People shouldn't have children if they can't afford them...

[The Don]

I recently saw a post on facebook which said pretty much the above and I saw it get quite a few responses suggesting otherwise. I personally can't see any argument against it so I googled it and found this thread on a different forum : http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/a1443665-If-you-cant-afford-children-you-shouldnt-have-them

The few key points against this argument seem to be


Realistically though who actually can afford to have children when it supposedly costs 200k to raise a child to the age of 21. I presume people who spout this nonsense think that only the upper middle classes and super rich should be allowed to have kids. Besides , what exactly dot these people think should happen to the kids of those who 'cant afford them'?


But if none of the lower classes bred, there would be no lower classes. Who would sweep the streets and do the menial jobs? Where would the rich find their staff?



Who does she think is going to look after her when she's old? She'll be happy enough to rely on other peoples breeding choices then


I pretty much disagree with all of the above. I think that having a child should be delayed until the prospective parents are in a financially stable situation. Whilst it may seem 'oppressive' I think it's more common sense...

[-:Undertaker:-]

What is oppressive is forcing via the state other people (many of whom have children themselves) to pay for the children of others. I find that oppressive and unjust. But I wouldn't listen all that much to Mumsnet, a site stuffed to the rafters of trendy left wing 'mums' (or social activists) (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100080238/mumsnet-isnt-representative-of-the-squeezed-middle-its-just-a-bunch-of-guardian-reading-laptop-wielding-harpies/) who have no idea how business works and a site full of people who simply don't do their research (hence why a large proportion of them rally against government 'cuts' when if they checked it out, state spending is rising under this pitiful government)... but then any chance to bash the party of Thatcher isn't missed by them.

I'm sorry, but the likes of people who argue for ridiculously long maternity periods along with paternity leave and then complain about young females being unable to find work in small business don't deserve all that much attention.


But if none of the lower classes bred, there would be no lower classes. Who would sweep the streets and do the menial jobs? Where would the rich find their staff?

Not aware of social mobility? or still fighting class wars from 1900? Hmm.


2 posters who agree with that sentiment already.

Yeah, cause accidents never happen eh? angry

Oh so sex is a need is it? like food and water? grow up and take some personal responsibility.


I wonder sometimes where the "anti breeders" think they came from.

In many cases a generation which didn't expect the rest of society to pick up the tab for their own personal choices of mistakes.

And boy did they know what being genuinely poor was.

[Charz777]

All of those mothers who say that people should have children regardless are probably those who have had kids in unstable conditions.

A child needs a home/rent paid for, electricity, gas and water for at least warmth and hydration and hygiene. They need their own bed if nothing else, a child needs a place of their own and a bed would provide this, plus they need somewhere to sleep. They need clothes. They need food. Can the parents afford childcare while they work to pay for all these things? Can they provide a child with a good lifestyle?

If not, don't have children. End of. It's unfair on the child to be raised in a poor environment.

[Glen Coco]

wow, how old are those women!?
there is no way in which you should have a child if you can't afford to give it a good upbringing; that's not to say that lowerclass families shouldn't have children but they need to know that they'll have to provide a lot for it.
ohwait, they don't because the government now covers those who can't be bothered to work to bring their kids up and for those who's career (as it states on their facebooks) is 'full time mummy' - NO,you can't be bothered to get up and get a job so use your poor kid as an excuse.
you wouldn't get a dog if you couldn't afford it so why breed.

[Inseriousity.]

There is one big flaw in this argument. Put simply, it argues that money equals happiness and security and by implication that lack of money equals lack of happiness and security. It is simply not true. You hear the stories about people from the "old days"

"I slept in a drawer"
"There were seven of us crammed into one bedroom"
blah blah blah.

I tend to roll my eyes at the 'back in my day' stories because nostalgia tends to make them look at things in rose-tinted glasses but to suggest that money is the main factor in bringing up healthy children is absurd imo. It helps of course it does but it is not the end of the world either.

[Matthew]

If a family can't afford to have a child.. then they shouldn't have one IMO.

Its not fair on the child surely?

[buttons]

ohwait, they don't because the government now covers those who can't be bothered to work to bring their kids up and for those who's career (as it states on their facebooks) is 'full time mummy' - NO,you can't be bothered to get up and get a job so use your poor kid as an excuse.
you wouldn't get a dog if you couldn't afford it so why breed.
such a folk devil. actually do your research on welfare before making such statements. media makes scapegoats out of full time mums or teenage mums (in most cultures and historical periods its been the case that there are young mothers and full time mothers so its not a new thing), they're made to look like they're cheating the benefit system when actually the problem is the cost of childcare. government over-exaggerates mothers using the welfare so they can make benefit cuts without looking bad. also do you think you can just have a baby and go straight back to work like that? maybe in the past people have. parents are damned if they do damned if they don't, if they go to work and leave their children then they're a bad parent but if they don't get a job they're still a bad parent.


If a family can't afford to have a child.. then they shouldn't have one IMO.

Its not fair on the child surely?
A lot of things aren't fair on the child but still happens such as poor parenting, poor moral socialisation, parents arguing, poor genetics etc. all this happens despite your social class and wealth. I agree with mike entirely. money isn't everything, nor is a 'good' upbringing. money isn't fixed and neither is life. I was born to parents with decent wages and being spoilt and lost it all but gained valuable insight into life. there is such a thing as free will, there is such a thing as being grateful and learning your lesson by a poor childhood. since I was about 8 years old my mum has had 2+ jobs trying to get money to look after 3 children singlehandedly. like I say sometimes you just lose that money. life and parenthood is a struggle that goes further than being poor.. but its completely possible and of no-ones concern.

it's like saying "your genetics aren't good enough, you shouldn't have a child". people have children despite having faulty genes. would you tell someone to not have a child based on that? (tom would say only hot people should have kids ;ll) I'm wondering to the same people saying if you can't afford one, don't have one - would you tell someone to abort a baby if it was to be born with physical or mental defects which MAY or MAY NOT affect its life chances? and if you do answer yes, why is this even your concern?

also because it's in our nature to have children. what if you can NEVER afford a child? or not until its too late? Children are much more than money-consuming poop machines you know.

i really hate this mentality. I'm not saying go out have as much babies as you want but if you have a baby - that's your life, not mine. that's your struggle or your joy, no-one elses. I don't care how poor or rich you are, it does not determine a persons quality of life or their children's. the fact having money is more important than having a family is really concerning IMO. imagine being in love with someone and the only thing that would complete it would be to have a family and you're told you shouldn't have kids because you're poor? as if I and anyone else would listen to that.

[Glen Coco]

such a folk devil. actually do your research on welfare before making such statements. media makes scapegoats out of full time mums or teenage mums (in most cultures and historical periods its been the case that there are young mothers and full time mothers so its not a new thing), they're made to look like they're cheating the benefit system when actually the problem is the cost of childcare. government over-exaggerates mothers using the welfare so they can make benefit cuts without looking bad. also do you think you can just have a baby and go straight back to work like that? maybe in the past people have. parents are damned if they do damned if they don't, if they go to work and leave their children then they're a bad parent but if they don't get a job they're still a bad parent.




I never said it was everyone that had a child without being able to afford it, sorry I should have elaborated. I have friends who have had babies and at the moment they are getting benefits and their child paid for, but they're working towards getting qualifications and doing uni courses / apprenticeships in the early future.
I think it's great that the government gives money to people to HELP them out, what I hate is when people who have kids have no intention of working and expect tax payers to pay for their kids.
I know that women can't just go back to work, there's a lot of physical and emotion trauma that they need to overcome, but once the child starts going to school why shouldn't they go back to having a job?
facebook jobs a 'full time mummy' annoy me due to the fact that they could go and work to get their kids a safer future; i know for a fact that the majority of women in the town i live in who have that 'career' live in council provided flats and have very little intention of going to earn money.

overall, the fact is why should people who can't afford to have kids be catered for but families who work hard still might not be able to afford to have kids?

[buttons]

then that's an apparent problem with the welfare system rather than people having kids..not everyone gets benefits. not everyone has to go for them, again just because there's that problem doesn't mean people should be told to not have children. the welfare cheating is a fair point in many areas though but not in this case, statistics are skewed. perceptions are skewed. people were poor and having kids before the welfare system was introduced so i don't think it's simply "no people should not have kids because they take our money to do it.." its a whole different argument.

[Glen Coco]

but then people are still choosing to have kids knowing that they cant afford it because they'll be compensated for.
I don't know if you watched the whole 'britains hidden housing crisis' but there was a family with 6 young kids, i don't think either worked; obviously couldn't afford to have six 6, and they were getting thrown to flat to flat because they couldn't afford the rent and the kids. how is that a right upbringing for a child?

Money isn't everything, love and affection is a big part in bringing a kid up but if you can't even afford the rent, let alone feeding a child, why would you go ahead with bringing a child into the world?

[The Don]

such a folk devil. actually do your research on welfare before making such statements. media makes scapegoats out of full time mums or teenage mums (in most cultures and historical periods its been the case that there are young mothers and full time mothers so its not a new thing), they're made to look like they're cheating the benefit system when actually the problem is the cost of childcare. government over-exaggerates mothers using the welfare so they can make benefit cuts without looking bad. also do you think you can just have a baby and go straight back to work like that? maybe in the past people have. parents are damned if they do damned if they don't, if they go to work and leave their children then they're a bad parent but if they don't get a job they're still a bad parent.


A lot of things aren't fair on the child but still happens such as poor parenting, poor moral socialisation, parents arguing, poor genetics etc. all this happens despite your social class and wealth. I agree with mike entirely. money isn't everything, nor is a 'good' upbringing. money isn't fixed and neither is life. I was born to parents with decent wages and being spoilt and lost it all but gained valuable insight into life. there is such a thing as free will, there is such a thing as being grateful and learning your lesson by a poor childhood. since I was about 8 years old my mum has had 2+ jobs trying to get money to look after 3 children singlehandedly. like I say sometimes you just lose that money. life and parenthood is a struggle that goes further than being poor.. but its completely possible and of no-ones concern.

it's like saying "your genetics aren't good enough, you shouldn't have a child". people have children despite having faulty genes. would you tell someone to not have a child based on that? (tom would say only hot people should have kids ;ll) I'm wondering to the same people saying if you can't afford one, don't have one - would you tell someone to abort a baby if it was to be born with physical or mental defects which MAY or MAY NOT affect its life chances? and if you do answer yes, why is this even your concern?

also because it's in our nature to have children. what if you can NEVER afford a child? or not until its too late? Children are much more than money-consuming poop machines you know.

i really hate this mentality. I'm not saying go out have as much babies as you want but if you have a baby - that's your life, not mine. that's your struggle or your joy, no-one elses. I don't care how poor or rich you are, it does not determine a persons quality of life or their children's. the fact having money is more important than having a family is really concerning IMO. imagine being in love with someone and the only thing that would complete it would be to have a family and you're told you shouldn't have kids because you're poor? as if I and anyone else would listen to that.

You can't choose the genetics of a kid, you can choose whether you have a kid or not though. In my opinion, it's irresponsible to have a child if you can't financially afford to raise them and have to solely rely on state benefits.

[buttons]

well you both turned the debate into one about the welfare which isn't what you started with so whatever. First you say don't have a kid if you can't afford it then you say only if you have to depend SOLEY on benefits.. I stand by my opinion. it's policing another persons choice, you can't say someone is irresponsible because they're poor nor can you say they're responsible because they can afford it. it's not black and white like that and that's all I have to say on the matter.

like you say, you can't choose your genetics but you can choose to have a child therefore you can choose to not have a kid based on the faulty genetics you'll pass over. i doubt you'll see people picking on that as long as they have money to support them? again, money doesn't give you a better quality of life in every case.

[Glen Coco]

Being able to afford a kid and then being solely dependent on benefits are similar aspects anyway.
How is it responsible in anyway to bring a child into this world knowing that you don't have the money to feed them?

[buttons]

I guess but what is the criteria for "not being able to afford a baby". there are people who have jobs and can't afford to look after themselves and there are people who don't have jobs that can. so it differs in every situation. if you have a roof over your head, you can probably 'afford' to look after yourself and someone else. if there are two of you and 1 kid then 1 can work while the other looks after the baby which is usually the case. there's more to parenting than money is my point. lower childcare costs so the mother can go to work and still have time for their children. have better opportunities for part-time work etc. seems a much more plausible solution than dont have kids full stop. have kids, don't work your whole life waiting until you can ~aFfOrD~ to cause by then it'll be too late. like I say it's a constant struggle to get food on the table etc anyway unless you're extremely wealthy..

[The Don]

well you both turned the debate into one about the welfare which isn't what you started with so whatever. First you say don't have a kid if you can't afford it then you say only if you have to depend SOLEY on benefits.. I stand by my opinion. it's policing another persons choice, you can't say someone is irresponsible because they're poor nor can you say they're responsible because they can afford it. it's not black and white like that and that's all I have to say on the matter.

like you say, you can't choose your genetics but you can choose to have a child therefore you can choose to not have a kid based on the faulty genetics you'll pass over. i doubt you'll see people picking on that as long as they have money to support them? again, money doesn't give you a better quality of life in every case.

wouldn't you say it's policing other people into paying more money to provide welfare for those who can't afford to have a kid but decide to anyway?

[GommeInc]

I find this argument a little bit daft. The common man (incl. woman) cannot afford a child, it takes a change of lifestyle to accommodate having children - including the pregnancy. A lot of thought should be put into having a child, such as fitting one around your lifestyle. If you've put a lot of thought into having a child, then go for it. This idea that we should all be earning above average wages for a child is incredibly stupid, especially when mumsnet (filled with stupid people) bring on the £200,000 childhood argument, which is only around £9550 approx. a year until the child is 21, which seems a lot at first - but when you consider how people usually buy more food, drink, luxuries etc. than they actually need then it isn't that bad and there is already support for people who can already afford to have a child. That said, there are other economic factors which can cause problems - housing, fuel, transport, food etc.

My only problem with parents having children beyond their means is when they have too far above the national average, and you start to question the ethics of the quality of life for those children (for example, 4 children). If their parents cannot afford to have them, and knew well in advance when they could of prevented having more children than is necessary or indeed beyond their means, then they only have themselves to blame unless economic factors applies and are beyond their control - and birth control is not an economic factor, as it involves self-control.

[buttons]

people should have freedom to have children. people should not rely on the state. people should not be forced to pay for other people's children. that is a problem with the government as is childcare issues and employment, not the people who have children. if they cant afford to have children and do so anyway, its their problem. they should deal with it themselves. however, this does not mean the child will have poor quality of life or become criminal etc. i have problem with the structure and system, not the people. again, people should be allowed to have kids regardless their income just as people with criminal records, genetic disorders etc can, end of. that is my view.


Gommeinc you are completely right. people confuse poor with not being able to afford luxuries. somehow we think we need to spend a bomb on Christmas presents and luxuries to have a stable life when we don't. we need the essentials to bring up a child and that's that. 1 person with a job should be able to provide this IMO.

[Charz777]

actually do your research on welfare before making such statements. media makes scapegoats out of full time mums or teenage mums (in most cultures and historical periods its been the case that there are young mothers and full time mothers so its not a new thing), they're made to look like they're cheating the benefit system when actually the problem is the cost of childcare. government over-exaggerates mothers using the welfare so they can make benefit cuts without looking bad. also do you think you can just have a baby and go straight back to work like that? maybe in the past people have. parents are damned if they do damned if they don't, if they go to work and leave their children then they're a bad parent but if they don't get a job they're still a bad parent.

Yes, but if a person knows they're going to be relying on benefits for childcare or anything else, surely that's a big hint that they themselves can't afford to have a child without money from the state. In which case they should not be having children in the first place.

I do however agree with you that it’s a different situation if circumstances change, e.g.: parents split up and money then becomes an issue. Although people in an unstable relationship should not be having kids, this should only be an issue after strong, married couples, for a reason out of their control start to breakdown or whatever. (Not saying they have to be married, just giving an example!)

At the end of the day, it’s irresponsible to have kids you can’t afford.

[Glen Coco]

people should have freedom to have children. people should not rely on the state. people should not be forced to pay for other people's children. that is a problem with the government as is childcare issues and employment, not the people who have children. if they cant afford to have children and do so anyway, its their problem. they should deal with it themselves. however, this does not mean the child will have poor quality of life or become criminal etc. i have problem with the structure and system, not the people. again, people should be allowed to have kids regardless their income just as people with criminal records, genetic disorders etc can, end of. that is my view.


Gommeinc you are completely right. people confuse poor with not being able to afford luxuries. somehow we think we need to spend a bomb on Christmas presents and luxuries to have a stable life when we don't. we need the essentials to bring up a child and that's that. 1 person with a job should be able to provide this IMO.


but then how do you define 'not being able to afford a child'; because no, life may not be about luxuries but if you can't afford to give a child the essentials they're not really going to have a great life are they?

[Catchy]

Not being funny but who the **** is anybody to judge without being in the actual situation themselves? As buttons;s said every situation differs... You can't pass judgement so easily on people, you all make me sick.

[Glen Coco]

Not being funny but who the **** is anybody to judge without being in the actual situation themselves? As buttons;s said every situation differs... You can't pass judgement so easily on people, you all make me sick.

awfully sorry that not everyone agrees that bringing a child into poverty is the right thing to do

[Catchy]

awfully sorry that not everyone agrees that bringing a child into poverty is the right thing to do

well maybe not but do you know what people are actually going through? no you don't, so you have no right to cast any assumptions, absolute idiot.

[Glen Coco]

well maybe not but do you know what people are actually going through? no you don't, so you have no right to cast any assumptions, absolute idiot.

oh so i'm an idiot because i believe that children should have a good upbringing? awfully sorry!
if people are going through hard times then they shouldn't bring a child into that. i never said people shouldnt have children but they should work out a way to afford it first rather then just throwing a child into it.
but no, i forgot that thinking that bringing another person into a world where they wont get fed or have a roof over their heads is being an idiot.

[Kardan]

well maybe not but do you know what people are actually going through? no you don't, so you have no right to cast any assumptions, absolute idiot.

We're not saying that we know what people are going through, but if people are in a bad stage in their lives, why should they let their children suffer? I would not mind at all if I had a child right now, but could I support it in a way I see fit? No. Hence why I'm not planning on having children for a good 6/7 years.

[Glen Coco]

We're not saying that we know what people are going through, but if people are in a bad stage in their lives, why should they let their children suffer? I would not mind at all if I had a child right now, but could I support it in a way I see fit? No. Hence why I'm not planning on having children for a good 6/7 years.

exactly, i don't understand any reason that you'd have a baby knowing full well that you could not afford the essentials that is needed for it

[Charz777]

well maybe not but do you know what people are actually going through? no you don't, so you have no right to cast any assumptions, absolute idiot.

Are you serious!? We may not 'know' what people are going through but we could take a pretty educated guess! If people are stupid enough to bring children into the world when they don't have the means of providing fully for them, then they made their bed of suffering and they have to lie in it. The only victims in the situation are the poor little kids who aren't being raised in a suitable environment!

Yes, situations change where people don't have the means of providing that they had before. But that's different, they didn't bring about the bad situation intentionally. But having children when you down right can't afford to is stupid, cruel and irresponsible.

[peteyt]

I know this is old but I saw something on some program once where some families where actually having children so they could get more benefits as they already got them for some stuff so people do abuse it.

[.DnB]

For gods sake, what do people suggest? Kidnapping a pregnant woman, tying her down and aborting her baby?! Absolutely ridiculous and morally wrong.

[Kardan]

For gods sake, what do people suggest? Kidnapping a pregnant woman, tying her down and aborting her baby?! Absolutely ridiculous and morally wrong.

No, it's more about people deciding to get pregnant when they can't afford to have children in the first place.

[.DnB]

Do you understand that firstly: it takes 2 people to get pregnant, secondly pregnancy isn't always on purpose and thirdly even if they do get pregnant, that is their choice and always should remain their choice, suggesting otherwise is morally wrong. People do get pregnant, that is just life, humans need money so of course, benefits are paid, there is not a problem and even if it was a huge problem, there are no 'solutions' so it is pointless even discussing it. Humans get pregnant, it is our instincts! Our instincts are to breed, it is nature, even if you don't have money, you cannot fight nature in such a way.
Also the mothers get TOO MUCH BLAME, what about the fathers? They should ALL be paying for their children, too much focus is put on 'getting pregnant' what about the men who impregnant women and do not step up to the mark, a mother with a newborn can't take care of her child and work but the father could get a job!

[Kardan]

Do you understand that firstly: it takes 2 people to get pregnant, secondly pregnancy isn't always on purpose and thirdly even if they do get pregnant, that is their choice and always should remain their choice, suggesting otherwise is morally wrong. People do get pregnant, that is just life, humans need money so of course, benefits are paid, there is not a problem and even if it was a huge problem, there are no 'solutions' so it is pointless even discussing it. Humans get pregnant, it is our instincts! Our instincts are to breed, it is nature, even if you don't have money, you cannot fight nature in such a way.
Also the mothers get TOO MUCH BLAME, what about the fathers? They should ALL be paying for their children, too much focus is put on 'getting pregnant' what about the men who impregnant women and do not step up to the mark, a mother with a newborn can't take care of her child and work but the father could get a job!

So it's okay for a couple to have many many children so they can live off of the government? I'm sure you've seen the various TV programmes on in recent years, I'm sure there was one couple that had 16(ish) kids...

[.DnB]

The majority of families on benefits do not have children SO they can live off benefits, they are on benefits and have children, simple as that! What solution do you suggest?

[GoldenMerc]

Think its morally wrong to have a child if you can't afford it, shouldnt be a law

[Kardan]

The majority of families on benefits do not have children SO they can live off benefits, they are on benefits and have children, simple as that! What solution do you suggest?

There's nothing that can be done to stop people having children if they wish (I mean, we're not China...), but I think it's wrong if two people can't afford to have a child, and then still decide to have one.

[.DnB]

Pregnancy can happen by accident by the way
And ok if that is your opinion but that can't change anything, you know?
But a lot of your attitudes on this thread are just morally wrong
Also do you think benefits shouldnt be paid to the families with no jobs?
Also did you not know how hard it is to get a job for some people in some areas, there's a real shortage of jobs... if someone can't get a job should they just NEVER have a child, go against their natural instincts etc. these are some things to think about and it is NOT as simple as 'if you cant afford it, dont have kids'
ALSO, That family on TV with 16 kids (the one with a single mum) there is nothing wrong with that because she was with the father but she divorced him, he had a job, they werent on benefits but of course they are now because it is the only option (apart from being homeless and hungry and then getting the children taken away by social services, which by the way would cost 'the taxpayer' more money than them being on benefits)

[Teabags]

Pregnancy can happen by accident by the way
And ok if that is your opinion but that can't change anything, you know?
But a lot of your attitudes on this thread are just morally wrong
Also do you think benefits shouldnt be paid to the families with no jobs?
Also did you not know how hard it is to get a job for some people in some areas, there's a real shortage of jobs... if someone can't get a job should they just NEVER have a child, go against their natural instincts etc. these are some things to think about and it is NOT as simple as 'if you cant afford it, dont have kids'
ALSO, That family on TV with 16 kids (the one with a single mum) there is nothing wrong with that because she was with the father but she divorced him, he had a job, they werent on benefits but of course they are now because it is the only option (apart from being homeless and hungry and then getting the children taken away by social services, which by the way would cost 'the taxpayer' more money than them being on benefits)
Totally have to agree with @Kardan (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=3428)
I don't think he's saying that in extenuating circumstances you shouldn't be allowed to claim benefits in later life.
It's initially making the conscious choice and knowingly opting to have a child, without any financial backing. If state benefits were taken away or reduced; the child, at the end of the day would directly suffer. I think the point really is, if you are solely relient on state benefits as a source of income - in what way do you expect to support that child?

On an off note, it isn't unknown for people to have children to exploit the taxpayer for greater benefits. That surely isn't right?

&why'd this get bumped?

[Adam]

The thread title is correct, that is all.

[Aiden]

I don't support it but besides that nothing should be done :/

[Matthew]

Pregnancy can happen by accident by the way
And ok if that is your opinion but that can't change anything, you know?
But a lot of your attitudes on this thread are just morally wrong
Also do you think benefits shouldnt be paid to the families with no jobs?
Also did you not know how hard it is to get a job for some people in some areas, there's a real shortage of jobs... if someone can't get a job should they just NEVER have a child, go against their natural instincts etc. these are some things to think about and it is NOT as simple as 'if you cant afford it, dont have kids'
ALSO, That family on TV with 16 kids (the one with a single mum) there is nothing wrong with that because she was with the father but she divorced him, he had a job, they werent on benefits but of course they are now because it is the only option (apart from being homeless and hungry and then getting the children taken away by social services, which by the way would cost 'the taxpayer' more money than them being on benefits)

which, presumably, is why Kardan; said "decide"

If two people make a conscious decision to have a child, when they cannot afford it, then what they are doing is wrong. IMO.

[Adam]

My friend had a child and I asked him why. His response, this is a direct quote:

"It's an extra £100 a week".