Reply to Why are people more sympathetic to Lindsay Clancy than Andrea Yates? (Child death mentioned)

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Why are people more sympathetic to Lindsay Clancy than Andrea Yates? (Child death mentioned)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why have 3 kids?  I have not seen any mom (unless they are wealthy like Hilaria Baldwin or Kim K) who don't start losing it after two kids.

3 is super hard and no one else wants to look after your kid either. This is not a society where women have a village to raise their kids.  You are seriously screwed if you have 3 kids. In our circle the only people who have had 3 kids were people whose second pregnancy resulted in twins. And the moment you hear "twins" for a second pregnancy, you start to feel bad for them because more than 2 kids is chaos.[/quote]

In DC where everyone has purposely moved here, away from their families of origin, what you’re saying is correct.

[b]Most people in the US live where they grew up and have family around[/b]. [/quote]

How do you know this? I don’t think it’s true.[/quote]
[b]It’s an incredibly tough time to raise a family. There are so many factors to now consider that past generations never had to face. [/b]No one is really prepared to become a parent but like all jobs, certain qualities should be required. Not everyone is meant to be, nor should become, a parent, and we need to be able to recognize and accept this. [/quote]

Choose to have kids or don’t (EVERYONE should have that choice), but the bolded is bullcrap. Your ancestors faced war, famine, discrimination, poverty, tiny living spaces, no air conditioning, pandemics, pollution, lack of proper sanitation, fires AND raised boatloads of kids, doing so with little formal education at a young age. We are far more prosperous today, and the most fortunate among us are choosing to have small families than ever before, in much larger homes than 100 years ago. Which is fine! 
[/quote]

DP.  I think you are misinterpreting your positive factors.  Because life is so easy, we are unable to cope with the lack of real adversity.  [b]I do think it's a very difficult time to have a family now[/b].  But you won't admit that.[/quote]

Genuinely asking, why? 
[/quote]
Hmmm, social media, two parents working full time, [b]lack of community/social network and support,[/b] transient neighborhoods, lack of extended family, lack of money, lack of life experience,[b] culture where everyone’s a winner,[/b] fear of failure, etc.[/quote]

LOL.

Complaining about “two parents working full time.” Hmm. Maybe dad should stay at home? Somehow I don’t think that’s what you meant.

I can assure you people in the past had far less life experience and less money when having kids than people do today. Throughout history, the poorest people have had the most kids. Lack of money isn’t stopping anyone from having a family if they that’s what they want, nor has it ever. My grandparents put multiple kids of mixed genders in the same bedroom.

The bolded are in contradiction with each other.

Get off social media and move back to your hometown. What’s stopping you? 
[/quote]

Well that’s true. But parenting back then was beating your kid and teaching him or her to farm. Plus, early death was frequent.

We’re as safe as we’ve ever been physically, but that can’t save us from mental anguish. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics