Conference quark::human_relations-v1

         You see....
         
         This issue messes up biological imperatives with
         socialogical constraints.
         
         On the biological side, there are real built-in needs
         that people [both men and women in different ways]
         have to procreate. It is an *instinct* that can be
         re-inforced or over-ridden by societal mores. But
         it remains an instinct.
         
         When people get stressed and feel threatened they
         start falling back on instinctual behavior
         patterns...and we get "unwanted" kids.
         [over-simplification, but bear with me a sec...]
         
         On the sociological side, we have layored bunches
         of rules and regulations on top of people's interactions
         that define what is OK and what is not OK. So, people
         who find themselves in untenable situations have
         no choice but to bail out...because the *situation*
         leaves them no room for compromise.
         
         In many [less civilised?] communities, children are
         raised by the community, and loved by all. They do
         not suffer if Dad really is Bi....so what. Dad is
         not harrassed...Mom isn't upset that Dad has a
         man-friend, and the children love them all. [kids'll
         do that you know....they deposite love where they
         choose until some adult corrects them...]
         
         But our societal rules prevent any of the above from
         happening. As soon [historically speaking] as ownership
         became individual instead of communal, the necessity
         of determining birth origin and blood kinship
         automatically put in motion the events that "set
         us up" so to speak.
         
         This is not a diatribe against captialism...or western
         society, it is just a fact. Our society makes it
         difficult to handle this biological imperative without
         imposing harm/hurt on those least able to cope...the
         outcome...the children.
         
         Just my opinion...
         
         Melinda

    Hi,
    
    
    I don't know, I may be getting the wrong message here, but in all
    honesty, I think that at least 80% of children are 'brought' into
    this world without 'mom' or 'dad' even knowing what they are doing.
    I mean at the moment of 'conception' how many people are aware that
    this is happening?  There is no little bell that goes off or anything.
    So how can you say that its a part of selfishness on the parents
    part?  I'm a single parent, have been since 'conception', and if
    I was 'selfish' and only thinking of my needs, then I wouldn't have
    even gone through with the pregnancy.
    
    
    

    .2 has a point about most people conceiving children without conscious
    intent.  Although wasn't it Freud who said that there are no accidents?
    
    To bring children into the world to cement a relationship/marriage
    is using the child as a means to an end and is an act of
    thoughtlessness.  But I often wonder about how much lip service is
    given to "children are people, too" when in reality I believe that
    most people think of children as an extension of themselves; as
    a part of "their property".
    
    Planned parenthood is an issue that the majority of people simply
    cannot intellectually address. [I know...sigh...go ahead and bash
    me for that one...]  As it takes a relative sophistication to
    consciously and consistently practice birth control, so it takes
    an even greater sophistication to consciously determine *if* one
    wants to become a parent, and if so, *when*.
    
    However, .0, I believe that most parents--regardless of *why* they
    conceived the child, once it arrives they do the best they can to
    be the parent they believe the child needs.  Now I know that many
    of us are Adult Children---and that term does carry significance
    of a special sort for many of us [I am an ACOA myself]--but the
    time comes when we have to say "so what" and move on.
    
    I have 4 children.  When I was a young married, it was just considered
    the "right thing to do" to start a family.  Did I plan them?  I
    wasn't that sophisticated, nor were really good birth control methods
    readily available in the state where I lived.  Have my children
    added to the populated earth indiscriminately?  No.
    
    
    m
   

    And would any one of us 'unwanted children' choose not to have been
    born?
    
    Not I!
    
    Engineering population is extremely dangerous.  To expand on Marilyn's
    note what often happens is the people who would make the most capable
    parents choose not to have children.
    
    Children satisfy a need in all parents.  If we had children for
    what we could do for them we would adopt the underprivileged.  There
    are very few families that are not dysfunctional in some respect.
     
    And yet most of us survive and live meaningful lives.
    

    My mother, who ran a daycare center for 14 years, suggested the
    following for choosing who should be parents, and when.
    
    "Anybody can be a parent providing they:
    
    a)  desire the child, and will love it and take care of it until
    	it is grown, and teach it how best to handle the world and
    	contribute to it positively. 
    
    b)  first get a puppy and deal with ITS infancy."
    
    
    So many parents seem not to know what they're letting themselves
    in for when they have children.  I mean, ideally, maybe they would
    have android babies/children they could lend to the parents so the
    parents could learn about how to deal with children....but that's
    far in the future.  I think the real criteria are love, patience, 
    and devotion.
     

    -Jody

    Boy, I absolutely agree with Melinda.
    
    The desire to have children is, when you come right down to it,
    a biological imperative for the survival of the species. Now we
    can sometimes over-ride it, include other factors in the decision,
    and control the possibilities somewhat, but when you come right
    down to it it's much more gonads and hormones than brains.
    
    I'm not going to have children. Period end of sentence. *But*, when I
    am under a lot of stress, either emotional or physical, I have this
    incredible biological and emotional urge to get pregnant. Looking at it
    from the standards of today's society, those are the "wrong" reasons.
    But I can certainly understand and empathize with someone who is either
    more ambivalent or who doesn't even think about it, having a child
    under those circumstances.
    
    The old, hind portions of the brain don't analyze the source of the
    stress, it just knows that certain physical symptoms of stress, mean
    that it should trigger the urge to reproduce, so that the chance of
    someone surviving the stress are greater.
    
    Biology hasn't caught up with man and society, but it's still very
    powerful force.

    Tamzen

    
    	I'm considering the basic context with which the child is intended
    to be brought about. I understand that at one time, children were
    considered an asset; they had value in terms of the work they could
    do in support of the family. Consequently, a family with many children
    eventually became more "wealthy" than a similar family with less
    "assets". Therefore, at one time in history, children were perhaps
    concieved with that intent. But that was perhaps 100 years ago!
    
    	Children are now a liability, in this day and age, in the economic
    sense. They may have value to parents in other contexts, perhaps as
    I suggested in .0. My appalling tone of .0 was due to seeing the
    contrast between the public's apparent understanding of two issues;
    One, that any person's "sexual preferance" is their personal choice
    and is to be respected as such, the other, is that children are
    still an asset that can be used as a cement - or last ditch effort -
    to "save" a troubled relationship, or even a troubled person - who's
    "troubles" have nothing to do with the child.
    
    	I'd say folks who believe in the latter have no idea that
    the child perhaps *knows* the context with which a parent holds
    them in their thoughts - it's even been suggested that supposedly
    this awareness can occurr even prior to birth itself! It's "just
    a feeling", certainly non verbal, and therefore beyond conscious
    understanding in an objective sense. Who cares what that can do
    to somebody, in *their* long run? I do.
                                                
    	I also agree with the suggestion about the puppy; I've also read
    that in our society we give a more thourough training for people to 
    become telephone operators, than we tend to give for being parents.
    There is merit in securing some kind of experience beforehand. It's
    to the benefit of the child, in terms of things like "time dependant
    needs".
    
    	Joe Jas
           

When I think about motives for having kids - and I'm sure mine weren't 100%
unselfish - I come back to something I learned from my Mom. As most women of
her era, she assumed everyone would marry and have children, so she focused
on how you viewed kids once they were there rather than on the decision to have
them or not to have them. Her wisdom - in my words:

Children are loaned (actually *leased* may be a better word since there is a
long-term agreement) to you for an unspecified period of time. They are
entrusted to you so you can do whatever is necessary to see that the child can
survive, and hopefully flourish, in this world. Your primary responsibility is
to help them get to the point that they no longer need you, and that requires
a great deal of love, patience, trust and respect.

In my current circle of friends (mostly gay/lesbian), where having a child is a
concious choice and often takes substantial effort, we talk about motives a
great deal. I think perhaps that the long-held view of children as possessions
contributes heavily to many of the "wrong" (i.e., selfish) reasons for having
them. 

lynn

    I think the statement that any prosective parent ought to first
    own a puppy, is certainly true, but so simplistic as to minimize
    the overwhelming role of parenting. [I don't mean to imply that
    anybody really believes that is the only criteria for being a parent]
    
    I've owned a puppy from birth, and I've "owned" two kids from birth.
    The differences between the two experiences are "night and day"!
    A puppy requires some attention, some love, and some amount of
    effort to make them fit into YOUR plans (e.g, put them in the
    kennel over the weekend, etc).  A kid requires massive amounts
    of attention, unlimited love, and a great deal of effort simply
    to carry through with the simplest of plans.
    
    I was a doggy-owner for about 5 years, and it had relatively
    little impact on my overall life.  I've been a baby-owner for
    4 years now, and my life will never be the same.  I never
    expected to have a pet for my whole life.  I don't know if I
    will always be a husband.  But, I know for sure that I will
    ALWAYS be a daddy!
    

      Back to a point of the base note, "having a baby will fix a
      troubled marriage". It seems to me that babies put a GREATER
      strain on a marriage rather than lighten the strain. Certainly the
      friends I have that have babies have noticed an increase in the
      difficulty of their lives. They may love the baby greatly but it
      still increases tensions. liesl