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_bei...ldnt-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) 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?