Koroviev

Thanks AMO, While I agree that it is their life and there is not much we can do to change their decisions, isn't it our responsibility as their friends to help them to make the best decisions for their future? I'm looking for any research that has been done on the subject so I can present as much evidence as possible as opposed to just my opinion. Then it is up to them to decide how to act and what decisions to make. To answer your other question, although we have thought about moving to the big city my wife and I decided it would be a better decision to stay in the smaller city where we can afford to live. Even though there would be many opportunities for us to make more money in the bigger city we would also likely be stuck in the same situation they have gotten themselves into, in that we would be "forced" to live beyond our means. -TYFYC

I'm looking for some advice on how to handle this situation. My wife and I went to school with this couple who just moved to a big (read expensive) city and just bought a big (read expensive) house that they can only afford if both of them work. It has been her dream to have a big house and this is the house they plan on living in until they retire. They also plan on having children as this has also always been part of her plan (not necessarily his plan but that's another topic). The way they are planning to make this work is hiring a nanny who will take care of their children while they work. Anyway we're looking for some advice on how to handle this situation as a 3rd party friend. As well as any research there might be that we could give them on the effects that 2 working parents has on children. Or what effect having a nanny raise your children has, etc. -Thanks TYFYC

I agree with Richard_III the fundamental mistake with his argument is that doing something advantageous for your child does not mean everyone else's children are disadvantaged. This immediately struck me as what is often propagated by leftest propaganda, everything needs to be fair and everyone needs to be equal. When in reality we all are naturally given advantages and disadvantages and this is good and healthy because that's what makes everyone unique. I like the point he makes about parents not "owning" their children and as Stef has said many times it should be a voluntary relationship. However, Smith is making it seem like the state or the community owns the child not the parents. The other thing that really struck me was the idea of what parents "should" or "should not" be able to do. Obviously, having the state step in, which Smith appears to be advocating, would never be a good idea, but at what point does it become the community's responsibility to decide what's best for the child. Things such as physical abuse are obvious and the community should have the ability to educate the parents and ostracize if it comes to that. What about things like private schools, as Smith talked about, or parents who don't read to their children. What if the parents think they're doing the absolute best thing for their child, while the community says they aren't. Also, what if a situation arises similar to global warming where the community holds a certain opinion that is backed up by popular science but the parents have other opinions, or evidence that shows the opposite? -TYFYC