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

[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
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".