Do you like kids?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by kad032000

They're too noisy, demanding and/or self-centered

You forgot stinky and stupid.

Only as stinky and stupid as the parents are.........

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

At school, in kinder, the little ones, boys and girls, often need hugs. I defy any administrator to tell me I can't do that. I'd have to bring out my stick.

Next year, in first grade, I plan to continue hugging whenever its needed.

Even in 5th grade, kids need a hug now and then, you just have to be careful that your not alone with the child when you do it. It's really sad, when you think about it. Fifth graders are only 10/11 and still very needy.

DGma, you keep hugging away. There are plenty of children out there who don't get enough hugs at home.

When I read all these posts that are fairly negative about children, my first thought is, "Weren't you a child at one time?"

Do you honestly expect children who are new to so many experiences to be quiet in their enthusiasm, who experience so many new emotions that they've never dealt with before to act like an adult who has, and who has never gone through the educational system or had numerous life experiences to show the same level of intelligence as someone who has?

If you are uncomfortable around children or choose not to have them, that's fine, but don't belittle them their existance because of yours.

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Even in 5th grade, kids need a hug now and then, you just have to be careful that your not alone with the child when you do it. It's really sad, when you think about it. Fifth graders are only 10/11 and still very needy.

DGma, you keep hugging away. There are plenty of children out there who don't get enough hugs at home.

When I read all these posts that are fairly negative about children, my first thought is, "Weren't you a child at one time?"
Do you honestly expect children who are new to so many experiences to be quiet in their enthusiasm, who experience so many new emotions that they've never dealt with before to act like an adult who has, and who has never gone through the educational system or had numerous life experiences to show the same level of intelligence as someone who has?

If you are uncomfortable around children or choose not to have them, that's fine, but don't belittle them their existance because of yours.

Exactly. Like I said . . . we all have to start somewhere. We're not born fully grown and wise (relatively speaking.)

[Alphapheemail]

I agree LadyB! Also, I feel like the people who genuinely love children should have kids as many as they want! As a matter of fact, i see nothing wrong with that poor woman "octo mom" she might be a bit off but she has her heart in the right place. I sometimes see girls in their early stage of life (17-20) with a kid or two and is completely miserable ( i sometimes think.. accident much?) and i feel for those women so much.


Here here to all the lovely mothers/fathers of MR :cheers:

And may the future parents be happy and merry and have one in my name! ( I'll even donate the first three rounds to get the party started hee hee)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Alphapheemail

when has the state ever produced any program that can back this up?

Sparta. Read your history books. It worked excellently, by all accounts.

[Alphapheemail]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sparta. Read your history books. It worked excellently, by all accounts.

i was speaking more as in 19th century till now. Sparta would never happen today. parents would sue and go in uproar for having to give up their autistic/disabled children to throw them off a cliff ( I am personally all for this but not as dramatic). Politicians would have lobbyists knocking at their door at all hours of the night because their companies can no longer medicate the disabled children that were thrown over the cliff...

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Only as stinky and stupid as the parents are.........

I dunno, my parents were clean and quite intelligent yet I can remember doing horrendously stupid things and ALWAYS trying to get out of baths as a child.

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by Alphapheemail

Also, I feel like the people who genuinely love children should have kids as many as they want!

As long as they can provide for them...

[HarryT]

But attitudes have certainly changed since the 19th century due to the dramatic decline in the child mortality rate. In early 19th century England, roughly 1 in 4 children died before reaching the age of 5. That meant, not that parents loved their children less of course, but it was certainly not considered a "calamity" to lose a child (as is probably the prevelant attitude today), but merely a fact of life that one had to accept. That's why the death of children is such a recurrent theme in 19th century literature, both adult and children's books. Pretty much every child would have had brothers or sisters who had died.

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by kazbates

When I read all these posts that are fairly negative about children, my first thought is, "Weren't you a child at one time?"

Do you honestly expect children who are new to so many experiences to be quiet in their enthusiasm, who experience so many new emotions that they've never dealt with before to act like an adult who has, and who has never gone through the educational system or had numerous life experiences to show the same level of intelligence as someone who has?

If you are uncomfortable around children or choose not to have them, that's fine, but don't belittle them their existance because of yours.

Puppy love and identity crises from teenage years are also quite stupid and worthy of poking fun at. In all honesty, if you don't realize the negatives of children, you have no business having them. If one decides the positives outweigh the negatives, then by all means do so, but don't begrudge our humorous look at the real world.

No one's saying it's their fault. We're all quite aware that we were just as horrendous as children as everyone else, but that doesn't change the facts about them.

[Alphapheemail]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But attitudes have certainly changed since the 19th century due to the dramatic decline in the child mortality rate. In early 19th century England, roughly 1 in 4 children died before reaching the age of 5. That meant, not that parents loved their children less of course, but it was certainly not considered a "calamity" to lose a child (as is probably the prevalent attitude today), but merely a fact of life that one had to accept. That's why the death of children is such a recurrent theme in 19th century literature, both adult and children's books. Pretty much every child would have had brothers or sisters who had died.

agreed. death is a natural part of life. the health care system is now going crazy trying to prevent conditions and extend peoples lives, which to me have always seemed unnatural. but dabbing into this topic will have people in an uproar due to my views on the sick and elderly.

but what i was referring to was more towards the state sponsored programs. ( it all started with the educational system in the late 19 th century (us)).
I am not a big conspiracy theorist. I just always feel that the good for the many (govt) is never for the good of the people.

e.j.
Home schooled children

[Angst]

Originally Posted by Alphapheemail

agreed. death is a natural part of life. the health care system is now going crazy trying to prevent conditions and extend peoples lives, which to me have always seemed unnatural. but dabbing into this topic will have people in an uproar due to my views on the sick and elderly.

but what i was referring to was more towards the state sponsored programs. ( it all started with the educational system in the late 19 th century (us)).
I am not a big conspiracy theorist. I just always feel that the good for the many (govt) is never for the good of the people.

Only in a capitalist society, the inability to pay for health care (or insurance) is a death sentence. But then poor people don't deserve to live.

[Ceili]

Originally Posted by Angst

Only in a capitalist society, the inability to pay for health care (or insurance) is a death sentence. But then poor people don't deserve to live.

In this society at least, the poor Do have Medicaid as an option, and in several states the Pre-Natal coverage is better than anything you could pay for (Mainly because due to a high infant mortality rate the states lose Government funding. It doesn't matter that the mortality rate may reflect one segment of the population, it affects all, so MA coverages pre natal, birth and the babies up to a year automatically, after that they have to apply for the babies, but most continue to qualify.)

The folks most hurt are the lower middle and middle classes. They don't qualify for any of the programs that might help them, nor can they (usually) afford private health insurance.


We might be able to afford to give everyone some kind of coverage... just look at what we spend in ER "routine care" families going to the ER 5 and 6 times a year because MD's don't want to accept MA as payment (they didn't seem to mind taking government money for those loans that will be extended for years until they're making the big bucks...hmmm)

I have a hard time reconciling "giving" everyone coverage if it's going to have any inpact on mine... mainly because I was raised to take care of myself, I chose a lousy paying civil service job because the benefits were much better than the ones offered by the private companies. If I were now going to lose these, it'd have to mean a pretty big jump in salary to make up for it all... otherwise, why bother? Sorry,

[Alphapheemail]

you literally stole it out of my mouth. and said it better.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by kad032000

Puppy love and identity crises from teenage years are also quite stupid and worthy of poking fun at. In all honesty, if you don't realize the negatives of children, you have no business having them. If one decides the positives outweigh the negatives, then by all means do so, but don't begrudge our humorous look at the real world.

No one's saying it's their fault. We're all quite aware that we were just as horrendous as children as everyone else, but that doesn't change the facts about them.

I think it's your use of the word, stupid, that I find objectionable. You are absolutely correct in saying that there are negatives associated with children, just as there are negatives associated with adults. I also agree with the use of humor when it is expressed in such a way that makes it clear that it is humor, nor do I have a problem with "poking fun" at something as long as that something has the ability to "poke back". Having said that, I thought it was necessary to point out the opposing view point. I don't believe all children are horrendous nor do I think that I was horrendous as a child. My children certainly had/have their moments, but none of those moments would I classify as horrendous. I'm sure my parents would be happy to point out the times when I was quite difficult in my formative years but they still love me, so, I can't think I was too much of a burden. The same goes for any of my three children. There are plenty of days when I have said, "I should have skipped over the first and only had the second and third," or some derivative of that statement. But, I have never actually meant it and enjoy all moments (good and bad) that I get to share with my children.