[SA Chris]

Parenting is more than just genetics.

[slackline]

Don't disagree with you about relationships.

There are countless other ways of being selfless without parenting a child however.

Yes I donated blood last week. 

But when it comes to having children then as a male you can bend over backwards for a female you're in a relationship with and not have children but if her biological clock is ticking and she wants kids there is a high chance they will look elsewhere to achieve what they want and if not they would have to be as selfless as they were hoping you would be to not resent you for selfishly refusing to help them. 

[benno]

There's something about the idea of bringing an entire new person into the world out of a sense of obligation, rather than actual desirem that makes me distinctly nervous. If one's aims in life diverge in such a crucial way from those of one's partner, maybe looking elsewhere is better for both?

[slackline]

There's something about the idea of bringing an entire new person into the world out of a sense of obligation, rather than actual desirem that makes me distinctly nervous. If one's aims in life diverge in such a crucial way from those of one's partner, maybe looking elsewhere is better for both?

I didn't write that it was an obligation though, I wrote that it might be a selfless act to help someone you love.

Some will go their own separate ways.

Others will choose to stay with and help the person they love.


Neither choices are "careless, lacking in aspiration, crazy or unlucky" though because the decision will have been given a large amount of consideration before being made and to suggest so is in my opinion incredibly glib.

There is also the possibility that despite having no previous desire to have children they may grow on you (both literally and figuratively) although this is obviously an unknown and you may end up leaving your partner to care for the child they want on their own or with another partner. 

Pete has already described some aspects of this and from what little he has written it sounds as though he's not someone who wanted children of his own for whatever reasons are known only to him, but having now spent some time with someone else's see's some of the positives aspects they have.

[benno]

Indeed, it just occurred to me that your partner's needs pale into insignificance next to those of a person for whose life you'll be wholly responsible. That it might grow on me after the fact isn't a gamble I'd willingly make. I'm not really trying to make a point, just thinking out loud into an interesting thread.

[slackline]

There's something about the idea of bringing an entire new person into the world out of a sense of obligation, , rather than actual desirem that makes me distinctly nervous.

This reads as though you are suggesting the obligation is to the partner you are choosing to help.

Indeed, it just occurred to me that your partner's needs pale into insignificance next to those of a person for whose life you'll be wholly responsible.

Except you are not wholly responsible for that persons life, you and your partner are and you work together to nurture and protect them.

[benno]

This reads as though you are suggesting the obligation is to the partner you are choosing to help.

Well, if you yourself didn't actively want to have children, that's the motivating factor, no? I wouldn't be comfortable fathering a child I didn't REALLY want to please someone else, personally. It's just too big a deal to mess with someone's life like that.

Except you are not wholly responsible for that persons life, you and your partner are and you work together to nurture and protect them.

I think you've read "solely" instead, here. You are wholly responsible for something if it's entirely within your power to prevent it, in my book.

[petejh]

There's something about the idea of bringing an entire new person into the world out of a sense of obligation, rather than actual desirem that makes me distinctly nervous. If one's aims in life diverge in such a crucial way from those of one's partner, maybe looking elsewhere is better for both?

I didn't write that it was an obligation though, I wrote that it might be a selfless act to help someone you love.

Some will go their own separate ways.

Others will choose to stay with and help the person they love.


Neither choices are "careless, lacking in aspiration, crazy or unlucky" though because the decision will have been given a large amount of consideration before being made and to suggest so is in my opinion incredibly glib.

In a perfect world I'd agree with you, but the world is populated in the main by people who don't act as logically as you do.

My decisions were based on age. I would have liked my own kids when I was younger but never met the right person to have them with. Now I'm older I don't want kids. I'm very happy being with a partner and her 10-year old. I don't regret having missed the 0-10 years one bit - sleepless nights and time restrictions at my age when I've got my own good life going on? No thanks. Fairly straightforward.

[a dense loner]

Pete how long have you had this partner? You've only just started mentioning her, and you're doing it quite a lot it seems. So to me it looks like you've not been with her long but the way you talk about other things it's like you've been with her years. You don't see her regularly it doesn't seem like and you also said her kids 10 yet you don't mind not being there for the first 10 years. This begs quite a few questions tbh. The main one being how do you know anything about what you're talking about?

[slackline]

This reads as though you are suggesting the obligation is to the partner you are choosing to help.

Well, if you yourself didn't actively want to have children, that's the motivating factor, no?

Yes but you then wrote...

it just occurred to me that your partner's needs pale into insignificance next to those of a person for whose life you'll be wholly responsible.

...which is another obligation and the two seemed to be becoming muddled in your writing.

I think you've read "solely" instead, here. You are wholly responsible for something if it's entirely within your power to prevent it, in my book.

No, I read what you wrote.  I've highlighted the word above for clarity and as I wrote you and your partner are wholly responsible.

[benno]

Ah, I see. I meant that your obligation to your partner isn't as important as your obligation to your potential child.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[slackline]

Ah, I see. I meant that your obligation to your partner isn't as important as your obligation to your potential child.

They're not mutually exclusive and are heavily inter-twinned though.

Neither choices are "careless, lacking in aspiration, crazy or unlucky" though because the decision will have been given a large amount of consideration before being made and to suggest so is in my opinion incredibly glib.

In a perfect world I'd agree with you, but the world is populated in the main by people who don't act as logically as you do.

Indeed, many act based on biological instinct but that doesn't mean that they are any or all of the things you are suggesting they are.

[petejh]

Pete how long have you had this partner? You've only just started mentioning her, and you're doing it quite a lot it seems. So to me it looks like you've not been with her long but the way you talk about other things it's like you've been with her years. You don't see her regularly it doesn't seem like and you also said her kids 10 yet you don't mind not being there for the first 10 years. This begs quite a few questions tbh. The main one being how do you know anything about what you're talking about?

Haha.. well because my partner prior to my current one (who I've only been seeing since December) also had kids of a similar age.

How long do I need before I'm qualified to form a valid point about the pros/cons of not having children, in your opinion?

And you messed up using 'begging the question' in the context you did - it does't mean what you think it does, which was 'raises a few questions'. It actually means to make a statement or argument assuming the conclusion to be true from the outset without any other evidence other than the original statement. Which is quite apt really seeing as that's your standard modus operandi on here! 

[petejh]

Neither choices are "careless, lacking in aspiration, crazy or unlucky" though because the decision will have been given a large amount of consideration before being made and to suggest so is in my opinion incredibly glib.

In a perfect world I'd agree with you, but the world is populated in the main by people who don't act as logically as you do.
[/quote]

Indeed, many act based on biological instinct but that doesn't mean that they are any or all of the things you are suggesting they are.
[/quote]

Well it needn't be, but it could be a careless act, don't you agree?

[slackline]

It could be but I don't considered it to be.  Humans are not that far removed from other animals.  I'd love to be proven otherwise but look at all the fighting that still goes on around the world.

[Oldmanmatt]

1:  Having kids never feels/is/works out/looks the way you think it will.

2: Sometimes you want kids, sometimes you don't.

3: Sometimes, when you don't, you wish you did; when you do, you wish you didn't (at least for an hour or two).

4: Having kids can make you pine for the freedom of singledom, not having kids can make you pine for the joys of parenthood.

5: You get the idea.

6: Your life is what it is. You make choices, it changes; you can't change it back.

7: You will never really understand the infinite number of variables that bare upon the decisions of even your closest friends and loved ones. I think it's probably best not to try, if you can. I rather wish I could be better at the whole accepting/not judging thing...


IMO.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk