Would you be happy with 1 child?

Jewel_2

SusanC wrote: »

Me too! Personally if it was just me to consider, I would probably seriously consider only having one (because I suffer from hyperemesis gravidarum - not because I'm not that bothered about having more children) but it is very important to me that my daughter has siblings and I know that she would love to have siblings.

Your daughter may 'hate' having siblings.

I love my brother, but as a person not a sibling. I don't really see him as a sibling, rather as someone I love and know, rather like my close friends.

Jewel_2

Pee wrote: »

Oh, yes, I'd be estatic. But then I really want children and it appears can't have them.

One option for me would be to split from my partner as there is a good chance, say 50/50, that it might work with somone else.

I wouldn't want to have children with anyone else.

If having a SECOND child is more important to you than your man, I feel sorry for you and hope you meet someone special one day.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. A child is an agreement, and an absolute blessing, between two parents. If one parent doesn't want another, then another shouldn't be had.

mickett

I have one son and i wont lie I do want another one but unfortunetly my other half does not so its unlikely to happen, they is a 18 year age gap in our relationship so i can totally understand how he feels, he also has a son from his first marriage too which sometimes makes me angry but I just learn to deal with it.My son gets all our attention and likes it that way he gets spoilt off his grandparents etc etc and I like it that way too.I guess im blessed to have a child as some people struggle to even conceive so i count my blessings every day.

Lunar_Eclipse

Person_one wrote: »

Jewel, I have absolutely no idea how your post is supposed to be relevant or helpful to the OP.

I thought her post made some very insightful, if personal, comments about having children and could be incredibly useful in providing 'food for thought' for the OP.

I read it as another perspective, and an interesting one. Certainly unique and not views I read as judgemental, although I appreciate that using terms such as selfless & selfish may not be taken that way by everyone.

Jewel_2

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

I thought her post made some very insightful, if personal, comments about having children and could be incredibly useful in providing 'food for thought' for the OP.

I read it as another perspective, and an interesting one. Certainly unique and not views I read as judgemental, although I appreciate that using terms such as selfless & selfish may not be taken that way by everyone.

Thank you lunar.

Just to explain that my use of selfish was more to do with our biological need to pro-create in order for our genes to continue, not something we are consciously aware of. Perhaps I should have used biological need instead.

esmerelda98

Jewel wrote: »

I have no idea how people without kids can read this thread - not because I feel 'sorry' because that's just patronising, but because even I find the whole thing naive, insensitive and, well, kind of assuming and greedy. But I don't really know why, because no-one is meaning to be.
I take it you mean people who know they are unlikely to conceive naturally. They are adults. They know what they can cope with and they can choose to read the thread and run the risk of being upset, or they can choose not to read it. I think you need to speak for yourself and let them speak for themselves. I feel you are trying to stifle debate by waving the emotive banner of the involuntarily childless.

I have one biological child. I had post natal depression with her (she nearly died at 3 months old so perhaps that was it). I then divorced and my now husband, who has no biological children, brought her up with me from the age of 3. In the past both me and my husband have 'found' ourselves working with chidlren with severe physical and mental illness, and also terminal illnesses. We don't now, but that's what life dealt us at the time.

So, my situation isn't the norm. I've seen that you don't have to be biologically related to love a child dearly, in fact, the relationship between my daughter and her stepfather I think was 'meant to be'.

Very few people in general consider adoption, perhaps its becausea they haven't experienced or do not think the love can be so great, perhaps its the yearning to go through pregnancy and birth, I don't know, and I don't berate people for that. But you certainly can love a child just as much who isn't biological related. I agree, but not everyone is like this, or perhaps they don't realise their own capacity to love.I think its actually irrelevant. People don't tend to consider adoption because they want to experience being a parent from the very early stages and there are few babies up for adoption these days in the UK. Also, the assessments of potential adoptive parents is intrusive and many of the much older children up for adoption have physical or emotional problems. It is unfortunate (or it's just human nature) but true that most people are looking for the 'normal' parenting experience, if possible.

There are comments on here that I find slightly odd. Having children is ultimately a selfish exercise I agree, but one is just as selfish as 10- its so that we can carry our genes on, that is all. For me it is not about that at all, but about the joy of nuturing, and the joy of loving and being loved in a totally unique way. I think there is also something about children being an amalgamation of you and the one you love most dearly, but the first two reasons are enough for me We may not be aware of this, but that's why we have them. That's the biological part.

Those who choose not to, or cannot, are less selfish, perhaps looking at the bigger picture. If the only reason you don't have children is because you cannot, then you are no less selfish. We have too many children world wide, children dying because they have no food, homeless kids, but for some reason as a nation we are unable to stop pro-creating to instead decide to look after those without parents, and without love (that's the natural selfish bit really). So maybe no-one in the West should have children and we should all try to adopt the unwanted babies in the developing world.

Every single child is an individual. No-one should have more children because they play together, because they won't be lonely, because when they grow up they will be close. Life just doesn't happen like that. Kids, when they are older, are 'independent of us'. Thats what we SHOULD do, if we are selfless, we should bring them up and let them go (obviously supporting them en route). But we don't do that. We get lost in this bubble that they will happily skip along with each other, looking after us in our old age. They are their own beings!

I genuinely know no-one is trying to upset here, but there is a, perhaps well-deserved and needed naivety that having one, two, three, four, five kids makes our family better - and a seemingly 'feeling sorry' response to those who 'haven't got lives like ours'.

I dunno, perhaps its just me, but when I see the faces of those poor kids whose parents have been killed etc it makes me unable to consider bringing another life into the world until I've done something, and I mean really done something, to help the kids who have nothing.

You come across as a person for whom this topic raises a lot of hurtful emotions. I need to post this or I will probably lose the lot, but I will elaborate further.

esmerelda98

Jewel, a number of thoughts come to mind when I read your posts. You are very emotionally involved in this issue but its like you are, perhaps unconciously, trying to deflect attention from that by talking on behalf of the involuntarily childless women. I wonder to what extent you feel having only one child was a situation imposed on you. I also think there may be or may have been guilt that your husband has not had any biological children. Perhaps he was happy with the situation but other people have not been happy with the situation, and you feel you have had to justify yourself, unnecessarily. I'm not a mind-reader or a psychologist, but these are the conclusions I am drawing from your posts. It's like you have found a way to cope with your situation, by rationalising a lot of things, and you think others should do the same. I think there are too many issues here for you to decide what is and what isn't the best way forward for other people. This is why we are debating the issue.

Jewel_2

esmerelda98 wrote: »

You come across as a person for whom this topic raises a lot of hurtful emotions. I need to post this or I will probably lose the lot, but I will elaborate further.

Yes, perhaps you are right. I do find it distressing and perhaps I have a different perspective because of my experiences. I can't see anything wrong with that.

I do need to reiterate my definition of selfish in this instance. To want to love and be loved and to nurture is selfish, it doesn't mean it's 'wrong' but it is a selfish act in real terms, its just that we tend to use selfish in every day life as a negative thing. I mean 'for self', which is ultimately why we have children, however we perceive enjoyment of having them.

There is one point you make which I find more difficult - that people don't want to adopt because a child may have physical or emotional needs. To be honest this is a sad truth. But its still sad.

Jewel_2

esmerelda98 wrote: »

Jewel, a number of thoughts come to mind when I read your posts. You are very emotionally involved in this issue but its like you are, perhaps unconciously, trying to deflect attention from that by talking on behalf of the involuntarily childless women. I wonder to what extent you feel having only one child was a situation imposed on you. I also think there may be or may have been guilt that your husband has not had any biological children. Perhaps he was happy with the situation but other people have not been happy with the situation, and you feel you have had to justify yourself, unnecessarily. I'm not a mind-reader or a psychologist, but these are the conclusions I am drawing from your posts. It's like you have found a way to cope with your situation, by rationalising a lot of things, and you think others should do the same. I think there are too many issues here for you to decide what is and what isn't the best way forward for other people. This is why we are debating the issue.

True, you are not a mind reader or a psychologist. I'm wondering why you have such a big problem with my posts. Perhaps its struck a chord with you.

Ultimately, its an opinion. Just like yours. You don't need to psycho analyse me

esmerelda98

Jewel wrote: »

True, you are not a mind reader or a psychologist. I'm wondering why you have such a big problem with my posts. Perhaps its struck a chord with you.

Ultimately, its an opinion. Just like yours. You don't need to psycho analyse me

I don't have a problem with your posts, I think it is the way you post, rather than 'this is what I think' it comes across as 'this is how you should feel and it is wrong to think this'. That's all. I will attempt to stay away from your posts, as I do not want accusations of a vendetta to stifle debate once more, though I'm not sure what can be said that hasn't already been. Even my 'controversial' point (now deleted) has been reiterated a number of times since with little murmur.