? for parents - why so many kids?

Page 1 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

BobinPgh
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 352

19 Sep 2014, 6:53 am

Having an ASD and growing up in a family of 5 children, I found it difficult to deal with the drama of a large family. This was in the early 70s and I think 5 was too many then, but my parents were Catholic and as my mother says "there was no birth control" (although she started taking pills after my younger brother was born in 1970). The world is overpopulated and yet, a lot of parents I know today have 4-5 kids rather than 1-2. Why is that? If one of the kids has an ASD, why do you want to make a family larger? It's just more chaos and expense. I read this parents forum and I know I could not handle it so I chose to not have children but why do some of you make a bad situation worse? Looking forward to your comments.



BuyerBeware
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,476
Location: PA, USA

19 Sep 2014, 7:17 am

Some people still don't believe in birth control. This is America-- that's their right.

Some people just like kids (which would be why I had three of the little angels).

Some people don't plan-- they just go with whatever happens. Seems silly to me, but-- Nobody died and made me God.

Some people did plan, and the birth control didn't work (which would be why I now have four of the little angels-- and also why I got my tubes tied, because another one would be too many).

There is always drama. There will be drama unless you live alone, in isolation, because drama is human nature.

I guess we could deal with the "overpopulation" issue ourselves, but I'd rather let time and nature handle it. Time and nature may be cruel, but human beings are willfully cruel and intentionally corrupt.


_________________
"Alas, our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, as wind in dry grass, or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar." --TS Eliot, "The Hollow Men"


ASDMommyASDKid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,666

19 Sep 2014, 7:42 am

BobinPgh wrote:
I read this parents forum and I know I could not handle it so I chose to not have children but why do some of you make a bad situation worse? Looking forward to your comments.


I am not sure if you want answers so much as you are stating an objection.

We have only one child, due to medical issues of my own. If we had more that would have been our choice.

Many of your comments have nothing to do with Autism, so I think you have a clear bias towards not reproducing or at a minimum reproducing modestly. Not everyone agrees with that perspective. If you don't want to reproduce that is fine, but I am not sure I get the people who are evangelistic in their desire for other people not to, either. It is just as ridiculous as people who insist other people have tons of kids. It is the business of the family, involved, and no one else, IMO.

How many children one family chooses to have have little effect on the population as a whole, and all the costs are not internal to the system, anyway. Therefore, individual families have little practical reason to limit their families for this reason, alone. Our decision to reproduce below the replacement rate, and others' decisions to do so balance out the Duggars et al. In fact, industrialized nations have very low birth rates (see Japan--for the issues inherent in that for industrialized countries, if you are unaware of the negative aspects of that)

As far as autism goes, depending on severity, diagnoses may not be made until the family is complete. The % chance of having another autistic child when one is diagnosed is something like 20%, so many families are OK with that risk. There are even people who enjoy their eclectic autistic families. The reasons go on and on.

(I am also not a modern-day Malthusian, but that is besides the point.



Venger
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,519

19 Sep 2014, 8:31 am

BobinPgh wrote:
The world is overpopulated and yet, a lot of parents I know today have 4-5 kids rather than 1-2. Why is that?


Not a parent myself, but they probably think that since the world's population increases by about 75 million each year, a few more won't matter. But that's what they all say which is the source of the problem. :?



Odetta
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 155
Location: Southeast USA

19 Sep 2014, 8:54 am

Who is the authority that determines the world is overpopulated? What standards are used to determine that? Are they truly valid?

I mean, people die of hunger in the world every day. I realize that. But I don't think it's because there is too little food in the world. Instead I think it is too little access in some parts of the world to the abundance of food that is available in other places. For instance, how much food do you throw out when you clean out your fridge and pantry? How many of us in more affluent countries are overweight because of eating too much food? And food is actually a renewable resource, when you think about it.

Also, to me, the term overpopulated implies that some people should not have been born. Which can lead to thinking that they don't have a right to live, that some people are more worthy than others. Wars have been fought over the actions of some people resulting from this line of thinking.

To the OP, you have an obvious bias against having large families, based on your personal experience. Deciding not to have children yourself is your choice and you are welcome to it. Given your attitude about large families, it does seem to be the right decision for you. However, there are other families in the world that don't think like you. The fact that you are asking why other families don't limit their size implies to me that you think they are wrong, and that is not your call.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

19 Sep 2014, 9:52 am

Some people refuse to get fixed so they end up with accidents. :wink:

Some people just can't stop having sex and birth control sometimes fail which is rare

Birth control pills are so hard to take because you have to remember to take them at the same time everyday and never miss a dose for them to be effective and lot of women may have this issue and parents may not even be using double protection

Some people don't believe in birth control and they keep on having sex

And I don't get it either. I always see it as a choice because there are so many options to avoid this unless you do want lot of children or you are really an idiot and didn't know how to avoid it


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

19 Sep 2014, 10:35 am

SIMPLYSHRUG.COM: "The Overpopulation Myth" (October 17, 2010)
http://www.simplyshrug.com/index.php?op ... emid=50%29

SimplyShrug.com wrote:
...Well, every person in the world could live inside of Texas without overcrowding. We could all have water with just the Columbia River alone. And we could easily feed ourselves with just the farmland within the US as it exists.

Canada. Mexico. Alaska. Central America. South America. Europe. Asia. Africa. Australia. Greenland. All the islands. All the oceans. The Great Lakes. All empty, devoid of people. No need to farm or live there.

Now that we have the numbers, are we really overpopulated? I would argue a resounding "NO" and I think any who say otherwise are simply not adding it up.

Certainly some nations have population problems. But, I believe that parents elsewhere should have as many children as they can afford to raise through age 18-21 years, and choose to do so. The populations of many nations result in negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline population growth. Clearly, the declining statistics suggest that many nations have a kind of anorexia nervosa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorexia_nervosa regarding their populations. Don't enable it.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


CWA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 669

19 Sep 2014, 11:05 am

Odetta wrote:
Who is the authority that determines the world is overpopulated? What standards are used to determine that? Are they truly valid?



They are.

Basically it's calculated using the amount of land need to sustain one person at a certain level of living (ecological foot print). If everyone currently living on the earth lived at a lower middle class, or even poor, standard of living "USA" style, we would need multiple earths to sustain the currently population given the amount of farmland and natural resources required. Right not the "mean" lifestyle that the earth is able to support is one of abject poverty and hunger. Which is exactly why so many people live like that. It's not exactly a choice. Those of us who are lucky enough to have a higher standard of living basically do so at the expense of those less fortunate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint


When calculating something like this you have to take into account things like point source pollution and technology as well. AspieUtah says we can all fit into Texas and live off of water from the Colorado river. You are delusional if you believe that. Where does all the waste go? Not just human waste either, waste from the farmland. All that run off (you know... run off, when it rains the water flows through the farm land and other points of pollution and carries it through the watershed to rivers, lakes, etc... not really good for the environment OR the water you were planning on drinking) is going to go INTO the colorado river and ANY waterway near by. What about garbage?

Basically for everyone to live in texas we would have to drastically lower the mean standard of living to a pretty low level and live in filth with sketchy water supply and a destroyed ecosystem. SURE technically it can be done, but that doesn't mean we SHOULD and I sure as heck don't want to. If we keep reproducing like we are, pretty soon the whole hypothetical world will be like hypotheitcal texas with people crammed in ear to ear drinking brown polluted water and eating soylent green.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

19 Sep 2014, 11:11 am

CWA wrote:
...AspieUtah says we can all fit into Texas and live off of water from the Colorado river. You are delusional if you believe that....

Thank you! Now, what names should I call you? Hmmmmm. I love the adult level of dialogue that passes for Wrong Planet conversations.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


ASDMommyASDKid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,666

19 Sep 2014, 11:50 am

CWA wrote:
Odetta wrote:
Who is the authority that determines the world is overpopulated? What standards are used to determine that? Are they truly valid?



Those of us who are lucky enough to have a higher standard of living basically do so at the expense of those less fortunate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint




The world is not set up so that resources/wealth unused by the industrialized countries would transfer to poor nations. It is not as though, when the population were lower, everyone on earth was rich.

I am not saying resource use is entirely irrelevant, or that industrial nations do not benefit from the poverty elsewhere, (They absolutely do) but it is not population alone. If everyone in the U.S limited themselves to replacement rate reproduction, it would not make poor countries richer. It would also mess up our Social Security system as it depends on young workers supporting the aged.



CWA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 669

19 Sep 2014, 12:03 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
CWA wrote:
...AspieUtah says we can all fit into Texas and live off of water from the Colorado river. You are delusional if you believe that....

Thank you! Now, what names should I call you? Hmmmmm. I love the adult level of dialogue that passes for Wrong Planet conversations.


An excellent response if you don't have a real response!

I didn't call you a name. Delusional is a state of thinking. Which you are if you think that everyone can be crammed into texas and have a happy fun time there. A name would be something along the lines of "idiot". Which I do not think you are. I just think you are misled and far too optimistic in your thinking and you believe far too easily in this idea that we could live in the state of texas, all 7 billion of us, with no issues. Use your critical thinking skills on that one. We can easily figure out what the square fo0tage would be per person if if we all moved into Texas... hang on ,getting my calculator...

Ok, Texas has an area of 268,820 mi2 so lets divide that by the opulation estimate of 7,000,000,000 peeps = 0.00003840285 square miles which is about 1,070 square feet per individual not including farm land, industries, jobs, infrastructure, anything like that. That's just to you know, stand on. That seems fine, or even spacious if we are considerring just a livign space, but once you include agriculture, waste, industry, jobs, infrastructure... it's unworkable. Hence, well... what i said before. Sorry.

To put it in perspective, this makes the population density of all 7billion people living in texas HIGHER than the population density of NYC. Think about that. Think about where the food from NYC comes from, where the waste goes... etc... Not to mention the ecological impact of an area of high population density like new york city. IT's not good.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

19 Sep 2014, 12:11 pm

CWA wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
CWA wrote:
...AspieUtah says we can all fit into Texas and live off of water from the Colorado river. You are delusional if you believe that....

Thank you! Now, what names should I call you? Hmmmmm. I love the adult level of dialogue that passes for Wrong Planet conversations.

I didn't call you a name. Delusional is a state of thinking. Which you are if you think that everyone can be crammed into texas and have a happy fun time there. A name would be something along the lines of "idiot". Which I do not think you are. I just think you are misled and far too optimistic in your thinking and you believe far too easily in this idea that we could live in the state of texas, all 7 billion of us, with no issues. Use your critical thinking skills on that one....

Why doesn't this forum have a way to report violations of its rules?!? This is the second expression of libel.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


CWA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 669

19 Sep 2014, 12:17 pm

ASDMommyASDKid wrote:
CWA wrote:
Odetta wrote:
Who is the authority that determines the world is overpopulated? What standards are used to determine that? Are they truly valid?



Those of us who are lucky enough to have a higher standard of living basically do so at the expense of those less fortunate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint




The world is not set up so that resources/wealth unused by the industrialized countries would transfer to poor nations. It is not as though, when the population were lower, everyone on earth was rich.

I am not saying resource use is entirely irrelevant, or that industrial nations do not benefit from the poverty elsewhere, (They absolutely do) but it is not population alone. If everyone in the U.S limited themselves to replacement rate reproduction, it would not make poor countries richer. It would also mess up our Social Security system as it depends on young workers supporting the aged.


Right. The UNITED STATES is not exactly over populated ALTHOUGH we do bring in a lot of agricultural products from out side our borders, mostly for the sake of variety. If we wanted to, in the USA, we could live entirely off of the food products produced in our country. In terms of food, shelter, water USA is a-ok for right now. But when you start to add in technology products produced abroad (like Iphones, computers, cars, lots and lots of stuff) it becomes an utterly different story and those products ARE making USA "better off" and are really hurting other countries in terms of the pollution (other countries have lower standards and that pollution/waste is being produced "there" and not in the USA or europe. as well as the low wages the workers are paid (better than nothing I guess but far from fair) and unsafe working conditions. Basically we outsource pollution, waste, crappy working conditions, low wages and import the nice clean awesome ipad or nike sneakers....



CWA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 669

19 Sep 2014, 12:34 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
CWA wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
CWA wrote:
...AspieUtah says we can all fit into Texas and live off of water from the Colorado river. You are delusional if you believe that....

Thank you! Now, what names should I call you? Hmmmmm. I love the adult level of dialogue that passes for Wrong Planet conversations.

I didn't call you a name. Delusional is a state of thinking. Which you are if you think that everyone can be crammed into texas and have a happy fun time there. A name would be something along the lines of "idiot". Which I do not think you are. I just think you are misled and far too optimistic in your thinking and you believe far too easily in this idea that we could live in the state of texas, all 7 billion of us, with no issues. Use your critical thinking skills on that one....

Why doesn't this forum have a way to report violations of its rules?!? This is the second expression of libel.




Apparently... I can sit here and assert that there is a magical pink unicorn sitting right next to me that only I can see or talk to... but if you call me delusional because I believe this I guess I should get all up in arms, become defensive and claim libel rather than POSSIBLY you know re-examining whether or not there really IS a magical pink unicorn that only I can see or talk to.

I simply have zero agreement with your assertion that we can all live happily in Texas. If I'm guilty of "libel" for asserting that your belief that we can all live in texas is ridiculous, then I should have been in court many many years ago because that is pretty much my go to when I hear these sorts of things.

And no there is no way to report that I can find. I was looking myself last week and it's just not there. Admittedly I was looking because someone (maybe it was longer ago I"m not so good with time) was contemplating ending their life and I just wanted to point it out to someone who might be able to do something. Then I looked for somewhere to suggest a place to report posts... and I couldn't find that either.

Anyway I'm sorry if I insulted you. I get pretty heated. If you would actually like to debate this point, I would like to see your response.



ASDMommyASDKid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,666

19 Sep 2014, 12:36 pm

CWA wrote:
ASDMommyASDKid wrote:
CWA wrote:
Odetta wrote:
Who is the authority that determines the world is overpopulated? What standards are used to determine that? Are they truly valid?



Those of us who are lucky enough to have a higher standard of living basically do so at the expense of those less fortunate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint




The world is not set up so that resources/wealth unused by the industrialized countries would transfer to poor nations. It is not as though, when the population were lower, everyone on earth was rich.

I am not saying resource use is entirely irrelevant, or that industrial nations do not benefit from the poverty elsewhere, (They absolutely do) but it is not population alone. If everyone in the U.S limited themselves to replacement rate reproduction, it would not make poor countries richer. It would also mess up our Social Security system as it depends on young workers supporting the aged.


Right. The UNITED STATES is not exactly over populated ALTHOUGH we do bring in a lot of agricultural products from out side our borders, mostly for the sake of variety. If we wanted to, in the USA, we could live entirely off of the food products produced in our country. In terms of food, shelter, water USA is a-ok for right now. But when you start to add in technology products produced abroad (like Iphones, computers, cars, lots and lots of stuff) it becomes an utterly different story and those products ARE making USA "better off" and are really hurting other countries in terms of the pollution (other countries have lower standards and that pollution/waste is being produced "there" and not in the USA or europe. as well as the low wages the workers are paid (better than nothing I guess but far from fair) and unsafe working conditions. Basically we outsource pollution, waste, crappy working conditions, low wages and import the nice clean awesome ipad or nike sneakers....


i agree with this.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

19 Sep 2014, 1:10 pm

BobinPgh wrote:
If one of the kids has an ASD, why do you want to make a family larger? It's just more chaos and expense. I read this parents forum and I know I could not handle it so I chose to not have children but why do some of you make a bad situation worse? Looking forward to your comments.

Christians are taught that children are a gift, a blessing from God.

Chaos and expense? Well, I can't speak for families with one ASD child. But ordinarily if there is chaos and expense, something is terribly wrong.

As a maybe-aspie father, I entered parenthood feeling strongly that it was something I SHOULD do, not necessarily because it was something I wanted more than anything else in the world. So, for me, dealing with a kid was all about figuring out where they fit into my life/lifestyle. A lot of parents make the mistake of thinking their lives have to be completely reordered to accommodate children, and this simply isn't true. Ok, so there are SOME things you can't do with kids?you can't take them to a bar or a dance club. So what? You find other things to do you enjoy and include your kids. It's not hard.

I learned to do it by first thinking of my oldest son as less a baby and more a third roommate. When a baby cries, it's wet/dirty, hungry, or sleepy. You figure out which one of the three fits the moment, cuddle it, it settles down. Before they master spoken communication, they're just like pets. By 3 or 4, they can pee and poop by themselves, hopefully. I have a 2-yo that I can just put his food/water out and he takes care of himself. There's fairly little "parenting" that I actually have to do, which applies to all 3 of my kids as well. The hardest part is after 2 years you have to begin some kind of consistent discipline strategy and begin establishing boundaries. That's the part that sucks.

But extra expense? No way? OK, maybe diapers and baby food. But, I mean, I've always been a big eater as has my wife. We don't really NEED to eat that much, so we still cook pretty much for ourselves and just split that among three other people. The 2 yo usually eats off her plate. We bake our own bread and slice it thinner since the kids waste most of the thicker-sliced commercial loaves anyway, we keep a tight budget, buy food in bulk when we get the opportunity, and still go out to dinner once a month. We do spend a small fortune on private school, but it just happens that sending our kids to a school that reflects our own values is very important to us. If you go the public school route, the kids are out of your way while you work and you should have plenty money left over at the end of the month to pay off student loans, mortgage, and utilities/rent. Our kids aren't really that much of an actual hardship on us. Oh, and our family annual income, both my part-time work and her full-time job combined, is less than $40k. And we aren't currently accepting any kind of welfare, I'm not drawing unemployment, etc. If the 5 of us can live comfortable for under $40k, having 4-5 kids is not THAT taxing.

Now, it CAN be a lot of trouble IF YOU ALLOW IT TO BE. If you aren't in the habit of being responsible with money already, you WILL be living hand-to-mouth. If you are afraid of consistent discipline, whether you do spankings or if you're "time-out ONLY", your house WILL be in constant chaos. We're not perfect at my house, and I don't claim to be. However, my 5 and 7 yo kids both have alarm clocks that go off separately, they immediately head to the shower, put on their school uniforms, and report to breakfast by 7:00. I take my 2 yo with me for my daily 2.5 mile walk right after I drop kids off at school and wife off at work. After walking I have work to do and he stays with me. I've had to play organ for morning funerals before and didn't get the call until it was too late to get a babysitter and my 2 yo sat QUIETLY next to me at the organ the whole time. I play piano for noon Bible study at our church every Wednesday, and he sits QUIETLY on the piano bench or in my lap the whole time. He is NEVER an inconvenience. We heap high expectations on our kids' shoulders and they rise to those expectations. THAT is how you do it. I'm not going to stoop to my kids' level, but I WILL work my @$$ off to help them step up to my level. Because of that, our kids are very unusual kids and people are often amazed at what we're able to accomplish with them.

And that leaves me wondering where all this supposed "chaos" comes into play? I mean?WHAT CHAOS???

Like I said, I can't speak for those who have kids on the spectrum. But even if you DO have a child on the spectrum, you simply do your level best to find what works and make that part of your routine. Sounds overly simplistic, I know, but it's no different at all in principle to childrearing in general. You make the accommodations part of your daily routine until you don't even think about it anymore, so while it might drive a parent of a single child absolutely insane to try to take on a task like that, the parent who just makes that a part of life won't even notice or even think of it as a hassle. Some friends of mine raised a kid with Down's, and he's some 10 years older than me. GREAT guy, takes care of himself. They have two younger kids besides, and those brothers have always been very close and looked after each other. There have been challenges, but they've never acted like it was a lot of work. They look at it as treating all people with decency and dignity, and having a kid with a disability is no different than how you'd treat any other kid that belongs to you--you take care of their needs, even if some of those happen to be "special needs."

The less you think of kids as an inconvenience or a burden, the easier it is to manage them. They are just little human beings, that's all. They don't need any special treatment you wouldn't give another human being, adjusting for developmental stage, of course. Just love them and include them in what YOU do, insist on proper behavior in the meantime, and they are AWESOME companions. No need to assume an unreasonable drain on the wallet or chaos in the home.

I'd love for us to have a 4th child, but as we get older I think my wife is less enthusiastic about the idea. The last two were delivered by C-section, and the thought of going through that again is frightening, especially since risky pregnancies go up with age. Her doctor is VERY good, though, and I know she doesn't have anything to worry about. However, it's not MY body that would be getting cut open or MY guts that would be hanging out on the operating table (watching a C-section performed is WAY cool, btw?highly recommended if you get a chance to see one. I had no idea they took pretty much all your insides out, mopped them up real good, and stuffed them all back inside when they got done. How they do that through such a small incision is beyond my comprehension, but it really is amazing what doctors are capable of and how easy they make it seem). My 3 kids are 3 of the coolest kids on the planet, and even IF things were as bad as all that, financially draining and mass chaos 24/7/365, I wouldn't trade it for anything. It's very hard to understand how amazing being a parent is until you become one and get halfway good at it.

Oh, and I'm not saying everyone is cut out for parenting, either. I'm just saying it's not this horrible burden that some people make it out to be. Yes, there's a lot of work involved, but it isn't THAT bad.