-- Posted by Chiefette at 9:02 am on Nov. 25, 2008 significant other was going into the military, even if you did not want them to, would you have children with them while they were in?  Is is selfish for me to tell him that I don't want to have kids with him until he gets out? -- Posted by lovemetwicetoday at 9:04 am on Nov. 25, 2008 Not at all, your kids need a father just as much as they do a mother, and if he isn't going to be around most of their childhood, I'd say you're right in what you say. -- Posted by 2kewl4u2know at 9:04 am on Nov. 25, 2008 I could see why you wouldn't want to have kids yet.  You'd be basically raising them by yourself while he is gone.  I wouldn't call it selfish to wait, probably would work out better actually financially and emotionally.  Of course this is not to say that those who do have kids before their other leaves are foolish, no.  I think there is as good of a reason there as well.  But no, I wouldn't call you selfish. -- Posted by Chiefette at 9:05 am on Nov. 25, 2008 I know he wants kids, and this will just come down to what he wants more.  Does he want to be a father in the near future, or does he want to go into the military. -- Posted by AndWhenHeFalleth at 9:38 am on Nov. 25, 2008 There's no way in hell I would.  If I was going to deal with pregnancy, I'd need him to be there for me.  I also wouldn't be comfortable putting myself in the position of possibly bringing up another fatherless child. -- Posted by katrinadoodle at 10:17 am on Nov. 25, 2008 No, I don't think it's selfish at all. Having your SO with you during labor helps SO MUCH. You need that support. Especially since there are so many things that can go wrong with a pregnancy. He needs to be there. I completely understand you wanting to wait and I would do the same thing. Especially since I have a friend who is in my playgroup who is going through her second pregnancy alone because her husband is in the military and she is always saying how hard it is. -- Posted by Chiefette at 1:02 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 He has decided not to go in, so it's not an issue. -- Posted by babybluebitch at 12:55 pm on Nov. 27, 2008 i would  just  in case he died his last name would go on -- Posted by Chiefette at 1:58 pm on Nov. 28, 2008 I wouldn't want to raise a child without their father.  He has brothers, his last name will carry on.  I don't think it would be in the best interest of a child to be raised never knowing their father. -- Posted by MissPrixy07 at 2:28 pm on Nov. 28, 2008 I don't think you're wrong. If I was in that position, I would probably do whatever he wanted, though. If he was going to fight a war and protect my country, I would want to make him happy at home. Even if that baby never met their father, you could still tell them about how amazing their father was, and it's not like he just up and left. I see where you're coming from, though, and that's also fine. -- Posted by Catacomb at 6:21 am on Nov. 29, 2008 Quote: from Glory at 8:58 am on Nov. 29, 2008 I wouldn't want to raise a child without their father. He has brothers, his last name will carry on. I don't think it would be in the best interest of a child to be raised never knowing their father. who cares about name -- Posted by Chiefette at 12:52 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 Quote: from Catacomb at 9:21 am on Nov. 29, 2008 Quote: from Glory at 8:58 am on Nov. 29, 2008 I wouldn't want to raise a child without their father.  He has brothers, his last name will carry on.  I don't think it would be in the best interest of a child to be raised never knowing their father. who cares about name I was replying to someone who said that they would have a child, to carry the family name on.