wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Kids Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Spring in Action this week in the Spring forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Kids" Watch "Kids" New topic
Author

Kids

kayal cox
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 376
Below are three questions, for which I know there is no one single right answer, but I would really like to get an idea of people's experiences, their observations of families around them etc.

1. If a couple decide to have kids, should they just stop with one (which means that the parents can provide the best of everything) or should they have more than one (the kid might not have the best of everything, there might be hand-me-downs, but there is more companionship, and all the benefits that brings)

2. If somebody decides to have two kids, how far apart should the kids be. My brother is 8 years younger than me. Since I am quite a bit older, but still not a parent, he gets my advice and guidance on various issues very frankly, but at the same time I am not really in his age group, and there is a minor generation difference.

3. If someone plans to have a boy and girl (dont ask me how they can plan the sex, maybe they are just gonna adopt), does it make any kind of a difference which one is first?
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 1071
As a parent of one child here are my answers.

1) I would probably say having more than one child is better for the children. This does not mean that only having one child is bad, and of course this is just my opinion. I don't think it is bad for a child to not get all the good stuff (with the exception of things like education). It is beneficial to a child to understand that they can't just have whatever they want all the time. Even with my one child I set boundaries, he has a modest allowance and has to afford his own things (by this I mean toys, games, ect..). Of course grandma is forever thwarting these efforts.

As a child my parents were pretty poor (I was the mistake when they were 17) so I did without alot, and I'm actually glad for much of it. Sure it would have been nice to have lots of cool new stuff, but I find I can deal with just about anything these days in part to my upbringing.

2) I have a sister that is 3 years younger than me, and a brother that is 11 years younger than me. I would say 3 is pretty good, but 11 is a bit much. I don't think it is that critical.

3) If I were able to choose the order I would probably go boy then girl, mainly because I'm a dad and I like the idea of having a slightly older brother I can leverage for protection from interested boys.
kayal cox
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 376
If I were able to choose the order I would probably go boy then girl, mainly because I'm a dad and I like the idea of having a slightly older brother I can leverage for protection from interested boys


I hear the same reasoning from many other parents too..
Alan Wanwierd
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 624


1. If a couple decide to have kids, should they just stop with one (which means that the parents can provide the best of everything) or should they have more than one (the kid might not have the best of everything, there might be hand-me-downs, but there is more companionship, and all the benefits that brings)



Having 1 kid (now 11 mnths old) - We are in the middle of this debate at home! - The question (for us) is not so much 1 or more but small or big family - I'm of the opinion that 2 kids is the right size for us and balances out the companionship of having siblings vs competition for resources (both finanical and emotional) - My wife however, comes from a larger family and likes the idea of at least 3 kids. Only time will tell who wins the argument!


2. If somebody decides to have two kids, how far apart should the kids be. My brother is 8 years younger than me. Since I am quite a bit older, but still not a parent, he gets my advice and guidance on various issues very frankly, but at the same time I am not really in his age group, and there is a minor generation difference.


In the interests of decreasing cost and getting best practice efficiency, maximum re-use of equipment, clothes and shared toys - having kids as close together as possible must be a good idea (driving 2 kids to same daycare centre, then same school etc etc is gonna be easier than driving one to infant daycare and the other to after school soccer for example). Kids closer in age are also more likely to form strong friendship bonds than those seperated by a large gap.

However, if kids are sufficiently spaced apart then perhaps the older sibling is able to assist with care giving in some cases (or at least understand enough to get out of the way when theres a fully-fledged toddler tantrum going on!) - and perhaps a benefit from a female perspective we could consider that having kids further apart gives the body more time to recover from pregnancy and childbirth before going through the whole thing again!

I think the increasing trend for women getting older before having first children is bound to have 2 effects:
a) More single children families - With the average age of first time mothers drifting to the wrong side of 30 the changes of women remaining fertile long enough to have a second child are dramatically reduced (and thats without considering whether or not a second child is desired)
b) Families are likely to me more "compressed" as people rush to squeeze in 2 or more kids before its "too late", so instead of having kids when they are 23 and 27, a typical 2 child family may have kids when mum is aged 30 and 32

What effect this will have on society is yet to be determined - previously it had been suggested that only children have an increased tendency to be self-centred than those with siblings, but its hard (and horrific) to imagine society becoming even more self centred than it currently is!
Roger Nelson
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 21, 2002
Posts: 95
I think.....
one kid is about economic planning.
two kids is about family planning.
And three kids is about no stalemates, being on the majority team, or on the minority team, or being together and having fun.( and some headaches to the parents:-) )
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241


1. If a couple decide to have kids, should they just stop with one (which means that the parents can provide the best of everything) or should they have more than one (the kid might not have the best of everything, there might be hand-me-downs, but there is more companionship, and all the benefits that brings)

I agree with what some other people have said - its not necessarily an advantage for a child to be an only-child. Having another child to grow up with will give a child better abilities to interact with people of the same age. It will also allow them to better understand that they are not the centre of the universe! Seeing their parents' attention divided between them and another child will certainly help them not become spoiled. Although it may be something of a uninformed unscientific generalisation, from what I've seen a lot of people who did not have siblings have turned out to be more of a pain (brat) as a child.

2. If somebody decides to have two kids, how far apart should the kids be. My brother is 8 years younger than me. Since I am quite a bit older, but still not a parent, he gets my advice and guidance on various issues very frankly, but at the same time I am not really in his age group, and there is a minor generation difference.

Hard to say I suppose. If children are a few years apart, the younger child can learn from the older child. On the other hand, if the children are close together in age then they can grow up together and become playmates with each other. This may depend upon what other children they are exposed to as well.

3. If someone plans to have a boy and girl (dont ask me how they can plan the sex, maybe they are just gonna adopt), does it make any kind of a difference which one is first?

Years ago when there was pressure to have male children to look after the family and to earn more money then this may have been an issue, but maybe not any more. I certainly don't think people should be disappointed to have a particular sex first or second.


There will be glitches in my transition from being a saloon bar sage to a world statesman. - Tony Banks
Angela Poynton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 02, 2000
Posts: 3143
As an only child I would say more than one kid is better for your child with regards to social interaction.
I spent most of my childhood surrounded by adults and have always struggled when I've needed to interact with my peers, I simply never learned how to do it. Also, I expect that having sibling to play with and fight with also helps when it comes to dealing with conflicts. I'm terrible at that too because the only people I ever had conflicts with were my parents and I was never going to win, so I find it difficult to maintain my position in any argument.

Of course it might be OK to have one child as long as you ensure they spend a lot of time with other kids, even (in fact especially) when they are just toddlers, this is when most of our social programming is done.


Pounding at a thick stone wall won't move it, sometimes, you need to step back to see the way around.
Raghav Sam
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 412
1. I am a first time parent with my daugter just 35 days old. But even it is clear to both me and my wife that we should have one more kid. Reason is pretty simple. The babies will have companionship, plus the parents (us) will also have the same companionship (esp in Indian scenario when the girl gets married and goes another house, we will be left with our next child (assuming a boy next.. ). My wife is very insistent on this, as is the case right now with her and her parents. With 2 or more kids, still we should be able to give them the best when they need it, only some prioritization and some education would be reqd for the kids. They will also be understanding.

2. As for the gap, I personally feel it should not be more than 2 years. Somehow, whenever I think of this, I always remember the Hardy boys story where Frank and Joe are just one year apart, each complememting teh other when the situation demands. Me and my sis are 7 years apart and that is too much.

3. Personally again, I love girl babies (my wife too ). But the perfect combination would be a girl and then a boy. The elder sis will have a motherly affection for her bro and the younger brother will be very much supportive.

Just my thinking...
[ March 02, 2005: Message edited by: Raghav Sam ]

Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.<br />- Dr. Seuss
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
No hard and fast rules apply to every family. But if you're asking what is best for the _typical_ family (whatever that is), then:

One child per family is social suicide. Two children per family is slow social suicide. When financially successful people under-reproduce and let the poor take up the slack, then children on the average are condemned to grow up in poverty.

It should be the reverse, where affluent people have more children and poor people have fewer -- not only will that be better for the children, but the material goods of society (e.g. western luxuries) will be more evenly distributed.
kayal cox
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 376
I am deathly terrified of childbirth.. So, I always thought I would have one child, and get it over with.

But recently, relatives of mine who had a girl and a boy, lost the girl in an accident. The amount of grief, and anguish they went through is, I dont know, words are insufficient. If not for their son, they would have either gone mad, or killed themselves. That was the first time, I thought that maybe I should not stop with one kid.

This is not a reason that is indestructible, and is probably selfish too, but still it is a reason that made sense to me at that point in time.

I am glad that most people who have posted agree that its good to have more than one kid.

Anyways, now that I am rethinking the number of kids I am gonna have, all my careful plans for financial security, my age, and a thousand other things have to be reconsidered..
[ March 02, 2005: Message edited by: kayal cox ]
Alan Wanwierd
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 624
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
No hard and fast rules apply to every family. But if you're asking what is best for the _typical_ family (whatever that is), then:

One child per family is social suicide. Two children per family is slow social suicide. When financially successful people under-reproduce and let the poor take up the slack, then children on the average are condemned to grow up in poverty.

It should be the reverse, where affluent people have more children and poor people have fewer -- not only will that be better for the children, but the material goods of society (e.g. western luxuries) will be more evenly distributed.


[caution - semiantagonistic content ahead, intended to trigger debate but not offend ]
ahh but Frank consider this:
In our society we demand that everyone has oportunities to achieve upward social mobility (strangely enough we are far less keen on promoting the benfits of downward social mobility). By ensuring that the higher social strata of society have a small birth rate we make room for social climbers from the 'lower' social strata. The chance of social climbing gives the poorer members of society hope that they too can achieve improvements in their position within the cuirrent social structure.

If as you are suggesting the affluent became more reproductive than the poor, then the chances of succesfully climbing the social ladder from a poor background would be dramtically reduced. The removal of the chance of social success could result in alienation of the poor from societies structure with them seeing no potential benefit in belonging to society and result in rejection of society and a revolutionary uprising!!!
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 1071
I'm not sure what the 'benefits of downward social mobility' are, unless you mean the ability for a successful person to fall on the arse. I don't think there is much benefit to that, but don't think there should be any action taken to stop it.

As for the rest of the birth rate stuff, it assumes a static economy in which, in order to gain someone else must lose. Thankfully that does not resemble the economy of industrialized nations.
Alan Wanwierd
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 624

I'm not sure what the 'benefits of downward social mobility' are, unless you mean the ability for a successful person to fall on the arse. I don't think there is much benefit to that, but don't think there should be any action taken to stop it.

Benefits of downward social mobility are that it enables other to be involved in upward social mobility and therefore enables society to "exchange" wealthy-but-useless people for the poor-but-useful.


As for the rest of the birth rate stuff, it assumes a static economy in which, in order to gain someone else must lose. Thankfully that does not resemble the economy of industrialized nations.

Wether the economy as whole is growing or shrinking - we CANNOT all be in the top 20%(or pick any other arbitrary number) of earners - so the only way to enable people to 'earn' their way into the top 20% of earners is to ensure that either people fall out of the top (which doesnt happen all that often since people with money are quite good at ensuring their children arent any worse off than them) - OR for there to be a disparity in birth rates as indicated above!

If you believe that society is continually getting richer of course[an extremely dubious belief], then its entirely possible that everyone can improve their income and ALL feel like winners - but I would argue that since we have a tendency to measure our individual social standing against our neighbours that any such 'enriching' of society as a whole is irrelevant to a discussion about social climbing.
Manish Hatwalne
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 22, 2001
Posts: 2578

Well, my inputs are purely theoretical; but nevertheless...

(1) I think it is better to have more than one kid, 2 or even more if you are ready. My justification is having a sibling in same age group help in many ways. It improves communication with peers, gives you another person's perspectives. Kids learn to share and adjust more if they have siblings, they tend to be more civilized and less adamant than single kids. They tend to become a bit more considerate and understanding & most develop a bond that gives them some emotional security for lifetime. On the other hand, I feel many single kids are so much pampered (giving them the best) that they tend to develop Low-Frustration-Tolerance, can't make compromises when life faces tough challenges. Need much more efforts to develop social skills.

(2) As for age difference, think 2-4 years would be ideal. More than that gets kind of "parenting" role from the elder sibling and somehow they don't grow that close. 1 year difference might be good, but I guess that would very tough for the mother of the kids, imagine 18 months pregnancy in 2 years!!!

A boy and girl combination is always best & desirable. (How is a big question though! )

(3) Again, if it's going to be boy and girl with lesser age difference, who is elder is somewhat insignificant. However, I'd prefer girl firs and then a boy, with this the boy tends to have healthy influence from the girl, and tends to become a bit more sensitive and emotionally mature. Big brothers seldom listen to their younger sis in early, formative years.

Irrespective of how many kids, I must say you need to spend lot of time with your kids. Don't buy that "quality time" theory, just give as much time as possible. And if I may recommend, read these - Tottochan(Japanese, translated in many languages) and Fatherhood (Bill Cosby).

- Manish
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:
In our society we demand that everyone has oportunities to achieve upward social mobility (strangely enough we are far less keen on promoting the benfits of downward social mobility). By ensuring that the higher social strata of society have a small birth rate we make room for social climbers from the 'lower' social strata. The chance of social climbing gives the poorer members of society hope that they too can achieve improvements in their position within the cuirrent social structure.

If as you are suggesting the affluent became more reproductive than the poor, then the chances of succesfully climbing the social ladder from a poor background would be dramtically reduced. The removal of the chance of social success could result in alienation of the poor from societies structure with them seeing no potential benefit in belonging to society and result in rejection of society and a revolutionary uprising!!!
I disagree completely. The more children the affluent have, the harder it will be to guarantee that every one of them maintains or builds upon their position. It is only because they have so few that they are able to give their children such overpowering advantages.

When the poor have fewer children, they can concentrate their meager assets on promoting the few children they do have. Therefore, a few of the children of the rich will go down, and a large percentage of the (relatively few) poor children will take their place.

Your way, the rich become richer and less numerous while the poor become poorer and more numerous. Your reasoning assumes a fixed number/percentage of affluent places in society to be contested for, irrespective of the culture of the people competing for them. That is false; the higher the percentage of people with first-world culture in a society, the more first-world that society's economy will be.

When the affluent don't reproduce, the effect is like "white flight" from a city -- but without the neighboring wealthy suburb. In 1960 there were some wonderful neighborhoods with wonderful schools in the Bronx, NYC, that by 1970 were all but abandoned by their previous residents in favor of poorer newcomers. The new residents did not thereby acquire residency in a good neighborhood with good schools; rather, by 1970 the neighborhood was a crime-ridden slum with dangerous, ineffective schools. Social activists blamed "white flight" for the growing poverty of the city -- I don't see much difference whether the children of the affluent disappear from the scene by going elsewhere versus whether they simply don't get born in the first place.
[ March 03, 2005: Message edited by: Frank Silbermann ]
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Originally posted by kayal cox:
I am deathly terrified of childbirth.. So, I always thought I would have one child, and get it over with.
You know, even though "natural" childbirth is fashionable, there do exist drugs to remove the pain.
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
While the choice of number of children is more or less similar around the world and hugely a lifestyle choice, what always amuses me most is the age gap between them!

Back in 1970�s when my parents were in the process of building a family around them, the socially respected and medically advised (supported by incentives from the government) was to have at least four years of difference between two births, and I believe it was based on the idea that children will get more attention (nutritious food, cloths and care) when they are most vulnerable.

I was shocked to find out one of my (British) workmate�s wife was pregnant again just seven months after delivering the first baby! Of course the concern about lack of nutrition or medical care doesn�t stand in a affluent society like that of UK, and I made a point to never mention the 4year-gap-thing to anyone in this part of the world!


[ flickr ]
kayal cox
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 376
I also think having kids as close as possible, would be the best thing to do (of course, there are health, finance, lifestyle constraints)

And regarding the boy first, girl next or vice versa thing, I don't really have a preference. But there are all these chinese calenders, even some sort of scientific reasoning (if it can be called that) and old folklore that supposedly increase the chances of having a baby of a particular sex based on the date of conception. Of course, none of these might work, and thats fine... But I have heard opinions on this subject from many parents of two kids, and I was just curious

And, I do know there are pain relievers, but the fear is far more broader... the delivary itself is one, then there is carrying the baby for nine months, having a safe delivary, having a healthy baby, raising the child thru the terrible twos, the tantrums, the drugs, the datings ... whew! (God, pls give me the strength!). I know the kind of hell I gave my parents, and I can only imagine it being worse when we bring up our kids in two cultures.

But like my husband always says, this has been going on for thousands and thousands of years, billions and billions of people have gone thru this...!
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24187
    
  34

Originally posted by kayal cox:
I know the kind of hell I gave my parents


But you probably don't know the kind of unfathomable joy you gave your parents. That's the most confounding and amazing thing about parenthood: how scared, sad, angry, and frustrated, yes, but also brave, excited, joyful, and proud you can be all at the same time! You can't imagine what having your own child sleeping on your chest in a darkened room feels like. Or watching your 15-month-old little boy put Legos together. Or hearing your daughter really, for real, read you "Junie B. Jones and the Stupid, Smelly Bus" for the first time.

Having had kids for just about seven years now, I can't imagine life without them -- it would be dreary and meaningless by comparison.


[Jess in Action][AskingGoodQuestions]
kayal cox
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 376
Ernest: You can't imagine what having your own child sleeping on your chest in a darkened room feels like


Your post is nice. I almost can imagine it
Thats why after much pondering, and head scratching, we are at a point where I actually look forward to taking the big step.
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 1071
Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
You can't imagine what having your own child sleeping on your chest in a darkened room feels like.


Ah yes... The drool on my chest, the soda just inches out of arms reach, the remote on the other end of the couch... HELP I'M STUCK HERE!!!
kayal cox
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 376
Steven: Ah yes... The drool on my chest, the soda just inches out of arms reach, the remote on the other end of the couch... HELP I'M STUCK HERE!!!


Manish Hatwalne
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 22, 2001
Posts: 2578

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:


But you probably don't know the kind of unfathomable joy you gave your parents. That's the most confounding and amazing thing about parenthood: how scared, sad, angry, and frustrated, yes, but also brave, excited, joyful, and proud you can be all at the same time! You can't imagine what having your own child sleeping on your chest in a darkened room feels like. Or watching your 15-month-old little boy put Legos together. Or hearing your daughter really, for real, read you "Junie B. Jones and the Stupid, Smelly Bus" for the first time.

Having had kids for just about seven years now, I can't imagine life without them -- it would be dreary and meaningless by comparison.


That must be a lovely feeling!

Somehow I fail to understand why some people choose not to have kids. I recently interacted with one girl briefly, and she told me she wan't interested in having her own kids. Since I can't get pregnant and have kids, decided not to proceed further on this proposal...

- Manish
Hussein Baghdadi
clojure forum advocate
Bartender

Joined: Nov 08, 2003
Posts: 3479

Well, I'm a person who don't know why people marry and why they want to produce kids !
I'm serious, I can't imagine myself married at all.
Am I ubnormal ?
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24187
    
  34

Originally posted by John Todd:

Am I ubnormal ?


No. What's right for one person isn't necessarily right for another. You have to go with what makes you happy. If a person ever start to ask themself "What is life all about?", though, then that's the time for that person to reconsider what makes them happy.
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11412
    
  16

Kayal,

i have to say that if you're afraid of the childbirth process, adoption is a wonderful experience. of course, there's pain there too, but of a different kind.

My wife and i just completed our adoption of our daughter last month... It would allow you to have whatever sex child as the older, garanteed!!!


There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
kayal cox
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 376
Ernest: What's right for one person isn't necessarily right for another


Exactly. I have this techie friend at work. He and his wife love each other a lot, they have been married for many many years. They are very "deep" people - they are involved in art, activism, charity, spirituality, meditation etc. They decided not to have children, but they still lead a full and meaningful life.
Hussein Baghdadi
clojure forum advocate
Bartender

Joined: Nov 08, 2003
Posts: 3479

Well, I'm just 22 years old ....
kayal cox
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 376
Fred: i have to say that if you're afraid of the childbirth process, adoption is a wonderful experience


Somehow adoption is much less popular in India than what it can be. I don't know if it is a cultural thing.

I can't totally give up on having a child (for cultural, family and personal reasons), but I have been giving adoption some serious thought... that I could have one baby, and adopt another.

It will take some convincing to get my husband, parents, and in-laws to agree. But more importantly, I have to convince myself.. because I always feel that people who adopt and bring up a child as their own are really big-hearted. And I dont know if I am.

It is easy to decide to adopt, but its not something one can back out on. It's a life long commitment and it's a different kind of scare. But adopting a baby girl is definitely in the back of my mind.

I was following your thread on adopting your daughter with a lot of interest. How is she doing now? How is your life now with her? And I wanted to ask you, do you have other kids of your own?
[ March 03, 2005: Message edited by: kayal cox ]
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11412
    
  16

we do not have other children, Olivia is our first.

I don't see how deciding to adopt is that different from deciding to have children naturally. you can't back out of either one. And is it any more big hearted to adopt than to bring your natural child into the world?

yes, there are cultural differences/reason why one can/cannot adopt. But i do know the agency we worked with does a lot of adoptions in India. The children are there, and they need homes too...

Olivia is doing fine, thanks for asking. i don't want to hijack this thread, so i'll update the other one now. but feel free to ask me more qeustions there...
Alan Wanwierd
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 624
Originally posted by John Todd:
Well, I'm just 22 years old ....


Just you wait!....

At 22 everyone I knew was enjoying life and nobody I knew (with the exception of one seemingly strange girl, who rapidly became my ex-girlfriend) hated the idea of 'settling down' and having children - we were clearly going to be a generation of independant, free-spirited, cashed-up party animals....

of course now with that same group of people being 33, I know less than a handful of people who arent parents (and even those are increasingly desperate to try and have kids)!

It seems that after 10 years of working/travelling the globe/partying and generally searching in vain for something fulfilling in life we've all found our reason to get up in the morning - and its great.
kayal cox
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 376
I appreciate the posts that are coming in, but can we please keep immigration, social security etc out of this thread.. I dont want to see this thread hijacked (would rather have it die a slow, dignified death whenever it happens)

Thanks!
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24187
    
  34

Yes, please. Let's keep things on-topic -- and polite. Don't make me any more cleanup work to do, or I will get cranky. Thanks.
Roger Nelson
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 21, 2002
Posts: 95
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kayal cox:
I am deathly terrified of childbirth.. So, I always thought I would have one child, and get it over with.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, though I am a man, I am also terrified of childbirth. I can watch scary movies, blood oozing around scenes, disturbing scenes, anything.
But I just can't watch any scenes involving child birth, I just have flip the channel. I guess i am childbirth phobic.
So I always include a line in my prayer..
"Thank God for making me a man" :-)
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Originally posted by kayal cox:
...this has been going on for thousands and thousands of years, billions and billions of people have gone thru this...![/QB]


Now that you mentioned it, according to renowned Ayerveda doctor, Dr. Partap Chauhan, whom I had the honour to dine with last Wednesday evening ( ), if one can understand and strictly adhere to certain ancient techniques and routines while reproducing, you can almost control and improve many aspects of the personality of your child, and even determine the sex! Now, out of context, this might look like a bad thing (keeping in mind that until recently baby girls were not that warmly welcomed in many poor families in certain parts of India), but the during the era of ayurveda, woman were considered equal or more important than men in (mother) India!
[ March 04, 2005: Message edited by: Ashok Mash ]
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
if one can understand and strictly adhere to certain ancient techniques and routines while reproducing, you can almost control and improve many aspects of the personality of your child, and even determine the sex!


This seems like something that would be very hard to prove. How could you tell if a child had a good nature because of these techniques, or because of some other factor such as genetics and upbringing? The arguments between nature and nurture are complex and unproven, so throwing a third factor in there could knock out any chances of a conclusion

I wonder if enough people understand and adhere to these techniques to form a good sized scientific study? It all sounds a bit...er.. suspect. Saying that, my knowledge of biology is hardly extensive, so I'd be interested to know if there are any studies into claims of being able to influence factors of a child's personality before birth. To me the one factor that would be most likely to do this would be diet, but even the effects of that could be dwarfed by genetics and the eventual upbringing of the child.

Must have made for an interesting dinner conversation!
[ March 04, 2005: Message edited by: Dave Lenton ]
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Originally posted by Dave Lenton:

This seems like something that would be very hard to prove.


To be honest, I couldn't agree more! But then of course, we must also consider that this claim is not based on a single person account, or even a large group of people! Ayurveda is 2000 or so years old, and it�s just as hard to dispute their claims as it is to prove it! As far as following it goes, if there is no harm in trying, as long as its nothing unethical or has any bad side effects, and doesn't cost an awful lot, why not give it a shot?!

As far as the discussion is concerned, Dr. Chauhan is a silver medallist in the field, and a renowned physician (thousands of students and many universities in 35 or so countries, following his books almost religiously!), and me, well, and all I know about ayurveda is a few bottles of really bitter �kazhayam� potions, and some smelly oils that I used (rather, told to use), back in 1980s!
[ March 04, 2005: Message edited by: Ashok Mash ]
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Originally posted by Dave Lenton:
To me the one factor that would be most likely to do this would be diet, but even the effects of that could be dwarfed by genetics and the eventual upbringing of the child.


I don't know what 'the way of ayurveda' is, but I would imagine for such a system that covers all aspects of healthy living and more, it might as well have a lot to say about diet and upbringing of the child, for all you know!
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24187
    
  34

Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
a renounced physician


To "renounce" is to deny, to turn your back on; normally you don't say "a renounced physician" but if you did, it would mean a dishonored physician, or one whose theories were disproved or disparaged, someone not worthy of respect. So I was confused when I read your first message!

But when I read your second I realized you meant "renowned." Makes a big difference!

Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
D'Oh! Of Course it is, thanks Ernest! 'll now and go edit all the posts!!
 
With a little knowledge, a cast iron skillet is non-stick and lasts a lifetime.
 
subject: Kids