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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttons

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.

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.

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?

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttons

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

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.