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...
Printable View
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?
Think its morally wrong to have a child if you can't afford it, shouldnt be a law
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
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?
The thread title is correct, that is all.
I don't support it but besides that nothing should be done :/
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.
My friend had a child and I asked him why. His response, this is a direct quote:
"It's an extra £100 a week".