My husband and I are trying to have our first baby. Actually, we're in that nervewracking time in between "trying" and waiting to see if it actually worked. I know every woman in the history of time who's ever tried to have a baby probably thought that this was a fretful and jittery time, but our jitters are magnified by circumstance: we need this to happen now because the husband's only non-deployable for one year. If it doesn't work and we have to wait until next month, or the next month, we'll be down to the wire.
Those of you who have started families in the last five or six years -- or opted not to, as the case may be -- how has The State Of The World affected your family planning?
Apparently I made a poor word choice. I said "The State of the World" when I probably should've used the more direct but less artistic "pace of deployments." I didn't mean that Iran getting closer to having nukes is a reason not to bring a child into the world, but I think that's what came across.
I understand that in the military these days things won't always work out perfectly. But if it's my "right" to have a baby, isn't it my husband's right to get to have the baby too? I'm not upset that the mean ol' Bush administration might make him be gone or anything like that; I'm upset because he might miss out on the most important event of his life. I'm sad for him because I want us to do this together, not because I'm not strong enough to have a baby alone, but because it's our baby. I think he deserves to be there too, but it's hard to work in his presence.
I guess I wasn't clear enough in my post, but this is the question I was getting at. Most of you seem to have answered that you've gone ahead with family planning and tried to ignore the fact that deployments might get in the way. That's good, and very brave. But I struggle very much with this issue, moreso than other SpouseBUZZers, apparently.