My Dad once said that nothing could be more personal than the decision about whether or how many kids to have. And he was right.

"* having a 'spare' (if number one turns out to be a turd)"

That was a really, really stupid and tactless way to phrase an ugly thought which lots of people have probably had anyway in some form or another.

Recently I told someone I planned to adopt 3 cats and she said "why 3?" I said I was tired of going through the experience of my one and only furry friend dying.

I don't know if that's related, but AskMe isn't the place to talk someone straight on a subject like this.

"wilful, my disdain for that statement cannot be overstated."

Yeah, well, stating your disdain for the question in the question thread may not be OVERstating it, but it's the wrong place to state it. I'd let it go.

On further thought, by "turns out to be a turd" he could mean lots of things. He could mean "is born developmentally disabled," in which case he'd be a total ass. Or he could mean "grows up to be a republican," in which case he might still love the kid but be glad to have more than one. You never know. It was one bullet point in a list, and tactlessly phrased. You don't need to impugn his worthiness to be a parent.

scarabic, thanks for your thoughts. As I wrote in the thread, that statement really struck a chord with me. Maybe because some aspects of it strike pretty close to home.

I understand. The right brood size for this person is probably zero, when all is said and done.

I think you're being a bit overdramatic, yeah. This insistence that everyone has to have the proper emotions on certain subjects all the time is very irritating.

Plus this idea that you can completely dismiss an entire person as a parent (an extremely insulting thing to do) based on one off-hand jokey comment is absurd. Excepting extreme cases (like: "I enjoy having sex with children under 6" or "Yeah she dumped me but at least I got in a few good beatings first"). I don't think his comment qualifies, or even comes close to approaching that standard.

That was a really, really stupid and tactless way to phrase an ugly thought which lots of people have probably had anyway in some form or another.

It was a failed attempt at levity, but I don't know if the underlying thought is really that ugly. Whether or not childbearing is, or should be, a completely selfless act is, I think, a perfectly valid discussion. Just to pick a random scenario: a couple may want to ensure a family of a certain size so that, when they are elderly, they are surrounded by a large, tight-knit family. Having more than one child would be necessary just in case one or more of the children didn't want to or couldn't fulfill their role in the larger family. That child wouldn't deserve scorn or any less love than the other children, but I don't see why the parents should be faulted for considering the possibility ahead of time and planning accordingly.

Anyway, I hope that was the spirit of the comment. Though his comment about his brother is tough to interpret.

My wife and I have joked about wanting two kids so we'd have a spare. Maybe this means you hate me now, fenriq, but there you have it. I don't think the comment was horrible.

That thread is getting on my nerves, too, for a different reason- do the arrognat, self-important "Child Free" (as opposed to all the nice folks who don't have kids, for one reason or another) have to shit in every thread about having kids? "Having kids is selfish given the state of the world" and blah blah blah blah on and on and on. NOBODY CARES.

I thought the poster's comment was mostly a joke... until he stood up for himself. If it was purely a joke, fine. But I ended up feeling uncomfortable and now think the guy is a jerk.

So no, I don't think your comments were outrageous.

Having a spare kid or two to swap in for any duds is nice and all, but prospective parents should have a scratch kid to practice on first before they start in on the real ones.

This is what my parents told me when I had to wait until 18 before getting my driver's licence, while my 16-year old brothers were able to get theirs immediately after I'd passed my test. It was wise then and is still wse today. Only I'd sell the sratch kid for scientific experiments to pay for colledge for the real ones.

Damn, I musta had my third-world- or nineteenth-century-hat on, because my first thought was that the spare would be in case of death; reasonable thoughts in some places/times are unacceptable in others. But when it comes to designating a living child a "dud," I agree; that's a pretty rough decision for a parent to make. I'm more of a nurture than a nature kinda thinker, and I think most parents who designate a child a "dud" make (or have already made) them "duds" themselves. That's unacceptable to my way of thinking. But I'm not a parent and I've never given up on a child, so I'm not the expert here.

I'm more of a nurture than a nature kinda thinker, and I think most parents who designate a child a "dud" make (or have already made) them "duds" themselves. That's unacceptable to my way of thinking.

I agree. That part of the question was cruel. What happens to a child that displeases this person? That anyone might have a child and think, "Let's wait and see" or, "I can take this kid or leave it" is horrible.

I grew up in a low-income neighborhood and I saw parents give up on kids all the time. These kids just wanted someone to love them. That's not a feeling that only "good" kids have.

In my mind, I always wanted more than one kid, and the strange thing is that my fear was always if something happened to your one, then you wouldn't have any. I scared myself one night in my late teens, driving home from a concert with my brother in my truck beside me. I was getting sleepy, and it suddenly occured to me that if we were to crash, my mom wouldn't have any kids left. I guess that haunted me so much that I couldn't stand the thought of only one kid.
And I wanted to have four, until I actually started having them. Not the actual having them (for me, pregnancy and birth were a breeze) but the affording them. So I stopped at two, then met a man with three. So now I have four, which is what I always wanted in the first place. (One has chosen not to live with us, the other two asked to live with us).
So maybe he said the "spare" comment the wrong way, or maybe he did mean it the way he said. I don't know. I just know I would be devestated with even one less.


But with one more, I'd have to off myself. I'm not that crazy.

WHATEVER. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE KIDS. IT'S SELFISH GIVEN THE STATE OF THE WORLD. BLAHBLAHBLAH.