MovieChat Forums > About Time (2013) Discussion > Would you choose a third child over your...

Would you choose a third child over your dad?

posted 10 years ago by drivenkick43
35 replies | jump to latest

For the sake of this thread, let's assume a couple of things:

A. You have a great, loving relationship with your father, as depicted in this movie.
B. Put aside all the debates about changing babies, time travel paradoxes, etc. discussed in other threads. Let's just take what the movies tells us at face value.

Now, my wife wants me to have a third child. I know this means I can never go back and see my dearly departed dad anymore. I don't think I would want to do that. If this were me, I'd find a way to sterilize myself so that third child never comes and I can continue to visit and see my dad. Now, maybe if this was my first child, I would choose to have kids and say goodbye to Dad once and for all. But that's not the case. I already have two great kids. I don't think I would sacrifice my father to have a third kid.

What say you?

[–] zewolff1 10 years ago

I think I agree with you, but I don't know if I'm as qualified to make that decision because I don't have kids yet.

[–] flickfix 10 years ago

He didn't chose a third child over his dad. He took his dad's advice to live forward appreciating the beauty of whatever time that is lost, is lost. And that's what makes us treasure every moment.

[–] lara_ads_19 10 years ago

Yessss I agree with you, plus her wife Mary really REALLY wanted another one he thought about her as well; her happinnes matters too <3

[–] Scarlett_Butler 10 years ago

I'm with you. 2 kids is more than enough; being able to see a beloved parent whenever you want for the rest of your life is a gift that is impossible to trade.

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 10 years ago

I took it as, his father imparted to him to live your life fully . He wanted a third child as much as his wife, so he chose that. In choosing the additional child, he was accepting that he can't see his deceased father any more, which is how it is for everybody else. That's life on life's terms and that's what his father would want him to choose.

I have to say though, as someone who has lost my father, those scenes where he gets to go back and spend more time with his father really tore at my heart! I would love to have that chance.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

[–] Lyrakill 10 years ago

Me too. I would give anything to be able to see my dad again. I think if I was happily married, and my husband REALLY REALLY wanted another child, I'd put my husband's wishes over my own selfish desire to be able to see my dad again whenever I want. But it would be a wrenching decision!

Coulson has a plan.

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 10 years ago

The way I see it, he didn't choose a third child over his father, so much as he chose the future over the past. It wasn't specifically about the child, exactly, but about letting go and moving on.

I think that was the right call. His father guided him well.

You don't sneak up on people in a zombie apocalypse, okay?

[–] d-style-cubed 10 years ago

Exactly, I don't really see how to look at it any other way in the context of these characters. The past is always there, but at some point in order to move forward, you have to leave it behind.

I don't hate you.....hate your parents for having you.

[–] dillasdonuts 10 years ago

A relationship with my father based purely on time travel carries no present significance (can't be nurtured or even shared with others since its a secret). There's no real sense of fulfillment there since the relationship has no real chance to grow any further.

While rehashing old memories is nice, creating new lasting memories with a third child (a child than can further share the love with his/her mom, dad, siblings, world is much more worthwhile.

[–] IL_Maestro 10 years ago

Why are two kids enough and not three? why two and not one?
plus he didn't sacrifice his father, he only let him go as he should
his dad was going to do, he would only be able to visit him at certain points
but he wouldn't stop growing up, he would get older and his father would be the same age
what they didn't show in that movie is that his visits would've made him very sad when he is back to his present, because he never let go which means he is living around the time when his father died
a lot of people would want that except that it means they will never be able to forget and let go which means they are going to live in the pain forever.

It is never about what happened, it is only how you look at it!

[–] thomas998 9 years ago

2 kids replace you and your spouse, so 2 makes logical sense. 3 is wrong on many different ways... you could say it is selfish because everyone knows that the planet is overpopulated so you shouldn't be squirting out extra people to use up more resources, which of course is also a reason that 1 should be enough... though with 1 you have no spare if the first one dies... You could also say it is wrong because the first kid get attention for being the first... the third in a family of 3 kids will get attention because they are the youngest and the middle kid will get screwed over because he is neither the first nor the baby of the family... you can dream up all sorts of reasons why more than 2 kids makes sense... In the end giving up your existing family for a third kid is just wrong. For all he knew the 3 kid would be a tard and cause the other 2 existing kids to endure endless embarrassment because of number 3 that didn't need to exist.

[–] Magic93 9 years ago

Here we go with that *beep* I knew it was only a matter of time before someone belched that crap out.

_____
That's putting it mildly, OO7

[–] IL_Maestro 9 years ago

everyone knows that the planet is overpopulated

Here you couldn't be more wrong, i couldn't be more wrong if i said the exact opposite
nothing is known by everyone ever and there are a lot of countries on this planet where people only occupy very little area of the land
the resources won't end, the more consumers the more resources available like new farms and more workers in cattle business etc...
and if a kid gets more attention from his parents than the others then they are wrong and that is why there are a lot of attention seekers now even with 1-2 kids in some families
plus big families have more security for the kids and less social awkwardness.

It is never about what happened, it is only how you look at it!

[–] ozzmosiz 8 years ago

What about oil, metals, wood and ultimately food? there is only so much to go around, especially when it comes to non-renewables like metals.
We are massively over-populated as a world currently.

[–] toy2boy 10 years ago

'Face value' eh? Well no one discussed the third option: Just get used to the 3rd child being different each journey back and forward, ha.

- Just adding my .02 :)

[–] JR541 10 years ago

He knew that he had to move on. His father did tell him to try and live life in a more normal way.