Kids complete women

Kids complete women [+ favourites]

For women, it's part of being a woman to want and have children. "You were designed for that purpose" is what I hear. It reinforces your identity as a woman. A woman without kids by the age of 40 is considered to be an incomplete and cold-hearted woman in my community because wanting children is natural. It's hard not to think that way when most women opt for kids, making the childless seem unnatural.

Does procreating complete woman?

"How can we be just in a world without mercy and merciful in a world without justice?"
[  Edited by Attolia at   ]

I think most people, men or women, have a part of them that would love to have children. But not at any cost. We all have other things to balance it with. For some it may be the lack of a suitable spouse. Getting into poor relationship or going for a one night stand (really only an option for women) are worse than not having children in many peoples eyes. Some people have grand and noble ambitions that consume their lives to the point where there is just no room for children. Monks and nuns are one obvious example but also any one who is so dedicated to a cause which takes up so much of their life that finding the time to get a spouse and have kids is too hard.

I don't think procreation completes a women any more than sex or a relationship does. Personally I believe only relationship with god completes us but I think most every one will agree that there are many ways to find a little fulfilment in your life.

i dont think that it completes every woman ...some women have better lives without children... idk....it depends on the woman and her lifestyle

"Why kill the bumblebee when your the pain in the ass?"

i think procreating is a big thing for either a man or a woman and is a big part in most people lives. It is generally considered unusual for any woman to choose not to have children at all if she is settled and has nothing that prevents her doing so. It's highly understandable for it to be considered abnormal, if it was the norm then humanity would be a particularly short lived species.

I would disagree with the statement that it completes a woman though, as that idea belongs to an outdated society where a womans role was entirely the raising of her children. Currently women have (nearly) as many opportunities as men, so can find (earthly) fulfilment in a number of other ways. As i said before however i do think it is an important part of either sex's life.

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"

i think it has to do with that a couple want to raise a child and care for it and so on....and some believe they that they do it to show that its out of love ...that their child is a love child.... but i do not think ...like cynic AL said completes someone

"Why kill the bumblebee when your the pain in the ass?"

With children, you get to express the nurturing side to you. But I think women (and men) don't need to have children to do this. I guess the physical bond between the mother and child is emphasized because, besides sex, bearing a fetus/baby in the womb is as physically close and connected anyone can get.

"How can we be just in a world without mercy and merciful in a world without justice?"

The only thing I worry about with this issue of thinking kids complete you as a woman, is that just because you have children, people think you have to be a mother and nothing else. I get very cross as a mother myself who also wants to carry on existing as an individual with needs as an individual not just a mother, when people presume all you have the right to be is a mother.

My kids are the best thing to ever have happened in my life, they are gorgeous, clever, imaginative girls and my two year old is a little genius, she has everyone bemused by the fact that she can write her name, draw a face and tell four different knock knock jokes with complete understanding of the meanings behind them! (sorry once I on my kids I forget everything else) - anyway they are fantastic, but I still need to be me and discover my own talents and reason for living, it can't just be to have children!

""Each child holds the world in an open hand to mould it into any shape they choose.""

the need to exist as an individual is an important thing, however it has a limit to how far it can be taken. you have just brought into this world a child who is entirely dependent on you (and in many cases your spouse) and you are responsible for their upbringing. The thing that irritates me most is a parent (a word i am using for these people only in them ost base biological terms) for whom their life as an individual is the ruling factor, and their kids come second to them. I know a particular example who basically treats her children as if they were her staff and expects them to do the housework etc while she goes out to work, and she pays them no attention unless she either wants something from them or they have done something wrong. This approach has meant that none of her kids have even the slightest respect for her (a view which i personally share with them, she deserves no respect). Only one of her kids is ever likely to amount to anything much, and that is because that child as the eldest was made to look after the younger two and the responsibility shaped them into a decent person. the younger two have no respect for any authority and little care for school etc. the younger girl is an almost exact replica of her mother, and it terrifies me that "parenting" can fall to this level.

sorry bout that rant over

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"

It's ironic. we all have parts of our lives that are so crucial that form part of identity. And we need each part, yet some times it feels hey all want more slices of the pie of us than there is to go around. My mother home schooled me. It took a vast amount of her time and in a way it didn't completely achieve what she'd hoped. But when I went to collage and after uni she started other things. Trying to plant a church, running prayer meetings, now she's doing a fine art degree. Yet some times I think these things don't make her as happy as she was back then. Not because she was so chained to me but because a lot of these 'other interests', particularly the art, are just something to fill her time and make her feel active.

Let's say I opt for adopting a child instead of giving birth to one. Does that make my motherliness any less complete? How important is that physical bond between mother and fetus/baby? I've seen couples who choose to adopt take good care of their kids as those who had their own biological kids. But is it the same? Are women better off with the "I carried you for nine months" feeling?

"How can we be just in a world without mercy and merciful in a world without justice?"

I don't think it matters whether or not the child is their own biological offspring, it is more the act of raising the child which for want of a better word satisfies the maternal urge (it is less of a difference for the male while his only involvement was 9 months earlier).

Those who adopt can often can make better parents than those who biologically gave birth, while the adoptive parents may not have been able to have their own children and will therefore have had to have gone to some extra effort to "have" a child, while the biological parent may well have not been intending to have children at the time.

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"

Have you ever wondered why there are parents that raise kids that turn out to be model students or well behaved and respected or mature? Then you have those parents that have snotty kids who never stop being littl....that just werent raised right? Does a child complete a family only if the family is ready for a child?

"sad is the heart that loves. its usually broken"