Well, several bits I agree on, and several bits I don't- as you'd expect.

1) I agree utterly about people having babies and then palming them off to nurseries before they even have the eyesight to recognise their own parents- what is the bloddy point?

2) I utterly agree about keeping babies alive against the odds.

3) I disagree that the parents are doing this to adress some selfish need in themselves. Having a child is too emotional an experience to be objective about. Not very many people can manage the detachment to arrive at what seems the obvious solution to those of luckily not directly involved. It could still happen to any one of us though- severe damage due to accidents does happen.

Shocking.
I am going to have to bite my lip very hard indeed, and just say that I disagree on many points BW.

I thought this might upset the parents among you...

All I'll say is that my views are based on the hard reality of working in this field for 16 years.

But please don't feel you can't disagree... different opinions are good.

I agree on many points too. Yes, keeping very sick babies (or adults for that matter) alive artificially is no life at all for them. And I totally agree about people who have a baby and then never see it. I have a daughter and I made sure I was (and still am) a stay at home mum who devoted her time to looking after said child. I can only say though, that if you have never had children you cannot possibly understand what it means to have one of your own. My whole personality and view of life changed after having my daughter and I could never go back to the selfish person I was before. A completely different set of things are now important to me. Just as when my husband died, I realised that until you have been there, you cannot possibly know what it feels like to be in that situation. You can imagine, but to be on the inside looking out is a whole different ball game from being on the outside looking in, so to speak.

Oh plus of course you need somebody to pay for your pension and look after you in your old age ...

I've never experienced the strength of a parents love for a child, the desire to protect a life, no matter what and perhaps the desperate belief that once the right care is found, things will improve? This made me think about the court cases for the right to die fought by parents (and doctors) on behalf of their older children, the most high profile one probably being the parents of the lad still in a coma 10 years after Hillsborough. Perhaps they have been driven to this point not only after years of the struggle with the authorities and systems, but also because they know and have seen their children grow up, enjoying life and know that it will never be the same again, they'll never hear their laughter again, never shout at them to eat their greens. But that's different from babies who are born into a life of pain and confusion. They face never getting to know their children and maybe that's what they are hanging on to? It seems cruel to us, but maybe they're just living for the hope of a breakthrough.

I have a memory of my Grandfather, old and living in pain, dying of cancer in a hospice. And I remember how distressed I was for him, hoping that the end would come soon because I knew he was a tall proud man who always wore a suit and had a marvellous 'booming' laugh. The broken man lying in the hospital, connected to drips and struggling to remember my Mother's name wasn't my Grandfather. His death, whilst painful, was a relief because it released him from that shell. It was a relief because we knew him as someone else. Parents of babies never get to know that other person.

Holland Park Mummies are a breed apart through. They all elect to have c-sections at the Portland (at £1K a night) 3 weeks early so they can recover their figures more quickly.

Ooh, controversial. ;-)

Ditto what you and everyone's said about palming off the new-born onto childminders at a few weeks old. That's absolutely crazy.

I'm not sure about keeping babies alive against medical advice. At the moment, from a purely objective point of view, I'd say you shouldn't do it, but the parents can never look at it from an objective standpoint. If the same happens to us in the near future I really don't know how I'd feel.

I don't really agree with you over why people have children, either. Certainly, there are people who have kids because it's the 'done thing' but I think they're a minority. We're certainly not fulfilling some sort of social expectation. We're doing it, quite selfishly, because we really (really) want to.

This is always a contentious subject and people normally hold polarised views on it. I've seen some comments threads around the place that get quite nasty about it all with insults being trwon around by people that just don't understand that not everyone thinks the same way they do.

Disagreement is good. It shows just how wonderfully diverse we really are.

Before we have any more 'old chestnuts' please don't get me wrong. The sort of children I'm talking about will never be able to work, let alone look after me in my old age.

I'm *not* saying that people *shouldn't* have kids, just that I have a different view of the completeness they would add to *my* (our) life(lives) than the majority. And that's fine. Live and let live I say.

Plus, I doubt whether anyone who reads here on a regular basis would fall into my 'why the hell did you hve kids?' category either. But that's a post for another day.

Mainly because most of your regulars are childless, Witchy...

Or should that be 'child-free'? Or 'unencumbered'?

Dave - your comment appeared while I was composing minne - you're right - and I shan't let it degenerate in that way. As I said, each to his own.

I will defend to the last anyone's right to hold a differing viewpoint to someone else's, provided that they express it as a challenge to the view rather than a person.

That's where things go wrong.

e - I don't think that's true actually.

And, Ian, I really faiil to see how anyone's opinion can be "shocking". Shocking is when people are hacked to bits or blown up for the fact of having different opinions. This is a large world with many different views in it- we don't all agree with each other. We all have to deal with the fact that not everyone holds the same opnions as us.

I'm childless and I expect to remain so - but I've been pregnant and I remember only too well that horrible but wonderful mixed bag of emotions and feelings that brings. To be honest, I expect to remain childless, regardless of the Endo diagnosis, because I've several family & friends who have all gone through the pain of making decisions about Downs diagnosises. I'm only 32 so it seems ridiculous to be worrying about such a thing, however I don't particularly want to put myself through the pain of another termination - and that's enough to put the idea firmly back of mind. That's me being selfish. And I'll probably end up dying alone in an old people's home with no loving off-spring gathered around me :)

I think that many people who do have children do as well, Elsie. How like a serpent's tooth, etc etc...

Tis OK Elsie - we can keep each other company in the home :)

And just because you have kids does not guarantee your old age. Actually, in some cases, quite the opposite.

*has vision of living in Old People's home with Witchy - in an apartment full of handbags and shoes and Witchy looking like Davros in a wheelchair that's connected to the internet and voice recognition software*

I think we need il doctore as well...

I was going to keep quiet, but I'm afraid I cannot accept that the only way to be a "proper" parents is for the mother to stay at home, but then I speak as a parent where we do both go to work. (Although not in Holland Park, nor on tottering heels).

"Quality time" is a dreadful cliche, but is does cover some truth. We try and spend as much time with our children as possible. Consequently the house is not as tidy as some may like, the Aga is not as clean as BW's, the shopping is usually done after the boys are asleep.

"Holland Park mums" are more likely to be able to afford to stay at home, with their live-in nanny and never actually spend time with their children.

Ah - that's it!
An Old Age Childless Bloggers Home!
Best start looking for suitably large premises now.
*reminds self*
Is.

PS I agree on the terminally ill babies, but then that's easy for me to say as both my boys were born healthy.

To balance out my other comment about Downs - I grew up with a cousin, R, who had severe Downs and died when he was a teenager. My sister's best friend has a 3 year old daughter, Millie with severe Downs and further complications. My heart is full of love for both of them and I recognise very strongly the argument being made against the test for Downs Syndrome and other handicaps. With the right care and support from parents, state and medical support, there is no reason to rule against and terminate a life because of a handicap. But that support simply isn't there. Millie's Mother has to fight every step of the way for anything to improve Millie's quality life - those battles for Millie affect Gayle frame of mind. She's a single Mother, the Father left her shortly after Millie was born and she gets very little support from him other than cash - another battle she has to fight herself. Millie rules the roost, Gayle is constantly exhausted and lets Millie stay up at night or eat what she chooses because she can't face fighting more battles. It's a sad circle...

thom - I don't think that I said that "the only way to be 'proper' parents is for the mother to stay at home" (nor was that the thrust of my post, to be honest...).

Did your wife return to work when your babies were just a few weeks old though?

An awful lot of people I know where the woman *did* return to work very early on wish they'd done differently, a few years down the line.

But - we can only make life decisions on the basis of the info available to us at any time. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

As is the concept of fathers taking time out to care for young children.

If you could see The Coven most of the time, it's not how you imagine it!!! We only have a cleaner once a week so we can clear up...

Elsie - that's the reality of the situation as I've experienced it through my work.

One day I'll write a book on the subject.
One day.

I understand that that was not the focus of your post and as I mentioned was planning on staying schtum until I read some of the comments that took up the theme.

My partner went back to work when the boys were 4 months old, we were lucky enough to be in a position were I could work at home one of two days a week for the next 6 months so they were only in 3/4 days to begin with.

Do we regret starting them so early? Sometimes, but usually because we would have liked to spend more time with them rather than any worry about how they're developing (although at 5 & 2 it's still early).

To be honest it was more likely I would have stayed at home as my partner is more vocationaly driven than I.

PS we had to ditch the cleaner when the second one came along to try and help pay for the nursery.

Ah. Babies.

There's a new orphan baby flavour Pot Noodle on sale in Tesco's.

Thats an idea! Round up all the unwanted ones, dehydrate them and sell them in Holland & Barratts as nutitional supplements.

And Holland Park is nice. I live there. Not for much longer though.

They used to use placentas in facecream Mr Piggy... (I say 'used to' as I suspect that 'regulations' prohibit it now).

It was the end of Holland Park near Olympia btw, not the poshest bit.

There is also a side to BW that she keeps ever so slightly hidden behind the controversial side. I have seen, from the sideline, career/status parents of children with ‘problems’ collecting their children from day-care after work and dropping them off for BW to ‘help’. Many of these children just need some love, kindness and parental attention. The parents think they are covering their obligations by going out to work all day and then paying for BW to ‘help’ for an hour or two a week in the evenings (paradoxically resulting in even less time with the parents). They are probably the same people who blame lack of discipline in school for their child's bad behaviour.

If the child just needs its parents, then BW will spend as much time as necessary to try to help them understand that the child does not need BW, it needs mummy and daddy.

Where a child has a particular need BW will spend (many additional unpaid) hours trying to help the parents understand the system and how to work it to get what they need to support the child. She will never turn away a call from a worried parent, whatever time of night. These are families sometimes split apart by the stress of looking after a child with problems. A while ago BW spent a whole weekend with a couple who were splitting up to ensure that the children understood what was happening and were not afraid (and not used as pawns in arguments). She did not charge a penny and came home mentally exhausted late Sunday night. The parents were so grateful and she might just have saved the children from years of mental scarring.

The side of BW that she will never tell you about herself……

Blimey. On the terminally ill issue, I feel that in the recent case that was in the news, the parents were wrong. But like others have said, it's impossible for them to be objective.

As for everything else, I don't feel I have a right to even have an opinion. I don't have any children, and I never will have any, mainly because I don't think I would be a fit father, and I couldn't live with myself if I messed up someone's life. Or maybe I'm just a coward. But also, as much as I love kids, I don't have that overwhelming drive to have them that others seem to pocess, and therefore I can't possibly understand what that is like.

*sigh* (not weary sigh, but envious one)

I wish I had a champion like yours, BW. My one's far too objective.

A very tricky subject to tackle - you're a braver witch than I!

I heard the story on the radio this morning, and my immediate reaction was "of course, they should let the child go" - but as many have said, I can't envisage being on the inside of that situation and having to make that decision.

Like Elsie, at this point in my life, I do not envisage having children. This has not always been the case; in my mid twenties, I was gagging to pop out some mini-Withos. What changed? I'm not sure.

In my current situation, I can think of one reason to have a child, and many many reasons not to. I met the love of my life at 31, I want time to be with him and live our lives to the full, just the two of us. At the moment, a child does not fit into that plan and I'm not sure it ever will. That may be considered selfish - so be it.

Pob last para, and witho - yes, exactly :)

* enters the fray somewhat belatedly *

I was mercifully cajoled into parenthood by the less selfish Mrs.D.

We were very lucky and produced two healthy young 'uns. But what if they'd suffered from the vaccinations we agonised over them getting (MMR etc.)

Should we have let them die, unresuscitated, if the effects had been adverse?

Just to keep the pot boiling, y'understand!

I've always hoped that someone might ask me to have a baby for them. Then I could have a paid year off work by legitimately claiming my maternity leave.

It strikes me that mums who feel overwhelmed with a small baby and want to get back to full time work quickly may well be suffering from undiagnosed PND and could do with support rather than condemnation...

It's also worth noting that wanting a child is not the same as wanting a baby and vice versa. Personally, I think I became a much better parent of my first child once he could walk and talk a little - it was less of a one-sided relationship then. Conversely, I would now LOVE another baby... but don't think I actually want another *child*.

Not sure I've explained that well though.

that was fantastic. i read the post and all the comments during my lunch hour. it was angry and moving and life affirming. i peeped over my monitor at the new mum a few desks away who now just works two days a week and i felt some of the joy and pain she probably feels when she looks at that framed picture on her desk of her 'creation'. i suggest that BW get in touch with radio 4 and get them to commission a blog series where actors read the post and comments. there's money in these debates.

i will never have kids. i will always have dogs. i *do* have a strong urge within me to care and look after a helpless thing (bf's don't count).
*stares fondly and misty eyed at framed picture of dog*

Life has to be about compromises and accommodations. Sometimes people can sincerely hold two opposing views simultaneously.

Sometimes life is just messy and disorganised.

I remember when a colleague's premature baby died after a couple of weeks of seeming to thrive. One colleague (who I knew to be a loving and conscientious father) said it was a good thing because he had seen the miserable half-life of a child who lived near him.

Another colleague said that her son had nearly died at a few weeks old. She felt that if he had, it would have been less tragic to her at that age than in his teens - the age he was when we spoke.

I guess they had both worked out that life isn't full of perfections.

Hmmm very, very interesting. Most of your readership (including me) appear to agree with the first part of the post but there seems to be slightly more controversy (in a very polite way) about the second point.

None of us seem to be able to answer the "Why do some of us have kids in the first place" question. And here too I can't help.

I've no idea.

I always thought I'd have kids one day and though we took a slightly different route to most (though not from choice) I still think it was the right thing for us. But I've no idea what we'd have done if we'd done it the conventional way and had the dilemna of whether to stop working for a few years or palming them off to a nursery.

Selfish? Yes of course. There is a very selfish side to having kids. I make no apolgies for being selfish.... I've never believed in altruism anyway.

So, no real arguments here either..... you half wanted at least one of us to get huffy didn't you Witchy? I know I would have done ;)

"Why do they think that somehow babies are more able to overcome the impossible and defy nature than animals?"

Maybe because they love the baby as a part of them and no matter how flawed or damaged it is they want it to live. Professionals can be wrong, hope is everything and I'm a romantic fool.

Thanks all for not letting this degenerate in my absence from my PC this afternoon/evening.

Debate is good.

Different viewpoints make the world go round (they make us think and re-evaluate), as long as everyone accepts that views are views and that people are made up of multi-partite views, and that different things work for different people at different times in their lives, for different reasons.