Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Stepmom Central Stepmom Central

spin off - on a lot of posts recently

Posted by on Oct. 22, 2012 at 5:35 PM
  • 9 Replies
Interesting thing I heard today:
"Being a parent means wanting the best for your child, no matter who provides it"

Agree? Disagree?

And I think this goes for everyone
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by on Oct. 22, 2012 at 5:35 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-9):
whatIknownow
by Ruby Member on Oct. 22, 2012 at 5:40 PM
4 moms liked this

I guess in theory, if I (as a parent) set events in motion that result in my child being provided with something, essentiall, I am providing it.

But "best for the child" is open to interpretation. For example, if I had a baby and some rich family wanted to adopt him, and I said "no, I'm keeping him", even though I am merely middle-class... to some that might look like I was not allowing my child to have "the best." But, maybe a mother's love is "the best", even if she isn't rich.

So.... I agree with the statement in principle, but I think there is a lot of interpretation that goes along with it.

Derdriu
by Gold Member on Oct. 22, 2012 at 5:40 PM

I have no bios, but I agree with the statement.  The problem is defining what's best.  If a BP thinks X is best for their child, but the SP thinks Y is best, who really has the kid's best interest in mind?

The line you quoted is a typical SP line, most often used when the SP thinks their opinion trumps BP.  It's not quite as black and white as one might perceive on the surface.

E_is_4_Ethan
by Platinum Member on Oct. 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM

 Well said.

Quoting whatIknownow:

I guess in theory, if I (as a parent) set events in motion that result in my child being provided with something, essentiall, I am providing it.

But "best for the child" is open to interpretation. For example, if I had a baby and some rich family wanted to adopt him, and I said "no, I'm keeping him", even though I am merely middle-class... to some that might look like I was not allowing my child to have "the best." But, maybe a mother's love is "the best", even if she isn't rich.

So.... I agree with the statement in principle, but I think there is a lot of interpretation that goes along with it.

 

soonergirl980
by Gold Member on Oct. 22, 2012 at 5:44 PM

So every poor parent should turn over their kids to a rich couple to raise because that would be "best" or what if what I think is best and someone else wanting to provide something else is "best". I think this is a line people use to overstep where they don't belong.

Polkadotted
by Gold Member on Oct. 22, 2012 at 7:52 PM

i think it depends on how you take it.  If I as a parent think the best thing I can provide is best for the kids then yeah.  But I know I can't provide the life that someone like Bill gates could provide, does that mean I should give up my kid just because he can provide it?  Nope.

jlg12678
by Gold Member on Oct. 22, 2012 at 7:53 PM
I like this.


Quoting whatIknownow:

I guess in theory, if I (as a parent) set events in motion that result in my child being provided with something, essentiall, I am providing it.

But "best for the child" is open to interpretation. For example, if I had a baby and some rich family wanted to adopt him, and I said "no, I'm keeping him", even though I am merely middle-class... to some that might look like I was not allowing my child to have "the best." But, maybe a mother's love is "the best", even if she isn't rich.

So.... I agree with the statement in principle, but I think there is a lot of interpretation that goes along with it.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
elisesmom922
by Silver Member on Oct. 22, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Pretty much this is how I feel. And funny to me is that she used this particular scenario, b/c that actually happened to me.

Quoting whatIknownow:

I guess in theory, if I (as a parent) set events in motion that result in my child being provided with something, essential, I am providing it.

But "best for the child" is open to interpretation. For example, if I had a baby and some rich family wanted to adopt him, and I said "no, I'm keeping him", even though I am merely middle-class... to some that might look like I was not allowing my child to have "the best." But, maybe a mother's love is "the best", even if she isn't rich.

So.... I agree with the statement in principle, but I think there is a lot of interpretation that goes along with it.


Polkadotted
by Gold Member on Oct. 22, 2012 at 8:15 PM

plus in the situation of divorce the parents may have different views on what's best.  Does that make them wrong?

jessiesluv
by on Oct. 22, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Even though I don't have bios, I agree with the statement, to an extent like WIKN explained.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)