time I see her. She says that there is nobody left in the world who cares if she lives or dies.

So someone who built their entire social structure around genetics is sad when her gene pool runs dry. You don't say.

If only there was some way to build relationships without a dependence on DNA. But we all know that's not possible.


Indeed. I certainly didn't spend a large amount of the Gen Con time hanging out with my online gaming guild people... who I think of as my second family, and who in fact 'get me' more than some of my blood relatives...

Nope. Nothing to see here. Only genetic relations matter!
 
Displayed 50 of 197 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report