Hello,
I’m not sure if this is the right section for this thread, but I couldn’t find a more suitable one.
I often read here about couples planning and building their house before having children. As a result, the children’s rooms are planned more or less optimistically.
That was also the case for us when we bought our house. At the time, we thought it would be quick and easy to fill the three children’s rooms. A few years later, we have to accept that we will probably never have biological children. Since adoption was an option for us from the start, we are still hopeful that we will have children eventually. The process has already cost us a lot, and there will be more costs to come; in the end, we will probably have spent a mid five-figure amount.
Because of these difficult experiences, I would like to advise every original poster who is building before having children that having children can take longer and be more expensive than planned. But of course, I don’t want to always be the downer. Unfulfilled desire to have children affects about one in ten couples, depending on how you look at it.
What do you think? Am I being too negative? Has anyone else had a similar experience?
I’m not sure if this is the right section for this thread, but I couldn’t find a more suitable one.
I often read here about couples planning and building their house before having children. As a result, the children’s rooms are planned more or less optimistically.
That was also the case for us when we bought our house. At the time, we thought it would be quick and easy to fill the three children’s rooms. A few years later, we have to accept that we will probably never have biological children. Since adoption was an option for us from the start, we are still hopeful that we will have children eventually. The process has already cost us a lot, and there will be more costs to come; in the end, we will probably have spent a mid five-figure amount.
Because of these difficult experiences, I would like to advise every original poster who is building before having children that having children can take longer and be more expensive than planned. But of course, I don’t want to always be the downer. Unfulfilled desire to have children affects about one in ten couples, depending on how you look at it.
What do you think? Am I being too negative? Has anyone else had a similar experience?
H
HilfeHilfe15 Mar 2019 12:39miho schrieb:
This is really going off-topic now:
If you’re already using the loaded term “do-gooders” here and insisting that women having children later in life should accept the risks, why did you go through with the screening? And why did it turn into a nightmare afterward? The whole point of screening is to be informed beforehand, right? Somehow none of this adds up...
Let’s take a deep breath and calm down. Then we can continue the discussion.Because we were aware of the risks and deliberately chose the screening. That’s why
1st child very healthy, 2nd child we wanted to know the risks. Period.
But if you deliberately postpone family planning for financial reasons like (vacation, money, house, car), I have no understanding for that!
apokolok schrieb:
First, secure the basics, build a house on a greenfield site, then enjoy a nice world trip—you’ve earned it—then the children can come. It might work, but it doesn’t have to.Absolutely. Just as there is no entitlement to hold a (healthy) child at age 23 or 26. Of course, you don’t need a high or even solid standard of living to have and raise a child. After all, on the Balkans, people live with seven family members in 55 square meters (592 square feet) without anyone dying. It’s doable. But then, I wouldn’t need to work at least 40 hours a week at a bank. What for, actually? Even with a part-time sales job at a discount shop like Kik or MäcGeiz, you can have children. Or I could just sell oranges by the roadside. I’m sure my child would proudly tell that story in class later...
I’ll step out of this discussion here and wish everyone a nice weekend.
Jean-Marc schrieb:
Absolutely. Just like there’s no right to hold a (healthy) child in your arms at 23 or 26 years old. Of course, you don’t need a high or even solid standard of living to have and raise a child. After all, people in the Balkans live with seven family members in 55 square meters (590 square feet) without anyone dying. It’s all possible. But then I wouldn’t need to work at least 40 hours a week at a bank. Why bother? Even with a part-time sales job at Kik or MäcGeiz, you can still have children. Or I could just sell oranges on the street. I’m sure my child would proudly tell that story in class later...
I’ll bow out here and wish everyone a good weekend. But the reasons you mention are only financial. Which is fine, because everyone has their own sense of security. But this is exactly what @HilfeHilfe is trying to say: this financial security might come at the cost of “no child” or a “disabled child.”
Children don’t need money to be happy, because kids have no concept of money. The value of something doesn’t matter to a child. They are just as happy with a 10-year-old, rusty €30 (about $33) kids’ bike as with a €300 (about $330) kids’ bike. But what can you expect from adults who have never seen a child genuinely happy about something like that?
At Christmas, my oldest got a roll of glitter tape from Action because he likes crafting, and guess what the best gift was? It wasn’t the Lego from Grandma.
So with that, have a great weekend everyone.
C
chand198615 Mar 2019 13:07Jean-Marc schrieb:
But then I wouldn’t need to work at least 40 hours a week in a bank. Why actually? It’s surprising where you end up if you think things through consistently, isn’t it?
In all my work with young people, I see that the quality of upbringing is always a matter of education, never of money. Because educated people tend to earn more on average, many assume that the quality of upbringing can be improved with money, since there appears to be a correlation… but based on all my experience, that is complete nonsense.
There doesn’t have to be dedicated rooms of at least 15cm (6 inches) each, or having every desired hobby available without having to provide the money themselves, or constant access to media, and so on.
Large houses with many rooms for each child and every hobby are projects for adults. What really benefits children are gardens, nature, contact with other children, as little TV, game consoles, and smartphones as possible: today, parents often plan and implement the opposite. Because somewhere the money for this has to come from the well-paid 40+ hour job.
And yes, sometimes the very best thing for children is simply that parents are there and not at work. Full-day care is no real substitute, especially for younger children, even though half the world believes so.
(These are observations from working with children, adolescents, and their parents in clubs. I have been doing this for over 15 years. No forum members should take this personally!)
chand1986 schrieb:
It’s amazing where you end up when you consistently think things through, isn’t it?
And yes, sometimes it’s simply best for children when parents are present at home rather than at work. Full-day care programs, especially for younger children, are no real substitute, even though many people believe otherwise.
(These are observations from working with children, teenagers, and their parents….)Please explain what "offene Ganztage" means.
H
HilfeHilfe15 Mar 2019 14:13Tomorrow morning, I will bake a cake with my 6-year-old for Mom. I wanted to buy one (stress-free / can’t bake). Junior says: no, Dad, I have a baking book, I’ll show you. Children’s eyes melt your heart. I’m out of the discussion now. Everyone should have their children whenever they want, even at 50.