Are women *entitled* to have children?

[BustyTheClown]

So tonight I was watching 60 Minutes at my uncle's house and they aired a story about women's biological clocks and how younger (meaning early to mid twenties) women think that they can pursue their career and wait until their forties or even fifties to have children. I guess that's not too strange -- except for the fact that most women's fertility drops steadily after 35 or so -- but this is what kills me... In my bioethics class and on another TV special on fertility drugs and treatments, I learned that there are some women that seem to think that they are actually *entitled* to having children, and will go against all reason to have them (such as undergoing extensive, expensive fertility treatments, putting themselves at serious health risks, etc., to have children in their 50s and 60s). There are women of all ages who take such actions in order to have children, but I find an immense unnaturalness about women who are going through or who are past menopause practically killing themselve to have kids.

What's more, there are women out there (like the President, or whatever she's called of the National Organization of Women (NOW)) who get *angry* and offended when they see things like ads telling women that fertility decreases with age. They claim that it's a "scare tactic" forcing "young women" into getting married (maybe) and having children when they're just not ready. This is just ridiculous -- at no place in the ads does it say, "So hurry up and have kids, before it's too late!" All the ads are trying to say is that, although technology is available to help women who are infertile have children, the truth is that the chances that it will be their egg that is fertilized greatly decrease after the age of 30-35. What's wrong with that?

When did children become a commodity? I'm not yet a mother, so maybe I'm missing something here about what it's like to have kids... but technically, these women trying to have their first children at 45 and up are in the same boat as I am. But, tell me if this isn't just a little bit digusting, some of the older women getting treatments to become pregnant again are trying to *replace* children that they lost up to 20 years ago. Is that not a little sick? They are bringing another life into existence, putting it in a difficult position because of the huge age difference between parent and child, just to "make up for" the loss of a previous child. Isn't that a lot of pressure to put on a child? Especially if chances are that you will die when the child is in his or her 20s or so?

I don't think I'm necessarily saying that women who have gone through menopause shouldn't be allowed to have children if they so desire. Not for now, at least. I'm just saying it seems really unnatural to me -- I mean, menopause is nature's way of *preventing* women from having more children (as well as serving other purposes, I'm sure)... Anyway, tell me your thoughts on this, I'm really interested to hear what people say.

 

[Guest]

 

[yuppietowngirl]

When I was first married. I said I would not have any children after I turned 35. And it wasn't for any risk on my health. It was the risk it would put on the unborn child. Maybe there are new studies. But I had always been told that after 35 there is a risk of problems with the child. And life is hard enough to put a child thru more problems.

My feeling is if the woman wants to put her life at risk then that is her choice but why should she put an unborn child at risk. This child never had the option. To me it is wrong. And also the age difference could be a real problem. Especially for teens...when they are usually embarrassed about their parents anyway. But how would they feel if everyone thought that their parent was the grandparent.

This is only my opinion...and everyone has the right to their opinion.

 

[BustyTheClown]

This is only my opinion...and everyone has the right to their opinion.

Naturally, yuppie. I'm assuming we're all working off that same paradigm, of sorts, but thanks all the same for pointing that out. You and emerald bring up excellent points.

 

[MissTaken]

I wonder if part of the reasoning behind late in life children has to do with the divorce rate. I know of women having children in their late thirties and early fourties with their second husbands. The view the child in a healthy light....as any mother would, a sharing of love and all that stuff.

The only problem I have with women accessing fertility treatments et al after menopause is that they could be using adoption as an option. There are many children waiting for parents who may never find them. Otherwise, if it is their desire, their health is adequate and they are committed, I would most often support their efforts.


I do believe there should be an intensive counseling piece prior to the final decision. Someone to ensure that the potential parents are thinking in terms of the entire scheme of things...rather than just their immediate need to have to children. Taht person should review with them their motivation, their plans for all the "what if's", guardianship in the event that the parents don't live til the child reaches the age of majority, and seriously explore the time, energy and commitment it takes to raise a child.

Assisting the potential parents to make an informed and well thought out decision can only be beneficial.

 

[morninggirl5]

When I was first married. I said I would not have any children after I turned 35. And it wasn't for any risk on my health. It was the risk it would put on the unborn child. Maybe there are new studies. But I had always been told that after 35 there is a risk of problems with the child. And life is hard enough to put a child thru more problems.

My feeling is if the woman wants to put her life at risk then that is her choice but why should she put an unborn child at risk. This child never had the option. To me it is wrong. And also the age difference could be a real problem. Especially for teens...when they are usually embarrassed about their parents anyway. But how would they feel if everyone thought that their parent was the grandparent.

This is only my opinion...and everyone has the right to their opinion.

As i get closer and closer to that magical 35, i'm wondering how i will handle the risks. You're right, after 35, the risk of many problems, Down's Syndrome, in particular increases significantly.

I can't begin to explain how it feels to desperately need (and need is the right word) a child and see those chances slipping away.

I completely understand how these women will do anything necessary to have a child.

If you're lucky enough to have children already, count your blessings and find some compassion for those not so lucky.

 

[Ishmael]

Entitled????????

The "entitlement" thing is what gets me.

People should be able to do what they want with their own body. A point thats been argued for years.

But having a child is NOT an entitlement. No woman is entitled to a child. Period. Ever. The fact that a woman made a bad choice early in life does not entitle her to any special treatment later in life. And that's just not women. You make your choices and you take your chances.

"Opps, I really didn't want to be an engineer, I'm entitled to another college education, free of course, to be a biologist. It's not my fault and I'm entitled."

Seeking to replace a lost adult child is even worse. These women DON'T need a child, they need some serious counseling. I've buried two sons, one a child and one an adult. Nothing will replace them and to have someone suggest that another child will, truly sickens me to my soul.

Ishmael

 

[BustyTheClown]

I think the fact that both morninggirl and Ishmael have used the word "need" when referring to how some (many? most?) women feel about having children is a really important issue that should be addressed.

Morninggirl, I find it incredibly hard to identify with the subject of anyone *needing* to have a child, so could you please explain that a bit further? Maybe it will help me better understand why women would literally go against nature in order to have the children they so desperately need...

 

[Ishmael]

Let me restate

I think the fact that both morninggirl and Ishmael have used the word "need" when referring to how some (many? most?) women feel about having children is a really important issue that should be addressed.

Morninggirl, I find it incredibly hard to identify with the subject of anyone *needing* to have a child, so could you please explain that a bit further? Maybe it will help me better understand why women would literally go against nature in order to have the children they so desperately need...

No woman NEEDS a child. She may want, desire, wish for, pine for, a child, but she doesn't NEED a child.

Needs are core requirements for life. Food, shelter, water, etc. Wants are optionals.

Let's say that a 22 year old career woman decides that she doesn't WANT to have children. She has made a choice not to reproduce. Her reasons are her own and quite valid. 25 years later she decides that she now wants a child. Fine, that too is a choice.

Perhaps she's no longer fertile. Age has taken it's toll on her, as it does most of us. Out of desperation she translates her WANT into a NEED. And once the NEED connection has been made, by whatever thread of inductive logic, the demand for the ENTITLEMENT is not far behind. And of course the leap from an ENTITLEMENT to a RIGHT, is short.

Slippery slope indeed.

Ishmael

 

[morninggirl5]

Need is the only word that comes to my mind when i think of a child. No, i don't need a child to physically survive. But i do need a child to be complete. There is a part of my being that screams "mother" and as long as i am childless, no matter how wonderful other parts of my life are, i am not truly happy.

Trying to explain it is like trying to explain love. You can't explain it, it's simply there, a part of you.

 

[Debbie]

As i get closer and closer to that magical 35, i'm wondering how i will handle the risks. You're right, after 35, the risk of many problems, Down's Syndrome, in particular increases significantly.

I can't begin to explain how it feels to desperately need (and need is the right word) a child and see those chances slipping away.

I completely understand how these women will do anything necessary to have a child.

If you're lucky enough to have children already, count your blessings and find some compassion for those not so lucky.

I am lucky to have kids. Incredibly lucky, especially when I read or hear of people who cannot have kids or want them but time is against them.

I have a friend who had both her kids in her early 40's. She had the amnio's done and was thrilled to find both babies were going to be fine.

 

[Texan]

Just a thought

My oldest son is 21. My youngest son is 9. My wife and I were both 38 when our youngest son was born. No, he wasn't planned, but he has been the single best thing that ever happened in my life.

I have several friends who had children in their very late 30's to early 40's. Without fail, the children who were born to older parents are MUCH better behaved, better adjusted, more affectionate, and tend to perform better in school. My three older sons (21, 19, & 17) are good boys, but the youngest son is just a "better" child than they were.

It may be because, as parents, we were more experienced, more financially stable, and calmer. Maybe it's genetic. Whatever the reason, ALL of the children I know that were born to "older" parents are "better" kids.

Please, I'm not talking about post-menopausal efforts to get pregnant, I'm talking about two-parent families who have children in their late 30's and 40's.

The idea that the age difference between the parents and the children will somehow embarrass the children or hinder parent-child communication, is BULLSHIT! I'm sure each of us knows kids who have better communication with their grandparents than with their parents. The generation gap exists whether a parent is 16 or 60. The generation gap is not created by age difference, but by the difference in the roles of parents and children. Also, if a parent is 40 when a child is born, they will only be 61 when that child graduates from college. The parent will still be working, and, despite the opinion of young people, still very "alive."

Finally, my older sister and her husband took early retirement last year. They were both 49, and VERY financially well off. They had concentrated on their careers and had never had children. I received a phone call in January from my sister who told me she was pregnant. It was NOT planned. They had all the tests, and the baby appears to be fine. The baby is due in May. My sister turned 50 last week. They will be wonderful parents, and I am extremely happy for both of them and any child that is fortunate enough to have them for parents.

 

[lavender]

 

[Texan]

Thank you Texan.

After that, I have no additional comments.

I do know, however, that 35 is no longer the age where the medical problems increase. With time that has gone up a bit, I believe.

You're very welcome lavender....

Just a side note on the story of my sister. What I found funniest was when she said she had to call her medical insurance company. She had to find out if her "retirement plan" had maternity benefits. (BTW... yes the plan had maternity benefits. It seems the law requires it.)

 

[SweetBrat73]

Re: Just a thought

ALL of the children I know that were born to "older" parents are "better" kids.

You should meet my baby brother then. Not all children of older parents are "better" kids. My parents were in their late 30's when they had him. He is spoiled. Has a major attitude problem. Is snotty and just a plain ole BRAT!!! He's mean and jealous of everybody. He's not the only one of older parents that I know who is like that either.

I had my first at 19...he was planned...the next at 20...also planned...the next at 28...and now another one at 29...both also planned. All of my children are well behaved and good children. I think they are "better" kids than most kids of older parents that I know of.

Older parents don't mean better parents either. It depends on the parent. I think I make a good parent...not nearly the best...but better than some that I know. I love my children...I have time to spend with them...we aren't great off finacially(sp?) but we do ok. My kids don't need for anything. Just because older ppl are having kids doesn't mean they will have better kids or be able to raise them better. It's all how a parent deals with their children.

I've got nothing against older parents...I do know some that make good parents and their children are good kids too...just don't make the assumption that they always have better kids. I know alot of young parents who do have kids with "behavior" problems...but I do believe they weren't ready to have them...same goes for older ppl too...some of them weren't ready to have their kids either...or they were unplanned and they really didn't want children to begin with. I think anybody who was raised "right" or really want their children do a better job and have the best kids.

Brat

P.S.
Wanted to say congrats on your sister's baby Texan Hope all goes well and they are blessed with a beautiful healthy baby

 

[Cheyenne]

I watched the same show tonight. I didn't hear any part of it refer to "older women getting treatments to become pregnant again are trying to *replace* children that they lost up to 20 years ago." The show concentrated on women who did not have children when they were younger and ASSUMED it would be easy to get pregnant later in life. The most shocking women to me were the ones in their mid to late 20's who were insisting that technology will improve to the point that they can wait until they are 55 to have children.

The show didn't really address women who have gone through menopause, other than showing a few headlines about women in their 50's and 60's getting pregnant with donor eggs. Menopause doesn't occur until the average age of 50. The women the show was talking about were 35 to 45- still having periods, healthy, and very surprised that none of that mattered. Fertility decreases dramatically after age 35. The show seemed to say that after 40, most women who get pregnant don't do it with their own eggs.

By the way, if a woman is 35 to 45 when she has a baby, chances are NOT that she will die while her child is in his/her twenties or so. Our expected lifespans are a bit longer than that.

I know the focus of the show was how hard it is to get pregnant after age 35. They said it was almost impossible above the age of 40. I hope women didn't listen to that TV show and assume they no longer needed birth control since the chances of a pregnancy are so small. There are LOTS of babies born to women in their 40's who thought they could no longer get pregant- Mensa's sister, for example. Women should not play the odds- pregnancies DO happen naturally to women in their 40's! Birth control is a must!

 

[IA951]

I must say that anyone who believes they need a child to be "complete" is not only mentally ill, but exceptionally selfish as well.
Of course, I've been called selfish for not going the domestic route.For not getting married and poppin' them out.

It is my opinon that part of the problem is women have been led to believe that they can "have it all".
They can be a wife,mother and career woman.Or you could develop your career now and put off having the family until later, neither method works especially well.

I have to say that I too am deeply disturbed by this attitude of entitlement that so many people have.
"I want it so I should be able to have it no matter what"

It seems as though children have become the ultimate accessories.

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: Re: Are women *entitled* to have children?

I watched the same show tonight.

The show didn't really address women who have gone through menopause, other than showing a few headlines about women in their 50's and 60's getting pregnant with donor eggs. Menopause doesn't occur until the average age of 50. The women the show was talking about were 35 to 45- still having periods, healthy, and very surprised that none of that mattered. Fertility decreases dramatically after age 35. The show seemed to say that after 40, most women who get pregnant don't do it with their own eggs.

My doctor has been giving me this same information every year for the past five years or so.

I didn't watch tonight, i saw the preview and hid my head in the sand. Sometimes that's all we can do.


IA951, i think it's best that you and i don't discuss this at all.

 

[Cheyenne]

* bump* for the weekday shift and a good discussion...

 

[BustyTheClown]

Re: Re: Are women *entitled* to have children?

I watched the same show tonight. I didn't hear any part of it refer to "older women getting treatments to become pregnant again are trying to *replace* children that they lost up to 20 years ago." The show concentrated on women who did not have children when they were younger and ASSUMED it would be easy to get pregnant later in life. The most shocking women to me were the ones in their mid to late 20's who were insisting that technology will improve to the point that they can wait until they are 55 to have children.

The show didn't really address women who have gone through menopause, other than showing a few headlines about women in their 50's and 60's getting pregnant with donor eggs. Menopause doesn't occur until the average age of 50. The women the show was talking about were 35 to 45- still having periods, healthy, and very surprised that none of that mattered. Fertility decreases dramatically after age 35. The show seemed to say that after 40, most women who get pregnant don't do it with their own eggs.

By the way, if a woman is 35 to 45 when she has a baby, chances are NOT that she will die while her child is in his/her twenties or so. Our expected lifespans are a bit longer than that.

I know the focus of the show was how hard it is to get pregnant after age 35. They said it was almost impossible above the age of 40. I hope women didn't listen to that TV show and assume they no longer needed birth control since the chances of a pregnancy are so small. There are LOTS of babies born to women in their 40's who thought they could no longer get pregant- Mensa's sister, for example. Women should not play the odds- pregnancies DO happen naturally to women in their 40's! Birth control is a must!

First of all, I must not have stressed enough that the information about post-menopausal women and those replacing children they've lost was from a different show, not the show you and I saw last night, Cheyenne. I'm very well aware of the focus of last night's show, and it still disturbs me -- for the reasons you named.

Thank you for sharing your opinions... Texan, I respect your opinion (even though it seems a little one-sided) and wish your sister best of luck with her baby. Morning, I won't go so far as to say that women who "need" children like you do are mentally ill. That is ludicrous -- women's bodies are pretty much made to have children, no matter what radical feminists tell you. It seems natural that most if not all women would want children in a very real sense at some point in their lives, and I can see how, as you get older and realize that your clock is ticking and the risks are increasing, you might feel like you need children and won't be complete until you have them. I see what you mean now. I can't identify, but I guess it isn't so baffling to me anymore.

Actually, the age where the risks of getting pregnant increase is probably up to who you ask. Even if it isn't 35 anymore, it would take hundreds if not thousands of years of evolution to a woman's reproductive system to make a difference significant enough to change the way we think about women and having kids at "older" ages.

And Ishmael, this point may be sort of moot right now, but I understood what you meant when you said that women "needed" children. I know that you were coming from my point of view, in that you didn't think they really needed them at all in any sort of physical, survival-oriented sense. I just thought it was interesting that you and morninggirl used it in two strikingly different ways.

IA, aside from your rather insane opinion that women who think they need children are mentally sick, lol, you make an excellent point in that it seems like women are lied to about their being able to be a mother who devotes a significant amount of time to raising her children, as well as pursuing a successful career. I don't think there are a whole lot of people who can cut it like that -- what I mean is that I don't think many people, no matter what their gender or sex, can have a successful career and not have to make a significant amount of unforeseen sacrifices with either their jobs or their children.

I could just be talking out of my ass here, but please don't flame me because it's just an idea I'm tossing out there. I am in no way judging anyone out there or saying they are inherently bad parents or neglectful or whatever. So please respond accordingly, if you wish to respond at all.

 

[WhiteRose]

I don't think women are "entitled" to have children, anymore than men are. Children shouldn't be treated as a reward, but as a gift. But how many parents choose to have children because they want them rather than really planning out what THEY have to offer the child?

I think a lot of women who bring children into this world aren't really ready to parent a child successfully, and that's far worse to me than someone who is not only ready to have a child, but can afford to support it, is emotionally stable and prepared for it, and can spend the time and energy it takes to make for a happy child, regardless of the mother's age.

If you're worried about older women becoming mothers in theiir mid 30's or 40's because of the age difference between the mother and child, what about all the mothers who started their families in their 20's and are still having children later on? Doesn't the age difference matter then, or does it only count for first-time mothers? People die. That's a fact of life. You can take perfect care of yourself, eat right, exercise, heck, you can be a marathon runner in top shape, but that doesn't mean you can't die of a heart attack in your mid-30's. It happens. Not to mention any and all sorts of "outside" causes of death. If you base when you have children on when you're going to die, you might as well not bother having any, because chances are you'll end up dying before them anyway. Live for the journey, not the destination. Enjoy the time you have with them while you have it.

I'm 40 and have never been blessed with a child...yet. But I've never felt READY to have a child before. That doesn't mean I don't want one, I do, but I knew I was not in the right "place" in my life to attempt raising a child. When I was young, other girls would fantasize about their weddings. I'd fantasize about the dress, sure but I'd fantasize even more about being pregnant. From first suspecting it, going to the doctor's office for confirmation, coming home and telling my husband (in my fantasy, I'd be married), and his HAPPY reaction to the news, and then just BEING pregnant, watching my body change, feeling the baby growing inside me, the birth, raising a happy and healthy child. As the years go by though, the chances are getting slimmer and slimmer that I'll ever get to experience this. It really scares me. Just the thought of it hurts. I treasure each and every menstrual cycle I have now, because it might be my last, and because up until then, I still have a CHANCE.

I know I might be able to adopt someday, although that too gets harder the older you are. That's not the issue. I'd love the baby/child either way just the same. I grew up as an adoptee, as did my brother, so that's "normal" for us. It's more about the incredible experience of carrying one's own child, feeling it grow, the birth itself. I want to feel a baby inside me. I don't know how else to explain that.

And yes I suppose subconsciously or not, it's partly about securing my family line since I'm the only product linking my mother's line to my father's (something passed down in all life forms...perhaps hard-wired into our genetic code...we want to procreate, to pass on our genes...this is why male mammals will often kill the offspring of any other male that has mated with the target female...to protect HIS line. Human society has been teaching that we no longer NEED to procreate to feel complete, but after eons of living by natural urges, it's a hard thing to fight.)

If it turns out that I stop ovulating before I have the opportunity to get pregnant, I don't THINK I'd try any "super-human" techniques to get pregnant. It's something that I would always regret not having experienced and be greatly saddened by it, but I'm a big believer in letting things happen naturally. And it doesn't mean I wouldn't try to adopt, because I most definitely would. Or become a foster-parent. There are so many children already in the world who need someone to take care of them, and when I'm finally ready, I know they'll still be there.

***

And strictly from an anthropological point of view...more just for thought rather than as backup to my own feelings on creating a baby...

Think about it in terms of 100 years ago, a man and a woman happened to be in the same location on a certain day at a certain time, happened to begin communicating and build a relationship, happened to marry (whether by choice or arrangement), and happened to give birth to a child...and that child was one of your ancestors. The slightest change in timing, a change of mind in what that man or woman decided to do that one day that they met, and you wouldn't be here. Amplify that by 1,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago through every single generation. It's a pretty daunting concept. Do you want to be the one link in that long chain that spans throughout human history and SURVIVED to say, "Hey, I think it's time to end this line now." To wipe out your entire family history AND future with one decision? It might not matter if you have brothers and sisters to share the "burden" of carrying on your family line, but if you're the sole survivor of that long familial line, knowing that if you say "no", you're the very last of "your kind", what do you do?

 

[BustyTheClown]

Lol Rose, I found most of what you said helpful in understanding why women feel a need to have children. What I got hung up on was the last part where you talked about discontinuing your family line...

I am unsure about whether I ever want to have kids. I'm young, so that very well may change with time. However, I'm not going to base my decision to have kids on the fact that, if my brother doesn't have any, I will be the one responsible for not continuing my familial line. I hardly think it appropriate come to such a conclusion... You sound more like you're interested in breeding horses or dogs or something, trying to keep the best genes in continuation, but that's beside the point. People should not live their lives according to daunting philosophical dilemmas. I concede that it is a little scary thinking that if one person at one point in time thousands of years ago had done something a little different, I wouldn't be here. But that's no reason for me to make a decision to have kids if I really don't want them, or can't have them, or whatever. I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's as big of a problem as you seem to make it out to be.

 

[cherrylips_au]

I don't think women are entitled to have children. No one is entitled to have anything in life. We may have wants and desires but we also make choices.
Some women are unable to have children for medical reasons but unless they can afford the procedures to ensure this they are still childless.
Sometimes we just have to accept things in life.

I often wonder how the older mums cope especially when in their 50's and 60's especially with multiple births which are more common when medical science comes into play. I had twins at the age of 25 and its really hard work for the first couple of years.
I can't see to many parents in their 60's and 70's playing with the kids in the back yard.

 

[Ishmael]

Because..........

Lol Rose, I found most of what you said helpful in understanding why women feel a need to have children. What I got hung up on was the last part where you talked about discontinuing your family line...

I am unsure about whether I ever want to have kids. I'm young, so that very well may change with time. However, I'm not going to base my decision to have kids on the fact that, if my brother doesn't have any, I will be the one responsible for not continuing my familial line. I hardly think it appropriate come to such a conclusion... You sound more like you're interested in breeding horses or dogs or something, trying to keep the best genes in continuation, but that's beside the point. People should not live their lives according to daunting philosophical dilemmas. I concede that it is a little scary thinking that if one person at one point in time thousands of years ago had done something a little different, I wouldn't be here. But that's no reason for me to make a decision to have kids if I really don't want them, or can't have them, or whatever. I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's as big of a problem as you seem to make it out to be.

That's because you're young dear, and the young often fail to give proper consideration to many things. This is due to a congenital foolishness called youth.

And your contribution to the gene pool IS your ONLY link to immortality.

I understand fully WhiteRoses's missive and MorningGirls "want". Of the two, I believe that WhiteRose has the healthiest perspective on the issue although both are saying the same thing. I hope that both of their wishes are fulfilled, but for the 'right' reason.

Ishmael

 

[WhiteRose]

Re: Because..........

Of the two, I believe that WhiteRose has the healthiest perspective on the issue although both are saying the same thing.

Oh, now that's scary I fully admit that I'm about the most messed up person I know. I could be the poster child for most messed in the head-inability to reconcile reality with fantasy-high expectations doomed to failure type of insanity. Just ask my family.

But, like I said, I certainly wouldn't use the latter part of what I wrote in the previous post to determine whether or not to have a child, merely wrote it out as something to ponder (and those thoughts evolved out of a discussion in one of my anthropology courses along the way). If my only reason to give birth were to contribute to the gene pool, then truly, I WOULD be doing it for the wrong reason. But, the urge to procreate (not just have sex, but actively procreate) IS a natural phenomenon of creatures born in our natural world and may play into our choices whether subconsciously or not.

I would love to bear a child someday. If not, then I'd love to adopt a child or to become a foster parent. It may happen, and it may not. Whatever happens, I KNOW I want to be able to interact with them in whatever capacity I can, which is why my dream occupation, and what I'm working toward now, is to be able to teach kids...even in some small way. Watching them grow and change, observing how they process information and walk themselves through the learning process, nurturing and guiding them as they progress...that's just magickal to me. Being a part of that would be a dream come true even if it turns out that I work with someone else's kids instead of my own.