I didn't downvote you, but I think that there is something missing here. Nobody that has ever brought a child in to the world had absolutely everything in order. And even if they thought they did they would have soon found out that it was not the case.
Then there is the period (pun not intended) between conception and delivery, in which a lot can change.
Waiting for the 'perfect time' is the best way to guarantee that you will never have children, there never is a perfect time, there will always be one more thing to fix.
Instead, if you want children, go for it while you are young, adaptable and have tons of energy. Worry about fixing problems if and when they appear. Try to do the best you possibly can and if you fail at something try to do it gracefully.
That is not a call to go and procreate if you for instance are not able to feed your kids or take care of them, but let's not overdo it on the having everything in order, that's a complete illusion.
My parents had 'everything in order' when they got me and my sister, fast forward 6 years and they had a very messy divorce, there are countless examples like that. And there are plenty of counterexamples too, of people that had a pretty tough life, decided to have children and simply did an amazing job of creating a place for them in the world.
In the roughly three years between when I was conceived and shortly after my sister was born, my parents went from having 2 jobs and no kids to having no jobs and 2 kids. 1981-82 was a harsh recession.
I can appreciate the logic in that, but I'd caution anyone against jumping into a commitment of that magnitude before they've achieved some minimum threshold of maturity.
To illustrate my point, the rate of divorce declines rapidly as the age when married increases. In my experience, the same factors that contribute to a successful relationship also prepare (to the small degree that preparation is possible) a person for the utter, absolute responsibility and sacrifice that is parenthood.
but i want to ask you to consider something without any incredulity about my seriousness:
if you had not been born, you would not be bothered by not existing. and when eventually your parents die, they would no longer be bothered by not having had children.
Ok, that's fine with me.
> if you had not been born, you would not be bothered by not existing. and when eventually your parents die, they would no longer be bothered by not having had children.
That's a statement, not a question.
Even if he could not save for his daughter's college, there are always other options available: scholarships, working while attending college, starting a community college and transferring (I did this for undergrad and paid my way through graduate school).
I voted you up (because your question deserves attention), but "only families with two six digit incomes and significant savings should have children" (what you need for a "comfortable life" while saving for a college educate) is a very scary argument to make. Note, I am _not_ saying families shouldn't hold off on children until basic financial situation is stable: you should still be able to provide a healthy life for yourself and your children, etc...
That's a very odd comment. Two six digit incomes is a family of two engineers (2-5 years into their career) in Silicon Valley. Two $120,000-$150,000 incomes in Silicon Valley means "can afford a single family home, as long as both spouses are employed".
"They're" (I think you meant their) existence is not dependent on the lives of people who do not earn six digit incomes, amongst them are also people (doctors, engineers, scientists) who are making the lives of less fortunate much less miserable.
That also describes my parents and would very likely describe my own family (I've been earning a six digit income since two years out of college), so it's not something extra ordinary.
