to honestley wonder, why have children if you WANT to work fulltime and are not prepared to make ANY sacrifices?

[milkgoddessmakesthefinestmilk]

i don't mean parents that HAVE to work to provide.

i mean the ones that choose to for no other reason, other than they enjoy their job so much.
if you enjoy your job so much, thats great.
but what i really do not understand is why have children?
no one makes any of these parents have children, you can go though life without having children.

this is 100% genuine question, i just do not get it.

I love being a sahm
I would`nt change it

Its a choice I made with dh

So I don`t have the latest clothes bags etc etc
2 holidays a year big house I could go on

A snotty kiss as My kids comes out of school is priceless

onebatmother, that's the best post I've ever read on this issue.

The OP raised it in her second post I think only she said a couple of months old rather than 6 weeks and having known someone who put their child in childcare from 6 weeks onwards and also seeing it advertised in local nurseries where I live I was interested to see what the consensus is on that.

I have often pondered the same point, OP. I wouldn't have worded it in quite the same way. Infact, I wouldn't have posted the question for fear of the general nastiness and sarcasm you have received in bucketloads.

But, given that we are lucky to have free contraception, easily available in this country, I do still wonder why any man or woman would choose to have a child/children if they are only going to spend an hour or two per day with them during the working week.

I think its a valid question and I've yet to see any kind of answer. Only aggressive and offensive responses, what a shame.

edinburgh royal informary acorn nursery accepts babies from 6weekno big deal imo

Oh, OK, I ignored all she's written after her first post.

"The point about paying the mortgage, while practical, is not in itself an argument-stopper. There are always smaller mortgages, shiter areas."

or of course marry/partner with a provider. which is presumably what you have done?

god i really can't bear middle class militant sahms who have basically married well a la jane austen.

bravo onebatmother. it is not a simple debate. nor is it one in which feminists fight repressive misogyny.

"I think its a valid question and I've yet to see any kind of answer. Only aggressive and offensive responses, what a shame."

Plenty of answers on this thread and similar in the past. Just open your eyes and mind to them.

oh fuck fuck i wrote that to vent and not to post. shite pressed post instead of deleting. oh well it's what i think but wouldn't have posted normally .

OBM - you are fabulous and clever and please make sure I never ever have an arguement with you.

Extending your argument a little - when one asks a follow up question to the children that says, 'if your parents need or want to woth, would you rather have not been born at all, or although it is from your perspective a subobtimal choice, do you still have a happy, enjoyable life that you are happy to live?'

I bet that most children would answer with the latter response.

It is too easy to look at this from a very one dimensional point of view. Children do not need to be full time parented in order to survive (or indeed to live happily). If that were the case then every motherless child might as well be put out of their misery!

My children have a very long list of things that they would like to have happen in their lives - some I could give but choose not to (ears pierced, PS3 etc. A family is there for the benefit of all family members - children as well as adults. The needs of all members of the family need to be balanced - it isn't some kind of little emperor's world in RL.

at Bossykate.

I'm not surprised you regret it bk. it was bitter and didn't further any argument.

LOLOLOL at bossykate's assumptions about OBM's 'marriage' and working situation. You're a long way off the mark, boosy!

oh the shame of being patronised by such as sophable

Also, if you asked an existing child whether they wanted a sibling and they said no - does that mean you don't have another child? Is having more than, say, 3 children ruled out too as no one child gets enough parental attention (akin to a parent WOTH)? Where does this child centred parenting end?

there are subtleties that are obstinately being missed here aren't they? Soapy, there is a difference between questioning a decision to put an infant into fulltime daycare purely to prioritise career advancement and saying that parents shouldn't work.

Yes, of course, Sophable's statement was both sweet and furthered the argument.

monkeybird, yes, all too true. It is impossibly complex, and more often than not we balance immediate/future needs against potential adverse/positive outcomes, and we do it blindfold, with gloves on.

I was responding mainly to the idea that the question wasn't worth asking.

well ok i have put my head over the parapet now...

ruminations such as obm's are a luxury for many of us - size of mortgage/shiter area notwithstanding. unless someone else is footing the bills!

Actually I think that the first 7 yrs of my life, when my mum was still working full time were the happiest of my life. So is staying with our children 24/7 (for how many yrs btw???) the recipe for all time happiness for them?

i really don't understand why there can't be a (valuable imo) debate about this area without descent into vitriol.

i do agree with obm that the question is worth asking. sadly the discussion on mnet usually generates more heat than light because everyone is arguing with some degree of emotion about their own situation.

Quite bk. As two public servants on roughly the same wage we'd have to go a whole lot shiter than where we are now before it made a jot of difference.