Babies.

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Babies.

Postby James Bond » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:26 pm

amyLAchemist wrote:I feel this way now, as my partner is much more interested in having kids than I am (I am still trying to work him down to only 1, and not 2. I already for him down from 5 (WWWTTFFF) to 2.), and I do truly hope I am like you once I have kid (preferably with no s). His dad is pushing him to have kids soon so he not "too old" when he has kids. His dad is also pushing me to do the same. They seemed to have given up on pushing us to get married, and have just skipped on to kids.

I agree with para - nygirl seems like she have a very good grasp on reality, family/work/life balance.


Anti-Marriage, Amy? Or just haven't gotten to it yet?

Oh and 2 is a much better idea than 1. I don't mean to insult you, since I just found out you were a single child, but in general single kids are spoiled and not well adjusted. Not that all are like that of course, but 2 is still better than 1.

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Babies.

Postby James Bond » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:27 pm

booyakasha wrote:ifmy hypothetical husband manages to talk me into kids, he won't be getting more than two .


2's what I want. I can understand 3 for other people I suppose. Any more is just ridiculous and sooooooo expensive.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby 12262010 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:30 pm

James Bond wrote:
booyakasha wrote:ifmy hypothetical husband manages to talk me into kids, he won't be getting more than two .


2's what I want. I can understand 3 for other people I suppose. Any more is just ridiculous and sooooooo expensive.


I agree... only children, generally, become maladjusted adults.

I'd be good with two boys.

heathbar88
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:11 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby heathbar88 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:33 pm

I just realized I'm the only woman on my mother's side of the family (and of my sisters) that hasn't had a kid by age 20...then again, my Mom's sure not complaining haha.

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Babies.

Postby James Bond » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:34 pm

heathbar88 wrote:I just realized I'm the only woman on my mother's side of the family (and of my sisters) that hasn't had a kid by age 20...then again, my Mom's sure not complaining haha.


:shock: by 20?

How many sisters do you have? I'm not shocked about your mom or grandma having kids by then...but in this day and age?

heathbar88
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:11 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby heathbar88 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:36 pm

2 sisters...one is 19 with 2 kids and one on the way. The other is 28..she has 2. (ALL GIRLS?! wtf)

:shock: I know.

angioletto
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby angioletto » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:43 pm

amyLAchemist wrote:
angioletto wrote:
amyLAchemist wrote:So something I gather from these articles is that the initial childbirth and having to take 3-4 weeks off to physically recover is not nearly as detrimental as the caregiving responsibilities afterwards. So in theory, if you are not the primary caregiver as a mom, then it wouldn't really hurt your career that badly? Does that seem valid?

*I am also going to be 29 when I graduate, and putting off having kids as long as my partner will tolerate/until I succumb to the pressure.


This is a problem with today's society - even if the mom works outside the home and the baby is in childcare the mom is STILL the primary caregiver. It's not like you have a baby and hand it off to someone else to raise. When your child is in someone else's care you are still sitting at your desk wondering if they are OK, on call if they get sick and feeling guilty for being away from your baby more than you are with him. You are still a mom when you are at work.

And 3-4 weeks to recover? Not quite. And it's worse if you have a c-section. And even after your body has healed it is not that easy to just jump back into your old ways again.


Wouldn't this be very different for women who 1) aren't as emotional, 2) don't view being a mom>having a great career, and 3) have full time, round the clock help (nanny, mother in law, stay at home dad, etc) so you don't have to leave work if your kid is sick or whatever? I was also basing the 3-4 weeks off of my half dozen friends who have had children, maybe that is not a representative sample (and I don't have any girlfriends who had C-sections, which yeah, I've heard is longer), I don't know. But that was what they took before they went back. Given, they all tend to be in the situation described above.

My dad raised me as a single father (mother out of the picture) who worked very long hours and has a very successful career. And he never left work if I was sick, since I had a live-in nanny. I think that experience might also be skewing my view.


1. This isn't being overly emotional. Any normal mom thinks about/worries about their child often.

2. If you don't think being a mom will be > having a career then DON'T HAVE KIDS. Please. Any child deserves to be the greatest thing in their parents' lives. If your job will be #1 then you really shouldn't have kids.

3. I guess this goes along with #2 - even if someone else is WILLING to be there when your child is sick YOU are the mother and you should WANT to be there to comfort them and care for them when they are sick. I can guarantee that the first thing a child cries for when they are sick or hurt is their mommy. Even my niece whose mom died when she was 1 year old cries for mommy when she gets hurt. Sure, a live-in nanny can do the job, but if you are going to let someone else raise your child and do all the important things WHY HAVE KIDS AT ALL??

User avatar
jayn3
Posts: 667
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby jayn3 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:44 pm

amyLAchemist wrote:I love being an only child, but I think it has contributed to my hermitting tendencies.


soo true. i'm not an only child but my sister was so much older that i may as well have been. seeing people who are close with their siblings makes me insanely envious.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby 12262010 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:49 pm

angioletto wrote:1. This isn't being overly emotional. Any normal mom thinks about/worries about their child often.

2. If you don't think being a mom will be > having a career then DON'T HAVE KIDS. Please. Any child deserves to be the greatest thing in their parents' lives. If your job will be #1 then you really shouldn't have kids.

3. I guess this goes along with #2 - even if someone else is WILLING to be there when your child is sick YOU are the mother and you should WANT to be there to comfort them and care for them when they are sick. I can guarantee that the first thing a child cries for when they are sick or hurt is their mommy. Even my niece whose mom died when she was 1 year old cries for mommy when she gets hurt. Sure, a live-in nanny can do the job, but if you are going to let someone else raise your child and do all the important things WHY HAVE KIDS AT ALL??


thanks for the broad generalizations.

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Babies.

Postby James Bond » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:53 pm

amyLAchemist wrote:No, just anti-long-distance marriage. I am cool with it, and even welcome it, once we are living in the same place, which is not now and not for a few years. We've been together 4 years, so marriage any time is OK with me given no long distance


ICK...thats miserable :?

angioletto
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby angioletto » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:57 pm

booyakasha wrote:
angioletto wrote:1. This isn't being overly emotional. Any normal mom thinks about/worries about their child often.

2. If you don't think being a mom will be > having a career then DON'T HAVE KIDS. Please. Any child deserves to be the greatest thing in their parents' lives. If your job will be #1 then you really shouldn't have kids.

3. I guess this goes along with #2 - even if someone else is WILLING to be there when your child is sick YOU are the mother and you should WANT to be there to comfort them and care for them when they are sick. I can guarantee that the first thing a child cries for when they are sick or hurt is their mommy. Even my niece whose mom died when she was 1 year old cries for mommy when she gets hurt. Sure, a live-in nanny can do the job, but if you are going to let someone else raise your child and do all the important things WHY HAVE KIDS AT ALL??


thanks for the broad generalizations.


Only when appropriate.

User avatar
UFstudent
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Babies.

Postby UFstudent » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:20 pm

Never really wanted kids till I thought about when I'd have time/money to actually have them I'll be too old. I graduate law school at 30 and I am currently very single.
If I adopt I'm gonna buy American! :lol:

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby jmhendri » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:21 pm

UFstudent wrote:Never really wanted kids till I thought about when I'd have time/money to actually have them I'll be too old. I graduate law school at 30 and I am currently very single.
If I adopt I'm gonna buy American! :lol:



why?

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:30 pm

angioletto wrote:1. This isn't being overly emotional. Any normal mom thinks about/worries about their child often.

2. If you don't think being a mom will be > having a career then DON'T HAVE KIDS. Please. Any child deserves to be the greatest thing in their parents' lives. If your job will be #1 then you really shouldn't have kids.

3. I guess this goes along with #2 - even if someone else is WILLING to be there when your child is sick YOU are the mother and you should WANT to be there to comfort them and care for them when they are sick. I can guarantee that the first thing a child cries for when they are sick or hurt is their mommy. Even my niece whose mom died when she was 1 year old cries for mommy when she gets hurt. Sure, a live-in nanny can do the job, but if you are going to let someone else raise your child and do all the important things WHY HAVE KIDS AT ALL??



So true. It's sad that this is what the world has come to, where people say they "want" kids but then choose their career over them. Why have kids if you're going to have someone else raise them? Seriously, this hyper-feminism stuff has seriously grown out of control. I'm all for equal treatment of women, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a career, have one. If you want kids, have them. But know that having both (without a dedicated stay-at-home significant other) is reckless and irresponsible.

Miniver
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:13 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby Miniver » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:33 pm

jhare wrote:Seriously, this hyper-feminism stuff has seriously grown out of control.

Oh, boy. Here we go.

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:34 pm

jhare wrote:
angioletto wrote:1. This isn't being overly emotional. Any normal mom thinks about/worries about their child often.

2. If you don't think being a mom will be > having a career then DON'T HAVE KIDS. Please. Any child deserves to be the greatest thing in their parents' lives. If your job will be #1 then you really shouldn't have kids.

3. I guess this goes along with #2 - even if someone else is WILLING to be there when your child is sick YOU are the mother and you should WANT to be there to comfort them and care for them when they are sick. I can guarantee that the first thing a child cries for when they are sick or hurt is their mommy. Even my niece whose mom died when she was 1 year old cries for mommy when she gets hurt. Sure, a live-in nanny can do the job, but if you are going to let someone else raise your child and do all the important things WHY HAVE KIDS AT ALL??



So true. It's sad that this is what the world has come to, where people say they "want" kids but then choose their career over them. Why have kids if you're going to have someone else raise them? Seriously, this hyper-feminism stuff has seriously grown out of control. I'm all for equal treatment of women, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a career, have one. If you want kids, have them. But know that having both (without a dedicated stay-at-home significant other) is reckless and irresponsible.


Go tell your woman to get back in the kitchen. :roll:

User avatar
UFstudent
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Babies.

Postby UFstudent » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:34 pm

jmhendri wrote:
UFstudent wrote:Never really wanted kids till I thought about when I'd have time/money to actually have them I'll be too old. I graduate law school at 30 and I am currently very single.
If I adopt I'm gonna buy American! :lol:



why?


Well adopting American is good for the community. Children that grow up in a loving home are far better off than children that bounce from group homes to foster homes. Tax dollars go to support children of the state, so why not lower that tax bill for the community by adopting American? We have enough diversity in this country that you could still have a baby of ethnicity preference ( if thats a factor).

Economically speaking buying American will also add to the GDP.

Socially speaking there is a possibility that an adopted child will grow up with a better morale compass than a foster child. Thereby lowering crime, hopefully.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:36 pm

chicagolaw2013 wrote:
Go tell your woman to get back in the kitchen. :roll:



wow, great argument.

User avatar
nygrrrl
Posts: 4948
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Babies.

Postby nygrrrl » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:37 pm

jhare wrote:Seriously, this hyper-feminism stuff has seriously grown out of control. I'm all for equal treatment of women, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a career, have one. If you want kids, have them. But know that having both (without a dedicated stay-at-home significant other) is reckless and irresponsible.

Because, you know, it's ok for guys to have kids and careers because... wait, why is that again?

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:39 pm

UFstudent wrote:
Socially speaking there is a possibility that an adopted child will grow up with a better morale compass than a foster child. Thereby lowering crime, hopefully.



Probably because the child is raised by a family unit, as opposed to piecemeal families/day care workers/nannies/boarding schools.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby jmhendri » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:39 pm

nygrrrl wrote:
jhare wrote:Seriously, this hyper-feminism stuff has seriously grown out of control. I'm all for equal treatment of women, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a career, have one. If you want kids, have them. But know that having both (without a dedicated stay-at-home significant other) is reckless and irresponsible.

Because, you know, it's ok for guys to have kids and careers because... wait, why is that again?



House man FTW!!!

User avatar
UFstudent
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Babies.

Postby UFstudent » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:39 pm

booyakasha wrote:
James Bond wrote:
booyakasha wrote:ifmy hypothetical husband manages to talk me into kids, he won't be getting more than two .


2's what I want. I can understand 3 for other people I suppose. Any more is just ridiculous and sooooooo expensive.


I agree... only children, generally, become maladjusted adults.

I'd be good with two boys.


Only children do just fine.

"Falbo and Polit (1986) conducted six meta-analyses of studies that
had been done with children in order to examine the only child.
A better relationship with parents and a better developmental outcome
were also found to be traits of only children. The areas of
achievement, intelligence and character for only borns were above
their peers who had siblings."

User avatar
doyleoil
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:59 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby doyleoil » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:42 pm

UFstudent wrote:
booyakasha wrote:
James Bond wrote:
booyakasha wrote:ifmy hypothetical husband manages to talk me into kids, he won't be getting more than two .


2's what I want. I can understand 3 for other people I suppose. Any more is just ridiculous and sooooooo expensive.


I agree... only children, generally, become maladjusted adults.

I'd be good with two boys.


Only children do just fine.

"Falbo and Polit (1986) conducted six meta-analyses of studies that
had been done with children in order to examine the only child.
A better relationship with parents and a better developmental outcome
were also found to be traits of only children. The areas of
achievement, intelligence and character for only borns were above
their peers who had siblings."


i don't know who this falbo is - not sure about polit either - but they sound stupid

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:43 pm

nygrrrl wrote:
jhare wrote:Seriously, this hyper-feminism stuff has seriously grown out of control. I'm all for equal treatment of women, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a career, have one. If you want kids, have them. But know that having both (without a dedicated stay-at-home significant other) is reckless and irresponsible.

Because, you know, it's ok for guys to have kids and careers because... wait, why is that again?


Huh? I think I understand what you're saying, and my argument isn't about sexes. I'm looking at this from outside that viewpoint. Whether it's a working mom and stay at home dad, working dad and stay at home mom, working dad and stay at home dad (if that's what you prefer), or even if the parents decide to choose careers that are accommodating to having children, etc; my argument is that a child needs a PARENT to raise them, not day care workers/ nannies/ boarding schools.

User avatar
Merr
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:55 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby Merr » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:48 pm

jmhendri wrote:
nygrrrl wrote:
jhare wrote:Seriously, this hyper-feminism stuff has seriously grown out of control. I'm all for equal treatment of women, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a career, have one. If you want kids, have them. But know that having both (without a dedicated stay-at-home significant other) is reckless and irresponsible.

Because, you know, it's ok for guys to have kids and careers because... wait, why is that again?



House man FTW!!!


Hey, I wouldn't mind being a stay at home dad, but I guess I am the exception. :mrgreen:




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LawHammer, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests