This is now officially my number one all time favourite:
"if you didn't realize how much having a kid is, then you shouldn't have had one."
You don't like responsibility do you?
Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.
Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.
Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.
Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.
I think this Moving train must be traveling through a tunnel right now because all I'm seeing here at the moment is noise and pollution.
Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.
Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.
I think this Moving train must be traveling through a tunnel right now because all I'm seeing here at the moment is noise and pollution.
So you don't agree with my post either?
Are you saying that people should be able to have kids and cost shouldn't be a factor? If that's the case, I understand and wish it was the case, but it's the real world. And even if you have free health care to have the kid and for the kid's entire life...it take some $.
Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.
Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.
i don't think the issue is not knowing the cost ... it's how much it ACTUALLY does cost ...
it's like i told you it was gonna cost $50 to cross the street to go to a job ... i think OP was saying it's unbelievable that it should cost that much ...
Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.
Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.
i don't think the issue is not knowing the cost ... it's how much it ACTUALLY does cost ...
it's like i told you it was gonna cost $50 to cross the street to go to a job ... i think OP was saying it's unbelievable that it should cost that much ...
Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.
Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.
well fuck me. I really started something here. All of the assumptions (Cincy, Jlew) that are made are extremely frustrating. You don't know my situation and I would appreciate it if you stop telling me and Byrnzie that it is "irresponsible" to have kids if money is a concern. I never said that we can't afford it or that I "didn't know how much it costs"... just that it is going to take awhile to pay for all the bills and that I'm lucky my employer stepped up and got Blue Cross to stop it with the "pre-existing condition" shit (I switched employers right about the time we found out she was preggo). Certainly, our health care system isn't perfect if it costs me $4,200 to have a child and my parents paid less than $100 to have me in 1980... don't you think?
And why would you assume we were having unprotected sex? The sort of contraception we use is less than 100% effective and my wife can't take the pill because of... personal reasons. Should we be abstinent if we aren't trying to have kids then? That might be the ONLY option for some of you but certainly not for me.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.
Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.
well fuck me. I really started something here. All of the assumptions (Cincy, Jlew) that are made are extremely frustrating. You don't know my situation and I would appreciate it if you stop telling me and Byrnzie that it is "irresponsible" to have kids if money is a concern. I never said that we can't afford it or that I "didn't know how much it costs"... just that it is going to take awhile to pay for all the bills and that I'm lucky my employer stepped up and got Blue Cross to stop it with the "pre-existing condition" shit (I switched employers right about the time we found out she was preggo). Certainly, our health care system isn't perfect if it costs me $4,200 to have a child and my parents paid less than $100 to have me in 1980... don't you think?
And why would you assume we were having unprotected sex? The sort of contraception we use is less than 100% effective and my wife can't take the pill because of... personal reasons. Should we be abstinent if we aren't trying to have kids then? That might be the ONLY option for some of you but certainly not for me.
I wasn't refering to you in anyway...that's why it's on this thread instead of the other thread. I was just saying I don't think it's a terrible statement to say that if you can't afford a kid you shouldn't be having unprotected sex, just in general. I have no idea what your circumstances are/were/will be. And I already said (responding to Polaris) that I missed the point of you comment in the other thread.
[And why would you assume we were having unprotected sex? The sort of contraception we use is less than 100% effective and my wife can't take the pill because of... personal reasons. Should we be abstinent if we aren't trying to have kids then? That might be the ONLY option for some of you but certainly not for me.
Did you actually read my post? If not do so again. I understand things are misread sometimes, as I did with the other thread about this discussion.
Why does everyone think a post is about a specific situation. If it were, I'd have posted it in the other thread.
I wasn't refering to you in anyway...that's why it's on this thread instead of the other thread. I was just saying I don't think it's a terrible statement to say that if you can't afford a kid you shouldn't be having unprotected sex, just in general. I have no idea what your circumstances are/were/will be. And I already said (responding to Polaris) that I missed the point of you comment in the other thread.
That is a fair statement. My only problem with that is it would basically preclude anyone making less than $50k USD from ever having a child.
My apologies if I came across as attacking you.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
I wasn't refering to you in anyway...that's why it's on this thread instead of the other thread. I was just saying I don't think it's a terrible statement to say that if you can't afford a kid you shouldn't be having unprotected sex, just in general. I have no idea what your circumstances are/were/will be. And I already said (responding to Polaris) that I missed the point of you comment in the other thread.
That is a fair statement. My only problem with that is it would basically preclude anyone making less than $50k USD from ever having a child.
My apologies if I came across as attacking you.
No worries. I'm learning that I may have become lazy in my postings as it seems they are not coming off as I intend.
Again, it's me who is sorry for the confusion if you thought I was directing it at you or your situation at all. Enjoy the kid...truly the hardest and greatest thing you will ever be involved in.
Telling someone what should be common sense - ie that you should know the costs before you have the child - is not slamming them.
Telling someone something that, as you phrase it, is common sense depends on the assumption that the person you're speaking to doesn't know common sense and is condescending. does that really have to be explained?
Telling someone what should be common sense - ie that you should know the costs before you have the child - is not slamming them.
I did know the costs. I knew it would be ridiculously expensive and would take me a long time to pay off. It was a simple example of how health care costs have inflated to ridiculous levels to showcase my opinion that reform of some sort is needed.
Then someone threw in this whole argument about how I didn't know what the costs were and I shouldn't have had the child and I was IRRESPONSIBLE for having a child. Casting judgement on someone based on false assumptions is tolerated here? Do we live in the middle-ages?
Most importantly, I have a newborn baby and am so damn proud of that boy, I've never been so happy in my life... and it has been suggested that I'd be better off without him because financially we will struggle to get by in the short-term (don't all new parents???). That is so sickening to me...
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Telling someone what should be common sense - ie that you should know the costs before you have the child - is not slamming them.
Telling someone something that, as you phrase it, is common sense depends on the assumption that the person you're speaking to doesn't know common sense and is condescending. does that really have to be explained?
I'd be careful going down the "condescending" road here...as the people complaining in this thread have been pretty consistantly condescending in their posts.
Telling someone what should be common sense - ie that you should know the costs before you have the child - is not slamming them.
Telling someone something that, as you phrase it, is common sense depends on the assumption that the person you're speaking to doesn't know common sense and is condescending. does that really have to be explained?
I'd be careful going down the "condescending" road here...as the people complaining in this thread have been pretty consistantly condescending in their posts.
what do the people in this thread being condescending have to do with what I said? know1 is pretending as if "telling someone what should be common sense" is fine... I disagreed. I never claimed anything else.
Telling someone something that, as you phrase it, is common sense depends on the assumption that the person you're speaking to doesn't know common sense and is condescending. does that really have to be explained?
I'd be careful going down the "condescending" road here...as the people complaining in this thread have been pretty consistantly condescending in their posts.
what do the people in this thread being condescending have to do with what I said? know1 is pretending as if "telling someone what should be common sense" is fine... I disagreed. I never claimed anything else.
I did know the costs. I knew it would be ridiculously expensive and would take me a long time to pay off. It was a simple example of how health care costs have inflated to ridiculous levels to showcase my opinion that reform of some sort is needed....
you bought your child on credit??? i got mine for free.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Telling someone what should be common sense - ie that you should know the costs before you have the child - is not slamming them.
I imagine it would be convenient for some people if everything in life resembled a balance sheet. Fortunately though, it doesn't.
That isn't my point and the statement doesn't even have to be about the cost of raising a child.
All I'm saying is there's a big difference between directly insulting someone: i.e. "You are an idiot"
and making a statement about doing something one way or another. The statement could have been: "It's good to look both ways before crossing the street" to someone who was nearly hit by a car.
Is the latter statement insulting to the person nearly hit by the car? If so, then they are just looking to be insulted when really the other person is just disagreeing with them on an opinion about life.
I happen to think that it's wise to know the costs and consequences of your actions. If I make that statement to someone and they disagree, it is not a personal insult like directly calling them a derogatory name.
sheesh...it's no wonder society is so antagonistic these days. People just want to be offended and disagreeable.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Telling someone what should be common sense - ie that you should know the costs before you have the child - is not slamming them.
I imagine it would be convenient for some people if everything in life resembled a balance sheet. Fortunately though, it doesn't.
That isn't my point and the statement doesn't even have to be about the cost of raising a child.
All I'm saying is there's a big difference between directly insulting someone: i.e. "You are an idiot"
and making a statement about doing something one way or another. The statement could have been: "It's good to look both ways before crossing the street" to someone who was nearly hit by a car.
Is the latter statement insulting to the person nearly hit by the car? If so, then they are just looking to be insulted when really the other person is just disagreeing with them on an opinion about life.
I happen to think that it's wise to know the costs and consequences of your actions. If I make that statement to someone and they disagree, it is not a personal insult like directly calling them a derogatory name.
sheesh...it's no wonder society is so antagonistic these days. People just want to be offended and disagreeable.
This was the statement in question: "if you didn't realize how much having a kid is, then you shouldn't have had one."
There's ways to word things, and ways not to word things. The lack of respect shown in the above statement just goes hand-in-hand with the rest of the crap I listed in the O.P.
Comments
i can agree with that.
Beware of the moving train. It can hit you like a ton of bricks. Must have skin two feet think to post here.
context...I'm saying it shouldn't be that way tho. Without the mudslinging, normal human skin should suffice
But I’m glad there’s people that say it should be.
Two feet thick is a PJ reference, no?
"if you didn't realize how much having a kid is, then you shouldn't have had one."
You don't like responsibility do you?
Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.
Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.
I think this Moving train must be traveling through a tunnel right now because all I'm seeing here at the moment is noise and pollution.
So you don't agree with my post either?
Are you saying that people should be able to have kids and cost shouldn't be a factor? If that's the case, I understand and wish it was the case, but it's the real world. And even if you have free health care to have the kid and for the kid's entire life...it take some $.
i don't think the issue is not knowing the cost ... it's how much it ACTUALLY does cost ...
it's like i told you it was gonna cost $50 to cross the street to go to a job ... i think OP was saying it's unbelievable that it should cost that much ...
Oh, ok, gotcha. I must have misunderstood.
well fuck me. I really started something here. All of the assumptions (Cincy, Jlew) that are made are extremely frustrating. You don't know my situation and I would appreciate it if you stop telling me and Byrnzie that it is "irresponsible" to have kids if money is a concern. I never said that we can't afford it or that I "didn't know how much it costs"... just that it is going to take awhile to pay for all the bills and that I'm lucky my employer stepped up and got Blue Cross to stop it with the "pre-existing condition" shit (I switched employers right about the time we found out she was preggo). Certainly, our health care system isn't perfect if it costs me $4,200 to have a child and my parents paid less than $100 to have me in 1980... don't you think?
And why would you assume we were having unprotected sex? The sort of contraception we use is less than 100% effective and my wife can't take the pill because of... personal reasons. Should we be abstinent if we aren't trying to have kids then? That might be the ONLY option for some of you but certainly not for me.
I wasn't refering to you in anyway...that's why it's on this thread instead of the other thread. I was just saying I don't think it's a terrible statement to say that if you can't afford a kid you shouldn't be having unprotected sex, just in general. I have no idea what your circumstances are/were/will be. And I already said (responding to Polaris) that I missed the point of you comment in the other thread.
Did you actually read my post? If not do so again. I understand things are misread sometimes, as I did with the other thread about this discussion.
Why does everyone think a post is about a specific situation. If it were, I'd have posted it in the other thread.
That is a fair statement. My only problem with that is it would basically preclude anyone making less than $50k USD from ever having a child.
My apologies if I came across as attacking you.
No worries. I'm learning that I may have become lazy in my postings as it seems they are not coming off as I intend.
Again, it's me who is sorry for the confusion if you thought I was directing it at you or your situation at all. Enjoy the kid...truly the hardest and greatest thing you will ever be involved in.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Contextually it was (confrontational and divisive), at least to the person on the receiving end
Then I guess we shouldn't even speak or write.
Telling someone what should be common sense - ie that you should know the costs before you have the child - is not slamming them.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I did know the costs. I knew it would be ridiculously expensive and would take me a long time to pay off. It was a simple example of how health care costs have inflated to ridiculous levels to showcase my opinion that reform of some sort is needed.
Then someone threw in this whole argument about how I didn't know what the costs were and I shouldn't have had the child and I was IRRESPONSIBLE for having a child. Casting judgement on someone based on false assumptions is tolerated here? Do we live in the middle-ages?
Most importantly, I have a newborn baby and am so damn proud of that boy, I've never been so happy in my life... and it has been suggested that I'd be better off without him because financially we will struggle to get by in the short-term (don't all new parents???). That is so sickening to me...
I'd be careful going down the "condescending" road here...as the people complaining in this thread have been pretty consistantly condescending in their posts.
You disagreed because it "is condescending", no?
I imagine it would be convenient for some people if everything in life resembled a balance sheet. Fortunately though, it doesn't.
i'll pack them with the boxer briefs for you! woohoo! free shipping.
yes, i know. i'm awesome.
carry on.
you bought your child on credit??? i got mine for free.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That isn't my point and the statement doesn't even have to be about the cost of raising a child.
All I'm saying is there's a big difference between directly insulting someone: i.e. "You are an idiot"
and making a statement about doing something one way or another. The statement could have been: "It's good to look both ways before crossing the street" to someone who was nearly hit by a car.
Is the latter statement insulting to the person nearly hit by the car? If so, then they are just looking to be insulted when really the other person is just disagreeing with them on an opinion about life.
I happen to think that it's wise to know the costs and consequences of your actions. If I make that statement to someone and they disagree, it is not a personal insult like directly calling them a derogatory name.
sheesh...it's no wonder society is so antagonistic these days. People just want to be offended and disagreeable.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
This was the statement in question: "if you didn't realize how much having a kid is, then you shouldn't have had one."
There's ways to word things, and ways not to word things. The lack of respect shown in the above statement just goes hand-in-hand with the rest of the crap I listed in the O.P.
release her.
have you any idea what's it like to be a fem-bot living in a man-bot's man-puter?