Full disclosure: am an armchair childless philosopher
if a children takes 100% of your time no exceptions, what twins' parent would do?
it's clear that there's some psychological mechanism at play that transform single child parents into helicopter parents at a great conversation rate, to the point they have to oversee every minute of their children's lives without even realising that's happening
having multiple children quickly teaches you that yes, children can survive some time on their own, but multiple children is a rare sight these days
it's simple hard logic, wouldn't have expected to have to explain it or getting downvoted for it on hacker news.
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.
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.
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
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.
With two kids (or more), you can watch them both at the same time. It isn’t like you are always actively doing something for the kids, it is just you are always watching.