Who on here doesn't have children?

[MarillionFan]

Jeez. Long thread.

For the record, I go with Old Hack. I believe the biological tie to be strongest and that a step parent doesn't have that same initial unconditional love(though of course many will derive it). So I would put my kids first above wife/family. If it was a choice of who to save and who to sacrifice I'd always save the kids first.

And second. Hi Gentile. Crap disguise.

[Coalman]

It gets better. Do you understand what opinionated means?

Holding stubbornly and often unreasonably to one's own opinions

Ha Ha Ha

Oh the ironing!

[formant]

And second. Hi Gentile. Crap disguise.

Must go look up some Gentile activity in older threads. Intrigued now.

Edit:
Her profile says "22 years technical experience. Have spent the past 10 years working in the .Net technology stack."

I'm nowhere near that old. And I don't know sh1t about .Net.
But do assume what you want.

[mudskipper]

Jeez. Long thread.

For the record, I go with Old Hack. I believe the biological tie to be strongest and that a step parent doesn't have that same initial unconditional love(though of course many will derive it). So I would put my kids first above wife/family. If it was a choice of who to save and who to sacrifice I'd always save the kids first.

And second. Hi Gentile. Crap disguise.

This is what OH is saying doesn't happen.

[Doggy Styles]

Jeez. Long thread.

For the record, I go with Old Hack. I believe the biological tie to be strongest and that a step parent doesn't have that same initial unconditional love(though of course many will derive it). So I would put my kids first above wife/family. If it was a choice of who to save and who to sacrifice I'd always save the kids first.

I sort of agree with Old Hack as well, but I wouldn't put it in terms of who to save first, or even how much you can derive love.

I just believe it is a biological fact that there is a unique relationship with one's own genetic offspring, related to continuation of one's genes. Which is what has driven nearly all living things during evolutionary history.

[RasputinDude]

For society (and the sake of general equality) it is the 'wrong' choice, but I certainly don't expect people to think beyond their own life when making such decisions. Same goes for the other side - for society's sake I welcome men staying at home, just to balance out the opposite arrangement. As a lifestyle choice, I personally think that both parents should have a life/career beyond their children.

It it the wrong choice in your opinion.

I'm not one to judge whether it's acceptable. I'm merely saying that when you claim that many are forced into that sort arrangement, that that's not really the case. Do what works for you, but if it's for convenience's sake, don't whine about 'not having a choice'.

But you are judging, and not being particularly gentle or understanding of the situations of others.

See above, it's everyone's personal choice. I don't think it's great for society, but that doesn't mean it's not right for the individual. I do however tip my hat to women who've made it to that level in their career so that they even get to choose in the first place.

But it's still the wrong choice, right?

or simply the fact that my partner isn't allowed to change his daughter in the changing room at Mothercare, because -god forbid- he may spot a nipple on a breastfeeder or randomly decide to sexually abuse his or other children in there. There are countless examples like that around.

OK, I'll agree with you here. I've been in a few places where I've had to change my daughter and not been allowed in to the changing room.

[MarillionFan]

I sort of agree with Old Hack as well, but I wouldn't put it in terms of who to save first, or even how much you can derive love.

I just believe it is a biological fact that there is a unique relationship with one's own genetic offspring, related to continuation of one's genes. Which is what has driven nearly all living things during evolutionary history.

The truth of the matter is that a mothers love is stronger than a fathers love anyway from a biological standpoint. Actually carrying and giving birth to a child causes a much higher bond. From a blokes perspective that initial 30 seconds does not indicate a huge amount of emotional effort. Hence it's easier for feckless fathers to walk away for a woman to abandon their own child.

[formant]

The truth of the matter is that a mothers love is stronger than a fathers love anyway from a biological standpoint. Actually carrying and giving birth to a child causes a much higher bond. From a blokes perspective that initial 30 seconds does not indicate a huge amount of emotional effort. Hence it's easier for feckless fathers to walk away for a woman to abandon their own child.

Wow, that's a lot of complete BS in just one short paragraph.

I think you may want to reevaluate how you use the word 'truth'.

[BrilloPad]

I disagree with Old Hack on step kids as, IMO, one usually has a favourite child(assuming you have more than one blood child) but strives to treat them fairly. I do the same when looking after the neighbours kids - tonight I am taking them to McDonalds and on Sunday to a soft play area.

I reckon I could do the same with step kids - though I hope never to find out.

[SupremeSpod]

Wow, that's a lot of complete BS in just one short paragraph.

I think you may want to reevaluate how you use the word 'truth'.

He reads a lot of "Virginia Andrews". Hth