Re: Having only one child

"Banty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jenn says...
> >
>
> >
> >What I don't understand is why someone who can't have more children
> >would give this a moment's thought.  It is one thing to be trying to
> >decide if one should have a second child -- and polling the net for
> >advice.  BUT if you can't have one - then what is the point of wallowing
> >in it and agonizing over it? Nothing good can come from that for
> >one'self OR for one's child.  Things that can't be changed should be
> >accepted and you move on and focus on the positive. Picking the scab
> >benefits no one.
>
>
> Well, gee, it might have something do with broken dreams, life plans, what
one
> envisioned for oneself and one's loved ones through the years.   Just
little
> things like that....

    It does take time to get over these things.  However, the above does
reference a danger to putting too much stock in things that are not
within one's control.  IOW, if every parent dreamed of having four
kids, and if they thought that anything less would be a disappointment,
then a lot of parents would be setting themselves up for inevitable
disappointment.

    And, if they can't get past that, then there is a real danger in
considering one's present family disappointing.

> I mean, if a musician lost an arm, I dont' think the reaction would be "oh
well,
> no use crying over spilt milk, I can always go into sales..."

    I'm not sure, to use your parallel, if the musician would gain
anything by having people convince him/her the benefits of having
only one arm.  (I wouldn't think, but I wouldn't know for sure.)



                                                                P. Tierney