Is it immoral to have kids with a dishonest person?

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

Is it immoral to "reward" a dishonest person by having kids with them?

 

A friend of mine claims it is wrong for an honest person to procreate with a dishonest person because the dishonest person is effectively being rewarded for their dishonesty, while some honest person somewhere else gets no kids every time a dishonest person is selected as a partner.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this, especially if the dishonest person later becomes an honest person. Would really love to hear other people's perspective.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

There is no such thing as the virtue of honesty if it is not applied to the decisions which hold the greatest moral weight. Creating a child is a moral act. To do so with a dishonest person would be to sacrifice the value of honesty, and would leave a pit of foul odor where integrity used to reside.

 

I will never trust people who openly chose a dishonest person for their romantic interest when honest people are available. It is incredible to believe they truly are committed to honesty. Instead, they are scam artists flickering in the false light of impossible virtue.

[thebeardslastcall]

You are what you support. Supporting dishonesty makes you dishonest. Aiding murder makes you a killer. Charge: Accessory to lie. That's why a person of integrity can't hang out with and support immoral and dishonest people, but must challenge them to fix their ways or leave them should they fail to change.

[myclippedwings]

You are what you support. Supporting dishonesty makes you dishonest. Aiding murder makes you a killer. Charge: Accessory to lie. That's why a person of integrity can't hang out with and support immoral and dishonest people, but must challenge them to fix their ways or leave them should they fail to change.

What if your friends are basically narcissists and psychopaths, but you choose to hang out with them because you don't feel like you could sustain a relationship with emotionally available people even though you are working on being emotionally conscious yourself?

[TheAuger]

I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a dishonest person, per se, only dishonest actions and words.  

 

It may be the case that it is immoral to have children with people who have a history of lying and habitually, pathologically continue to lie.  

[dsayers]

What if your friends are basically narcissists and psychopaths, but you choose to hang out with them because you don't feel like you could sustain a relationship with emotionally available people even though you are working on being emotionally conscious yourself?

If you're choosing to hang out with narcissists and psychopaths, you're not working on being emotionally conscious yourself, right? I think an emotionally available person would have compassion for the reasons why you might not be as emotionally conscious as you would like to be.

 

@topic: I think you have to define what a dishonest person is. Even if having a child with them was rewarding them, it's not immoral if both parties consent to having the child. I think it's very bad for the child though.

[Troubador]

Also dishonest people don't come with t-shirts, barcodes or blaring klaxons announcing the fact. They all come with varying degrees of skill and competency in the fields of deception. Some are remarkably easy to spot others less so. There is a small percentage of the population who are natural lie detectors, but even they with additional deception training struggle with being that far above accurately detecting a lie than would random chance.

 

In addition we all lie sometimes (myself included), and I echo dsayers appeal for clarification. As by dishonest I take it to mean misrepresentation, lies of omission etc. We can talk in terms of pathological liars, but a bit like how many precise grains of sand qualify as a sand dune how many lies does one need to tell to qualify?

[kikkakutonen]

Is it immoral to "reward" a dishonest person by having kids with them?

 

A friend of mine claims it is wrong for an honest person to procreate with a dishonest person because the dishonest person is effectively being rewarded for their dishonesty

 

How "immoral" would it be? Presumably you don't think it would be a serious enough offense to warrant violent intervention, like aggressing against someone would.

 

But sure, it would be a really bad choice to make, with negative consequences for everyone involved.. except maybe the "dishonest person" because what does he care either way? 

 

It's not clear that it would be "morally wrong", in the sense that you'd have a moral obligation not to do it, but it's clearly something you should avoid if you can.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a dishonest person, per se, only dishonest actions and words.

 

So what kind of person goes around committing dishonest actions and saying dishonest words?

[Carl Green]

Yes

[myclippedwings]

If you're choosing to hang out with narcissists and psychopaths, you're not working on being emotionally conscious yourself, right? I think an emotionally available person would have compassion for the reasons why you might not be as emotionally conscious as you would like to be.

 

@topic: I think you have to define what a dishonest person is. Even if having a child with them was rewarding them, it's not immoral if both parties consent to having the child. I think it's very bad for the child though.

I think I agree, when I choose to spend time with my more emotionally blind friends, I kind of do it because I am avoiding a relationship where I would be challenged to be emotionally conscious

[dsayers]

I think I agree, when I choose to spend time with my more emotionally blind friends, I kind of do it because I am avoiding a relationship where I would be challenged to be emotionally conscious

That's right. You develop strength when you overcome challenge and resistance.

[myclippedwings]

That's right. You develop strength when you overcome challenge and resistance.

But dsayers, I kind of feel rejected by emotionally available people, because they can see that I'm emotionally blind and don't have much to offer emotionally?

[dsayers]

But dsayers, I kind of feel rejected by emotionally available people, because they can see that I'm emotionally blind and don't have much to offer emotionally?

What happens when you tell them that what you're feeling is rejected? Are they truly emotionally available if they don't understand WHY you might be struggling?

[thebeardslastcall]

What if your friends are basically narcissists and psychopaths, but you choose to hang out with them because you don't feel like you could sustain a relationship with emotionally available people even though you are working on being emotionally conscious yourself?

 

How are narcissists and psychopaths your friends? How is hanging out with completely unavailable people, that is people who having nothing to connect with, considered to be really 'with' anyone? Instead of being with an emotionally present person or alone to reflect you are choosing to be with anti-emotional people and say you are working on being emotionally available? Does that not seem like a collection of contradictions to you? You're supporting narcissists and psychopaths, but you are also saying you can be emotionally conscious and present for someone else instead? Why not seek out other people who can be emotionally present as well and support each other to build towards a true connection and emotional presence by an honest relationship? How do you think hanging out with these psychopaths affects your ability to be with non-psychopaths? I can't see how such relationships help you towards a goal of emotional consciousness and healthy relationships.

 

Having emotional issues doesn't make you dishonest, if you are with someone you can be honest about your state to and actually share yourself versus having to hide yourself and having a null relationship. Don't feel you can do it? So what, you're not getting anywhere by giving up and making yourself less available to conscious or honest people by hanging out with psychos. Quitting is the only way to truly and completely fail. You want a real relationship you have to try. You're almost certain to be better of than hanging out with destructive people. I'd rather be alone, a net zero, than with negative people, bringing me down and completely emotionally unavailable who offer nothing real. Fight for your life.

I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a dishonest person, per se, only dishonest actions and words.  

 

Is there such a thing as a person, per se?

[myclippedwings]

How are narcissists and psychopaths your friends? How is hanging out with completely unavailable people, that is people who having nothing to connect with, considered to be really 'with' anyone? Instead of being with an emotionally present person or alone to reflect you are choosing to be with anti-emotional people and say you are working on being emotionally available? Does that not seem like a collection of contradictions to you? You're supporting narcissists and psychopaths, but you are also saying you can be emotionally conscious and present for someone else instead? Why not seek out other people who can be emotionally present as well and support each other to build towards a true connection and emotional presence by an honest relationship? How do you think hanging out with these psychopaths affects your ability to be with non-psychopaths? I can't see how such relationships help you towards a goal of emotional consciousness and healthy relationships.

 

Having emotional issues doesn't make you dishonest, if you are with someone you can be honest about your state to and actually share yourself versus having to hide yourself and having a null relationship. Don't feel you can do it? So what, you're not getting anywhere by giving up and making yourself less available to conscious or honest people by hanging out with psychos. Quitting is the only way to truly and completely fail. You want a real relationship you have to try. You're almost certain to be better of than hanging out with destructive people. I'd rather be alone, a net zero, than with negative people, bringing me down and completely emotionally unavailable who offer nothing real. Fight for your life.

 

Is there such a thing as a person, per se?

I kind of exaggerated when I said narcissists and psychopaths, because that's how I feel most people I seek friendships with are, quite emotionally unavailable. But in the past I was friends with very narcissistic people, but I always felt unsatisfied in those sorts of relationships, and gradually just drifted apart from them. I think I do this because I view them as easy relationships where I don't have to be emotionally present. But then I regret the emptiness of the relationship and wish I have more deeper and more connected relationships. At the moment I am seeking out people who are more aware emotionally, but I feel I can only do this when I seek emotional awareness within myself, the moment I stop doing that, I go back to my "easy", empty relationships out of convenience and perhaps fear.

 

"Instead of being with an emotionally present person or alone to reflect you are choosing to be with anti-emotional people and say you are working on being emotionally available?" I think I fear being alone with my painful feelings, and so I just seek company from my emotionally unavailable friends to avoid feeling alone/lonely? But it never feels like a solution, as it's just avoidance?

 

But yeah I understand what you're saying, I shouldn't keep myself empty for the sake of not feeling alone., and I shouldn't settle for empty relationships to avoid feeling loneliness.

[vudewnl]

Is it immoral to "reward" a dishonest person by having kids with them?

 

A friend of mine claims it is wrong for an honest person to procreate with a dishonest person because the dishonest person is effectively being rewarded for their dishonesty

I do not see how rewarding plays an significant role in this situation.

 

However the answer to the question : 'is it immoral to knowingly conceive and raise a child with someone who is dishonost?' should be yes if you have strong feelings about dishonesty.

If you truly believe that dishonesty is immoral and damaging then it is most certainly immoral to expose your unborn child to this.

But i do see that there are a lot of 'what if''s in this situation like the last woman on earth scenario for example.

[Troubador]

myclippedwings you are talking about a cycle of superficial friendships with little to no emotional content, but you yourself confess to being emotionally empty and therefore unavailable to others. Have you ever heard the term like attracts like? These things are reciprocal. The good news is that emotionally healthy people possess empathy (some emotionally unhealthy people do to, but let's not complicate things at this stage!), and people with empathy will by and large by definition help those close to them in their orbit, because the whole group benefits in this way.

 

So I'd like to ask what blocks your emotions? I can make an assumption that as this thread is about dishonesty you have trust issues, if so why? How have people treated you in the past? Feel free to either consider these questions internally or respond on here, it's entirely up to you. The good news is there is a tried and true course through these choppy waters, namely therapy. Having someone acting as a guide is a great way of getting past emotional blocks, in fact the truism "no man is an island" it's damnsome difficult to do this all alone, hire a navigator!

[myclippedwings]

myclippedwings you are talking about a cycle of superficial friendships with little to no emotional content, but you yourself confess to being emotionally empty and therefore unavailable to others. Have you ever heard the term like attracts like? These things are reciprocal. The good news is that emotionally healthy people possess empathy (some emotionally unhealthy people do to, but let's not complicate things at this stage!), and people with empathy will by and large by definition help those close to them in their orbit, because the whole group benefits in this way.

 

So I'd like to ask what blocks your emotions? I can make an assumption that as this thread is about dishonesty you have trust issues, if so why? How have people treated you in the past? Feel free to either consider these questions internally or respond on here, it's entirely up to you. The good news is there is a tried and true course through these choppy waters, namely therapy. Having someone acting as a guide is a great way of getting past emotional blocks, in fact the truism "no man is an island" it's damnsome difficult to do this all alone, hire a navigator!

Hi Troubadour,

 

Yeah I definitely heard about the term like attracts like, I also read about it in one of Nathaniel Branden's books where he mentioned that people of low self esteem seek other people of low self esteem and vice versa.

 

Yeah since I feel emotionally empty myself, I just connect with other emotionally empty people out of convenience, comfort and familiarity. I have definitely noticed that on my "better" days when I am emotionally conscious, I seek relationships with other emotionally conscious people.

 

I think what blocks my emotions, is my refusal to feel my emotions of sadness, weakness, fear and insecurity. I fear being overwhelmed by the pain and being alone with it. And I fear what perceptions may come up about myself or my life. And my disappointment for destroying my life by being emotionally blind.. I avoid these feelings every day in a cycle of constant distraction and addiction.

 

I feel at the moment that I am trying to do things by myself, I am just trying to connect to my feelings on my own. But I am considering therapy because it would make the process much easier and less lonely.

 

Also I think I have trust issues because since childhood, my parents instilled in me the sense that who I am is not "good" enough, I have to be "me plus" and that my emotions are bad and should be hidden. So all I can present myself to other people is this false mask of grandiosity/success, not who I really am? I feel like no one would like my true self, since it's full of sadness, pain, anger and insecurity? Which is why I have a hard time to fully trust people.

[Troubador]

Well with the honking great caveat that I am no psychologist, what you say is eminently understandable. Your parents dropped the ball on your parenting. Parents are supposed to shepherd their little ones through their own emotional development. It's bad parenting 101, if a child has an angry outburst punishing the child wrecks self esteem as they don't learn to seperate an authentic emotional expression from who they are and learn to suppress rather than embrace their whole personalities. Unpleasant emotional experiences will out in the end one way or another.

 

First thing a child has to feel growing after fed, watered, slept and clean is safe. You were not given that, and look at it from a child's point of view. Imagine feeling fear, sadness or anger for the very first time. It would be tough in the extreme. Children need to see us effectively managing our emotions to learn how to do it, and they need a place of safety to do that from.

 

As to the feelings of inadequacy no-one has made it anywhere in life without failing. The trick is to keep on keeping on. I know sometimes it's incredibly hard just to put one foot in front the other especially if you are self medicating (as you mentioned addiction of one type or another).

 

I have no idea how useful my next statement will be, but the following thoughts gives me a tremendous amount of comfort when I'm feeling small. The human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe, there are some 7 plus billion of us in a galaxy of 400+ billion stars go outside look at night sky consider that vastness, that absolute collosal enormity, it might not look like it as we're all clustered together but we and therefore you or I are incredibly rare and therefore precious. Whatever you need to do to make a self actualised life for yourself and indeed the very process itself is so incredibly worth it.

[Soul Sojourner]

Is it immoral to "reward" a dishonest person by having kids with them?

 

A friend of mine claims it is wrong for an honest person to procreate with a dishonest person because the dishonest person is effectively being rewarded for their dishonesty, while some honest person somewhere else gets no kids every time a dishonest person is selected as a partner.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this, especially if the dishonest person later becomes an honest person. Would really love to hear other people's perspective.

I don't believe that having children is considered a "reward" to everyone, dishonest or no. How much deception is required for an individual to be considered "dishonest?" Does there have to be a % of the time that they choose to lie instead of tell the truth? Does it matter what they lie about, or not? Does it matter if they've changed? What about if they change later? Is it still "immoral" if it was unintentional, or if you weren't aware they were "dishonest?" What if someone lies about little things all the time, but tells the truth about things that matter? What if most of the lies are half-truths?

 

I don't think it's that simple, that someone is either honest or dishonest and that having children with one takes away from another. I personally believe that every person capable of reproduction and the choice to reproduce has been honest and also deceptive at least once before. If we decided on conditions that defines a person as dishonest, we might be able to conclude whether or not it is immoral. Otherwise, it's kind of like shooting in the dark.

[TheAuger]

 

 

So what kind of person goes around committing dishonest actions and saying dishonest words?

 

Regular people do.  All the time.  I'm not excusing it; but let's be real.

 

 

Is there such a thing as a person, per se?

Yes, there is such a thing as a person.  Per se.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

So there is such a thing as a person, but there is no such a thing as a dishonest person. Why is that? And what is different between a person and a human? Obviously a human is a description of biology, so what would the word 'person' be describing if not characteristics of human personality?

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

Thanks for all the replies. :-)

 

I might just clarify where I was coming from when I asked.

 

My husband and I were planning to start a family soon, until the objections of said friend caused me to reconsider. My husband and I are now in therapy. In this case, my husband is the dishonest person being referred to.

 

At the start of our relationship, he lied to me about his age and his assets. Shortly after we married, I found out he'd hidden a huge amount of debt from me. Now, these are pretty serious lies, I guess. To my knowledge, he is not outright lying to me anymore, but during the course of therapy, I've discovered that he has kept a lot of secrets from me that I feel like he should have disclosed a lot earlier. Stuff like the actual extent of physical violence in his family and the circumstances surrounding his previous relationships and the like.

 

He has apologised for the lies, acknowledged it was wrong, and said he must have had very low self worth at the time if he felt like he needed to lie about those things. The secrets, however, he doesn't yet seem to understand why it's important that he share those things without me having to pry it out of him in therapy or why I'm so upset that he never thought to tell me.

 

I feel like he is making a genuine, if slow, effort to change, but my friend seems to have the attitude that because he was dishonest before, he should always be considered to be dishonest. He says it is immoral to have a child with someone who essentially tricked me into a relationship and that I myself am immoral for continuing the relationship at all.

Should someone who was dishonest in the past always be treated as though they are still dishonest? How much dishonesty is too much before it becomes immoral to associate with them? How much effort to change should be considered enough effort to see that person as being good and honest?

[kikkakutonen]

So there is such a thing as a person, but there is no such a thing as a dishonest person. Why is that? 

 

What's the connection between something existing and its capability for dishonesty?

 

You wouldn't claim that because a Tesla car exists, it can be dishonest too.

 

 

 

And what is different between a person and a human? Obviously a human is a description of biology, so what would the word 'person' be describing if not characteristics of human personality?

 

It doesn't necessarily encompass any "personality" connotations.

 

It would feel kind of weird to go around referring to people as "humans", right? Why can't "person" be just another, "less clinical" term for referring to humans?

[kikkakutonen]

Regular people do.  All the time.  I'm not excusing it; but let's be real.

 

You know it's not all the time, and white lies are different from the kind of dishonesty we're talking about here. Besides, what's a "dishonest action" anyway? "I picked my nose, but actually I was just pretending! -It didn't really happen!"

 

Anyway, there most certainly are dishonest people. Pretty much any psychopath fits the bill perfectly. It's all about proclivity and intent to deceive.

 

Oh, and it makes no sense for a word itself to be dishonest either. A word is just a word - it's the way it's used that involves dishonesty.

[TheAuger]

You know it's not all the time, and white lies are different from the kind of dishonesty we're talking about here. Besides, what's a "dishonest action" anyway? "I picked my nose, but actually I was just pretending! -It didn't really happen!"

 

Anyway, there most certainly are dishonest people. Pretty much any psychopath fits the bill perfectly. It's all about proclivity and intent to deceive.

 

Oh, and it makes no sense for a word itself to be dishonest either. A word is just a word - it's the way it's used that involves dishonesty.

 

Oh come on...you really want to do this?  I think this post ^ is really, really, really nitpicky.   

 

"You know it's not all the time." The context I was thinking of here is not one individual incessantly lying lying lying; The context, if you'll notice was "people", not "person".  Somewhere in the world at some t=n, at least one person is telling a lie.   There's no way to prove it, of course.  But this wasn't clear to you and that's entirely on me.

 

What is a dishonest action?  It's either not doing what you say you're doing to do, or doing something other than what you've committed to.  And there are a variety of motives, but the most common is deception.

 

In my opinion, I think the whole nose picking vignette is a way minimizing dishonesty into in-consequentialist miasma of...boogers and snot...I mean, maybe you really don't know what a dishonest action is...

 

I never claimed "a word itself" was dishonest.  Again, maybe it's entirely my fault in miscommunicating what I meant, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not throw down the straw man gauntlet, but for the sake of this argument, then, lets just say "words" in my original post are actions (e.g. speech, or writing).

 

I look forward to your responses, kikkakutonen.

 

What do others think?

[thebeardslastcall]

What is a person if not a collection of their actions? If you can't define and judge people by their actions then how can you define or judge people? People's actions and decisions are how they define themselves to others. Thus a person is a 'dishonest' person when they choose to be dishonest. An 'accidental' lie that is intentionally not corrected is a choice to lie. A person is a killer person when they choose to kill. To say there are no 'dishonest' people is to separate the action from the person. This disowning of actions is a dangerous precedent and is commonly put forth by people with a conscience problem. People who do not want to be judged for their actions, but wish to disown some part of their past, be forgiven, and move on. Sounds like you're trying to excuse some level of dishonesty as acceptable. That doesn't mean the person isn't dishonest or that there aren't dishonest people. Saying that means you've got a 'more lenient' bar for what level of honesty is okay and which you wish to communicate and be judged at. "We agreed to 90% honesty."

[kikkakutonen]

As thebeardslastcall pointed out, you can't separate people from their actions. 

 

Dishonesty is a property of a person, not an action or words (or speech or writing).

 

 

What is a dishonest action?  It's either not doing what you say you're doing to do, or doing something other than what you've committed to.  

 

Not doing something is actually not an action. It's inaction. You may think I'm being "nitpicky" again, but it's just an observation that shows your claim is invalid.

 

 

 

And there are a variety of motives, but the most common is deception.

 

Yeah, I already mentioned intent to deceive. When you tell a white lie, you're being dishonest, but your intent is to prevent someone's feelings from getting hurt. That's a big difference.

 

But I'll stop here now.. This is a bit of a silly debate anyway

[TheAuger]

 

 

 

 

Not doing something is actually not an action. It's inaction. You may think I'm being "nitpicky" again, but it's just an observation that shows your claim is invalid.

 

 

Yeah, I already mentioned intent to deceive. When you tell a white lie, you're being dishonest, but your intent is to prevent someone's feelings from getting hurt. That's a big difference.

 

But I'll stop here now.. This is a bit of a silly debate anyway

 

Well how convenient for you!  You seem to want to just sort of nibble at my argument and then swim away, merely having played a semantical word game...

 

To me, this is quite a disappointment...!

 

If it's a bit of a "silly debate", then I shouldn't expect a reply from you, should I?

[AccuTron]

...He has apologised for the lies, acknowledged it was wrong, and said he must have had very low self worth at the time if he felt like he needed to lie about those things. The secrets, however, he doesn't yet seem to understand why it's important that he share those things without me having to pry it out of him in therapy or why I'm so upset that he never thought to tell me.

 

I feel like he is making a genuine, if slow, effort to change, but my friend seems to have the attitude that because he was dishonest before, he should always be considered to be dishonest. He says it is immoral to have a child with someone who essentially tricked me into a relationship and that I myself am immoral for continuing the relationship at all.

 

Should someone who was dishonest in the past always be treated as though they are still dishonest? How much dishonesty is too much before it becomes immoral to associate with them? How much effort to change should be considered enough effort to see that person as being good and honest?

I think the two parts I underlined go together.  He doesn't yet GET it.  Any dishonesty is too much, especially very serious topics like this.  His mind hasn't made the flip into total honesty, doesn't understand the value and need.  So backsliding will be too easy.  He is still on very necessary probation.  I'd say don't extend leeway to him where you'd be at even a little risk, make him stay away from "every drop of booze" that lies are, call him on every one, so he gets the idea that he can't get away with it.  It's like training a dog to not do something; it can't be done just part time.

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

I think the two parts I underlined go together.  He doesn't yet GET it.  Any dishonesty is too much, especially very serious topics like this.  His mind hasn't made the flip into total honesty, doesn't understand the value and need.  So backsliding will be too easy.  He is still on very necessary probation.  I'd say don't extend leeway to him where you'd be at even a little risk, make him stay away from "every drop of booze" that lies are, call him on every one, so he gets the idea that he can't get away with it.  It's like training a dog to not do something; it can't be done just part time.

 

I did get some clarity today on why my husband keeps things secret and it doesn't seem to be willful secretiveness, as such, as much as it is that they are all things that are painful for him to think about, so he just doesn't think about them and therefore it doesn't occur to him to tell me. He did apologise and said he'd try to be more forthcoming, but that he doesn't know what I might want to know without some sort of specific question or conversation to trigger him into thinking about it.

 

If he is making a genuine effort to be more honest and open and isn't currently telling me outright falsehoods anymore, is it still fair to call him a dishonest person?

[kikkakutonen]

Well how convenient for you!  You seem to want to just sort of nibble at my argument and then swim away, merely having played a semantical word game...

 

To me, this is quite a disappointment...!

 

If it's a bit of a "silly debate", then I shouldn't expect a reply from you, should I?

 

Off-the top of my head, this is a silly debate for two main reasons:

 

  1) Your original claim was obviously wrong. There are dishonest people. You can't separate people and their intents and choices from actions and words, and pretty much any psychopath is thoroughly dishonest. 

  2) You keep making easily disproven, silly claims, as if you don't even think about what you're saying.

 

All in all, you're looking like a troll. Others seem to be ignoring you too, so I should probably follow their wise example.

[vahleeb]

Hi Nightspirit,

 

I'm really sorry to hear that the original issue which was presented as a hypothetical is actually a very real issue and with much more serious implications than I could first perceive from the hypothetical. I can only empathise with the amount of anguish that this situation must be causing you. 

 

I will try to address the heart of the matter and I hope that you will excuse the clinical approach.

 

A child is akin to an 18-25 year investment, and that analogy doesn't even deal with the fact that you and your partner are ultimately and solely responsible for creating this life. This is obviously a choice that is made that much more difficult because of your biological clock ticking away. I don't know how old you are (your profile didn't help) but I can only assume that if you went through the traditional steps (marriage first and then thinking of children) that the threshold that you have subconsciously set for yourself for having a child might not be that far into the future.

 

What disturbs me most about the way you posed the question is that you framed it in a binary base (you and your husband) and from the language you have used to further describe the situation you seem mostly preoccupied with the two of you. The reason it disturbs me is that it conveys to me the message that you have not yet looked at the situation through the eyes of your child. Because the real question about this situation that you should be asking is "should I expose my child in his or her formative years to this man whom even now I can refer to as dishonest ?".

 

You are your own proof and the fact that you still have doubts, and can still refer to him as "dishonest" should tell you that there is at least a part of yourself that hasn't dealt with the situation, because, you yourself have chosen him - faults and all - and if he tricked you (I am going by the rationale that him keeping those secrets and you not knowing about them made you believe that he was an honest man) it means that there is a way past your defences that you haven't yet realised and that is actually why you are still having trouble with the whole situation.

 

I would say, if I had to guess, that you feel trapped between a rock and a hard place. The inevitability of passing time and the attachment to the years you have invested in the relationship which you want to save (the going to therapy) but the way that you haven't explored and that I think you should probably try and explore with a close friend or a therapist is to ask yourself what happened and what were the choices that put you here in the first place.

 

The correct approach to the situation is that you are making a human being and you are one of their parents. Just because the moment of conception hasn't yet happened, it doesn't mean your parenting duties haven't started. They start, the second you decide you want to have children.

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

Vahleeb, thank you for your thoughtful reply.

 

I don't know how old you are (your profile didn't help) but I can only assume that if you went through the traditional steps (marriage first and then thinking of children) that the threshold that you have subconsciously set for yourself for having a child might not be that far into the future.

 

I'm 31 and my husband is significantly older than I am, so we are definitely hearing the biological clock getting louder. We've been married 3.5 years and we did get married with the full intent of having children. We have put it off repeatedly for a variety of different reasons (health problems, family issues, etc) and now this. We're starting to face the very real risk of never being able to have them if we wait much longer.

 

The reason it disturbs me is that it conveys to me the message that you have not yet looked at the situation through the eyes of your child. Because the real question about this situation that you should be asking is "should I expose my child in his or her formative years to this man whom even now I can refer to as dishonest ?".

 

I have definitely thought about the child. I don't know if my husband has thought about the child as much as I have, but he does think he would be a good father. I personally think he would be an acceptable father and possible even a good one. 

 

I don't necessarily refer to him now as dishonest- those are my friend's words. I agree that he was dishonest in the past. I don't believe he is dishonest presently or has any desire to be dishonest in the future. He is definitely lacking in self-knowledge in a lot of ways, but he is trying to do better. But my friend's attitude is, once a liar, always a liar; that he should not be "rewarded" with children because he "won" me with lies.

 

it means that there is a way past your defences that you haven't yet realised and that is actually why you are still having trouble with the whole situation.

 

A very good point. I've always been extremely gullible and susceptible to liars.

 

but the way that you haven't explored and that I think you should probably try and explore with a close friend or a therapist is to ask yourself what happened and what were the choices that put you here in the first place.

 

I'm working on that, but my only friend is the friend who hates my husband and claims he is dishonest and my therapist isn't very good, so I'm sort of working through it in isolation. I do have some understanding of how I ended up where I am, but it hasn't given me any clarity on this particular issue.

 

The correct approach to the situation is that you are making a human being and you are one of their parents. Just because the moment of conception hasn't yet happened, it doesn't mean your parenting duties haven't started. They start, the second you decide you want to have children.

 

I couldn't agree more

 

 

 

[vahleeb]

Is your friend (the one you constantly refer to as "hating" your husband) a man or a woman? You seem to have always used gender neutral terms when describing them.