Since the other post is obviously going to be a discussion about my personal choices I've decided to reassert the questions that were meant to be the focus of the post here for our discussion.
For those of you who identified at one point as childfree but went on to have children: When you/your partner got pregnant and you made the decision to keep the children, how did you reconcile your stance/mentality with the reality you WOULD be a parent?
A common counter and aggravation to someone saying that they're childfree is, "Oh, you'll change your mind." What happens though, when you do change your mind? Is it a sudden realization or a gradual shift?
The choice to have or not have children is a political, social, and moral one these days in many cases, rather than a mere question of biology -- there's complex issues like global overpopulation, carbon footprints, social standing, etc. Were these things or others like them a part of your original decision and/or your decision to change?
For those of you who identified as wanting children but found out that you are/your partner is infertile: How did you reconcile your stance/mentality with the reality you would NEVER be a biological parent?
Technology today has allowed us options that weren't available before such as in-vitro fertilization, surrogates, and cross-continental adoptions, but these things are often somewhat controversial, and all prohibitively expensive and therefore only accessible to certain class levels.
Does the fact there are options, even if such options are somewhat inaccessible to many, impact how you handle or did handle the realization of infertility? Were you determined to have a biological kid (such as through a surrogate) rather than adopt or determined to adopt an unwanted child rather than go through the medical route? If so, why did you make that choice?
sorry if this has been done, i don't ever recall having seen it.
your child's (or hypothetical for the CFers) school is one of those who suddenly decides to enact a peanut products ban. (or your child gets old enough to go to school and you learn that they have a peanut ban in place)
do you agree with and follow the ban if your child is a picky eater who prefers PB&Js? what if you are a busy parent who does not have time for anything other than putting a PB&J together? what if PB&J is all that is affordable? or do you just do what you want, thinking the school has no right to dictate what your child eats at lunch/what you have time for/what you can afford to buy?
let's say your child is one of the allergic and the school does not have a ban in place. do you try to get one put in place?
inspired by these articles at cnn.com (the arguments are mostly in the comments, beware of some major stupidity there on both sides): one and two
:blows dust off community: (dang, where is everyone? lol)
( for linkophobesCollapse )
-- i DO find it weird that the children supposedly did not know their home address or either phone number, though the article claims mom told them never to give it out. not even to the police or someone else in authority?
-- i am personally halvsies on this. was it not really a smart move? yes. is it worth giving the woman a criminal record for an hour and half appointment across the street and using up the police department's time? not really.
-- maybe it's because i'm from a small town (and according to wikipedia, Norton is even smaller than my town!) but i see parents dropping their kids off for short periods of time at a lot of places (the library until the staff put a stop to it because they were annoying the actual patrons, the pool during open swim hours, the parks--despite what the police chief says and God forbid even the stores...and that's ALL DAY, not just 90 minutes).
i have seen what looks like unsupervised kids at our McDonald's (possible their parents are inside eating, but still) so i wonder if there's more behind this. is the manager paranoid? did some other customer complain repeatedly that the kids were acting up? are other unsupervised kids treated the same way, such as kids of a certain age limit whose parents may allow them to walk/bike/bus to McDonald's for lunch by themselves?
what do you all think?
For debate and discussion:
Court grants parents permission to sterilise their 11 year old.
Is it the parent's choice, or is this a slippery slope toward taking rights away?
According to this article, it does.
What are your thoughts? I'm curious to see how this community will react. As for me, I'm perfectly happy being childfree and I'm not about to change my mind just because most parents are happy to have children. I'm not at all surprised that they are happy- after all, most married parents chose to have their children.
A hypothetical question here.
One of your close family has a child (or several) and you notice that they are raising them to be extremely racist, homophobic and very intolerant of any other beliefs. You've heard the mother tell the child that people are different colours because that marks them as inferior for instance.
You do spend time visiting this family, would you ever say anything to the child to try and give them a different persepective? Would you say something to the parents? Would you say nothing at all?
If you have children, was there ever a time you identified as childfree?
Conversely, if you are childfree, was there ever a time you thought you'd have children?
If you know what made you change your mind, what was it?
I'm sure this topic is bound to come up now and again, but I haven't seen anything on the subject recently and with turnover in the community, I think it might be worth another post. Now, granted, the article itself is pretty old, but I only saw it the other day.
Article here: www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200406/hidden-male-grief
( Text here. Collapse )
So what do you think? To what extent should the man have a say over a decision like abortion? Why or why not?
My own feelings on the matter: I don't want to say, "No uterus, no opinion" (although I have trotted that line out before), but ultimately, I do think an abortion should be the woman's decision because she bears the greatest risks and physical burden by carrying the pregnancy. I think it's absolutely essential for couples to open up the lines of communication about things like sex, birth control, and abortion, well before there's an unplanned pregnancy, but we live in a world that's far from ideal. Relationships often fail, and people do find themselves in abusive relationships. An Ohio legislator recently introduced a bill that would require a woman to obtain the father's written consent before an abortion, but that, to me, just seems like trying to legislate healthy relationships (and it seems like plenty of abusive guys might use that as a means to exert control over an ex). I'm sure it really, really, really sucks to be that guy whose girlfriend or wife has an abortion behind his back or against his will, but I just can't get on the side of giving the man a legal veto. What do you guys think??
In this article, an author protests about the new UK scheme that means all visitor speakers in schools must be vetted first and have their backgrounds checked before being allowed onto the premises to ensure that no child molesters get in.
In my eyes, this is a step too far - these people are coming into the schools to give talks, they will not be alone with the children, so the risks are beyond minimal, however the parents of some abused children are disagreeing with the stance this and other authors have - stating that the default mode should be suspicion where the welfare of children is concerned.