[Hates_]

When you have one child you give them all your attention. When you have two you divide it.

When you have one, maybe it take 5 minutes to change a nappy, then you play for 10 minutes after. When you have two, you then have 10 minutes of nappy changing time, then only 5 minutes to play. The time is reallocated, not added to.

[LoSboccacc]

then you can reallocate second child time to free time and the claim that 100% of the time has to be child time it's still bullshit.

do you cook? order delivery one evening and presto, half an hour free.

the only kind of parent that have zero time free after a child are helicopter parents

and that before taking into account there are in a lot of cases two parents.

[Hates_]

Well it's good that you are finding that your experience of parenting is giving you the balance that you need. Not everyone's child or experience is the same.

[LoSboccacc]

but that's the whole point of the goddamn argument: giving the child 100% of oneself is a _choice_ not a fact of life. own the choice, instead of complaining that there' no time for anything else.

[effingwewt]

I'm sorry but this last comment of yours made me literally laugh out loud.

So, not being a parent yourself, you claim that not only is becoming a parent a choice when it is most certainly NOT (rape, faith, the reasons are myriad) but you also claim to know better than parents just how much time/attention raising a child takes.

Your entire 'argument' in this thread is nothing but what you think/imagine vs. reality

[LoSboccacc]

>you claim that not only is becoming a parent a choice when it is most certainly NOT

never claimed that. I claimed that time allocation to parenting is a choice. and that's irrefutable idk why it's even a topic up to discussion, but I can see why you might just be trying to misinterpret my position as a easy way out.

> not being a parent yourself

another topic change, and another wrong assumption.