Disagreement about third child

In article , Kathy Cole says...

In article ,
Banty wrote:

I think you miss the point.

It's not that that party doesn't want children, it's that he or she would have
the veto to begin with.

Vetos may happen by parents in their relationship with children. It does not
happen between partners.

I'm not missing your point, I'm disagreeing with it.

Individual desires and autonomy don't disappear because you're a couple;
you balance your individual desires with your goals as a couple, and
hopefully most of the time, you both come to agreements with which you
can live.

However, there are situations for any couple where one party should have
automatic veto power over the other's wishes. Medical treatment
decisions for ourselves aren't something the other party gets to
dictate, for example. Whether either of us is willing to deliberately
create another child is another.

Not carelessly or cruelly asserted veto power, nor capriciously decided
veto power, if the relationship is one that you value. But ultimately,
decisions about the uses to which my body is put are mine to make, not
my husband's, just as the uses to which his body is put are his.

This doesn't cover the question.

Taking your tack - apply it to this - if the wife wants the child, is it up to
her husband to tell her she can't be pregnant with her body?

Come to think of it, it doesnt' cover the question at all. Having a child isn't
about just one individual or the other anyway - both will be affected. Both by
having the child, and by *not* having the child.

IT's that *not* having the child would have great, lifetime effect that's being
by implication dismissed here, I think, that can be damaging.

Banty

Banty

Kathy Cole wrote:

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


Kathy Cole wrote:

But deciding *not* to have another child is *also*
a lifetime commitment. It's not like there's some inherent
virtue in the status quo.

You can't un-have the child.

And past a certain point, you can't realistically
undo the decision not to have another either. If you have
the child, the nayser doesn't get his or her desired future
life free of another set of expenses and entanglements.
If you don't have the child, the proponent doesn't get his
or her desired future with another child to love, a different
family dynamic, etc.

Are you approaching this as if the decision against another child is
sprung without any discussion or thought? That's the Missouri example,
but not of necessity the family size question at all.

If it is approached with the idea that one point
of view automatically trumps another, then yes, it's
not being done with the amount of consideration required.

There are lots of life issues that are just as
significant to the family.

I have creating another child in its own category, inherently more
significant than just about any other family decision.

Why? The only item I see as *truly* different is
the obligation owed to the debated child (all the other
issues would affect existing children as well as the
adults). But even with that consideration, it's not
like people have no control over whether they would
love and meet the needs of another child (barring, as
I said earlier, a true inability to provide for the
child). It's all a choice, just like anything else.
The naysayer could just as easily choose to be
accepting as the proponent could choose to do without.


Would you say that the wife who wants to return to work because she
can't seem to adjust to being a SAHM has no right to go back to work
if her husband doesn't want her back in the work force? Sure, it's not
an irrevocable decision, but it certainly affects husband and kids and
there's certainly a possibility that once attempted, the husband might
not like the situation while the wife continues to want to work outside
the home.

Not irrevocable is the key for me -- the parents have new information;
their assumptions about how successfully Mom staying at home would go
have proven faulty, and they should re-evaluate the situation. Try mom
back in the work force for a while and re-evaluate again.

You know, "irrevocable" can be very theoretical. In
practical terms, there are a bunch of choices that are very
difficult to go back on. And what if the debate continues
on--Mom goes back to work and likes it that way, and Dad
continues not to like Mom working outside the home? Does
Dad get to say, "Yep, tried it, don't like it, think it's
bad for the kids, you get your butt home" because that
was the previous status quo and he's not on board with
change?

What about couples who disagree about where to
live? Those choices have serious effects on both partners,
children, and extended family. Again, it's not completely
irrevocable, but with jobs and financial issues, it's often
a very difficult decision to reverse. Does the person who wants
to stay put trump the person who wants to go somewhere else?

They negotiate. If they can't come to agreement, one party can't force
the other party to go if the other party wants to stay.

So why does the stay-er have the morally superior
position such that he or she gets to veto? What's so darned
important about staying put that means it always gets the
veto power?

I am uncomfortable with describing the situation as if the child-vetoing
party is by definition not understanding or compassionate. Understanding
and compassion are not incompatible with a carefully considered decision
against additional children.

But handing all the power to the naysayer by insisting that
the naysayer has veto power is creating a power imbalance that
is ripe for such abuse, even if it doesn't occur in every case.

As far as I can tell, the situation is usually approached in a very
unequal way, with the naysayer holding all the power and the proponent
going begging. I think that's fundamentally a problem.

If that's how the couple is typically communicating, I agree; that
doesn't sound like a healthy balance.

But that is how the situation is structured when the
naysayer holds veto power. It's inherent in the dynamic. Why
don't both parties start from an equal position where *each*
person's desires has equal weight?

I do agree that ultimately, it is concern for both
existing and future children that ends up having to play a
very large role in the decision making. That is often what
tips the scales. But that doesn't in any way remove the
damage caused by one party not being sufficiently motivated
to safeguard the hopes and dreams of his or her partner.

I am uncomfortable with this set of implications as well. I don't accept
that the vetoing additional children partner is the one at whose feet
the blame solely rests for insufficient motivation to safeguard the
hopes and dreams of their partner. Safeguarding my partner's hopes and
dreams cannot mean that my hopes and dreams must always be sacrificed,
especially on something as irrevocable as having another child, and
that's what I took from your paragraph.

That's not what I said. I said that there is a problem
with the presumtion that the naysayer should have veto power,
thereby privileging that position. *Both* parties should start
from a presumption that each has valid desires and that while
the decision must necessarily end with someone not getting what
they originally desired, it should be a true negotiation, not
a supplication.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Banty" wrote in message
...

It's not that that party doesn't want children, it's that he or she would
have
the veto to begin with.

Vetos may happen by parents in their relationship with children. It does
not
happen between partners.

Oh nonsense, Banty. I'm making a gross generalization here but in
general, I can't imagine that men, married or not, wouldn't be perfectly
happy to indulge in casual extramarital sex if it came without consequences.
I don't know too many women who wouldn't, either. But that's an option
that for most of us, has been vetoed by our partners. And we (most of us)
veto it for them.

Vetos happen all the time in marriages.

Donna

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:44:05 +0100, Mary Ann Tuli
wrote:

Circe wrote:

Yeah, I have to admit, I don't get the "two in diapers" is hard thing. I
found two in diapers considerably easier from a practical point of view than
one in diapers and one newly potty-trained toddler who needs a toilet *right
now* when he/she expresses the need to go.

And let me tell you, diapers are far easier for a toddler in Europe, given
the scarcity of public toilets and the striking lack of toilet *seats* on
the ones that do exist.

Wow. That's quite a generalisation for a huge area of land, or have you
really been to every country?

Mary Ann

I live in Germany and I can assure you that all female toilet seats
have "seats". I know in London everything did. As I recall Paris was
a different story.

Certainly, one of the trickier things about our last
two European excusions was finding acceptable toileting facilities for the
Diva (who, even at 5yo, doesn't hold it very well) at the drop of a hat.

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

If it is approached with the idea that one point
of view automatically trumps another, then yes, it's
not being done with the amount of consideration required.

I disagree.

Wife asks husband to have a vasectomy. Husband says "no".

Clearly, that's a veto. And clearly, this is something that is his right to
veto. His body. He gets the right to decide whether to have it changed
or not, and I wouldn't expect a long hand-wringing discussion about it,
either. The discussion centers around "ok, now that you have vetoed a
vasectomy, how are we going to manage birth control?

Donna

Sorry Barbara, but as someone who'se lived in Europe for over three
years and traveled in alot fo countries, there are a bunch of
generalisations here..

When I book places for us to stay in Europe, I usually won't rent a place
unless it comes with a washing machine. This last time, we considered taking
the clothes to a fluff-and-fold place because it was cold and things weren't
drying (dryers being virtually unheard of in private residences in Europe),
but wound up being able to manage doing it ourselves.

While the rentals you may have used may not have had facilites, most
homes do have both washers and dyers. I have never been in a private
home in England, France, Germany. belgium or Spain that did not. I'm
sure there are some that do not but that is not the norm. European
washers and driers are different than American, and it is acceptable
in most places including upper income homes, to hang the wash.
However, this is used as the addition. Euroepan washers are generally
smaller and they "cook their own juice" similar to many dishwahsers.

AS for the toilet seat, again, I dont see any homes in my travels,
visiting my friends who do not have seats on the top. I have never
been to a bread and breakfast nor a small hotel where they did not
have either. The exception was the turkish toilet in Paris, which was
an education experience, in my daughter's college dorm (and this was
awhile back.

I think if you talk to the folks from the uk and other places her,
your experiences in these two areas are not normal?

Sorry to fuss, but you really are making it sound like Europe hasnt
come into the twentieth centurty or something.

There are differences in attitude and lifestyle amongs countries, but
these are not my experiences. And i travel to places from private
homes to youth hostels to Band Bs.

Do you mean private rental places or private homes? Which part of Europe
are you talking about?
There being a predominantly US readership on this NG, I'd like to
clarify what you mean from my (UK) point of view.

Mary Ann

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:44:05 +0100, Mary Ann Tuli
wrote:

Circe wrote:

Yeah, I have to admit, I don't get the "two in diapers" is hard thing. I
found two in diapers considerably easier from a practical point of view than
one in diapers and one newly potty-trained toddler who needs a toilet *right
now* when he/she expresses the need to go.

And let me tell you, diapers are far easier for a toddler in Europe, given
the scarcity of public toilets and the striking lack of toilet *seats* on
the ones that do exist.

Wow. That's quite a generalisation for a huge area of land, or have you
really been to every country?

Mary Ann

I was wondering about this as well. I did comment on another thread.
I would have to wonder where she travled. I am menopaulsal and have
serious potty need issues (not always a side effect, but for me), so
like a pregnant woman I always know where the nearest is.

Certainly, one of the trickier things about our last
two European excusions was finding acceptable toileting facilities for the
Diva (who, even at 5yo, doesn't hold it very well) at the drop of a hat.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
Taking your tack - apply it to this - if the wife wants the child, is it
up to
her husband to tell her she can't be pregnant with her body?

With his participation and genetic matter? Yes. He can't say "You can't be
pregnant". He can say "I won't provide the material for you to get
pregnant."

I'm not dismissing the anguish that this kind of situation causes in a
marriage, especially if we expand the issue to "a child" not "another
child", but a) ideally two people haven't married and then discovered this
difference of desires, and b) "no" still wins out over "yes". In my
opinion. And let's be realistic - in this kind of irreconcilable situation,
I would imagine that a divorce is probably the best thing for everyone
(assuming we're talking "kids vs. no kids, not some kids versus more kids").


Donna

Donna wrote:

"Banty" wrote in message
...

It's not that that party doesn't want children, it's that he or she would
have
the veto to begin with.

Vetos may happen by parents in their relationship with children. It does
not
happen between partners.


Oh nonsense, Banty. I'm making a gross generalization here but in
general, I can't imagine that men, married or not, wouldn't be perfectly
happy to indulge in casual extramarital sex if it came without consequences.
I don't know too many women who wouldn't, either. But that's an option
that for most of us, has been vetoed by our partners. And we (most of us)
veto it for them.

Huh? Nobody vetoed my ability to engage in extramarital
affairs. I *CHOSE* that myself when I took my marriage vows.
If I wasn't interested in choosing that, I wouldn't have taken
those vows. (And I disagree with your assumption that everyone
would be interested in casual extramarital sex if it weren't
against the rules.)

Best wishes,
Ericka

Donna wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...


If it is approached with the idea that one point
of view automatically trumps another, then yes, it's
not being done with the amount of consideration required.


I disagree.

Wife asks husband to have a vasectomy. Husband says "no".

Clearly, that's a veto. And clearly, this is something that is his right to
veto. His body. He gets the right to decide whether to have it changed
or not, and I wouldn't expect a long hand-wringing discussion about it,
either. The discussion centers around "ok, now that you have vetoed a
vasectomy, how are we going to manage birth control?

That's a mix-up of tactics and strategy. The proper
question in your example is a question of effective birth
control. The question that the couple confronts is how to
achieve effective birth control. Tactics, such as whether
to have a vasectomy, tubal ligation, IUD, BCP, etc. etc. etc.
are at a different level of discussion. To have or not have
another child is a strategy level discussion. To do so
naturally, with assistance, by adoption, by surrogacy, etc.
is a tactics level discussion.

Best wishes,
Ericka