Cost v's number of children

teb_2

black-saturn wrote:

All families whether childless or not go through periods of wealth and poor and a lot have to go through times when they are on benefit.

yeah course they do, but mostly people dont treat having children as a right above all else (including common sense). most families will at least consider the financial angle. its not a consideration in the Ops mind at all and she thinks anyone who does give it consideration is barmy.

Jay-Jay_4

black-saturn wrote:

It doesnt mean they will rely on benefit forever. When their children are old enough to look after themselves they will be working and paying taxes for another generation of young families.

But will they?????


My hubby works on and around a large city council housing area. In his job the vast majority of people he comes into contact with are living on benefits for one reason or another. They don't work, their parents don't work, their brothers and sisters don't work and their children are not expected to work. They 'earn' their living at the post office every Tuesday morning and that's that.

Those are the drains on society. The single Mother who chooses to stay at home with her children but still instills a work ethic in them is not a drain on society because her children won't grow up thinking like the children in my last paragraph. Do you see?

There is a world of difference between claiming benefits to tide you over and actually having children that you cannot afford because you will get benefits for them.

helpafriend

wigginsmum wrote:

I find this thread immensely frustrating because helpafriend doesn't really engage and debate or make reasoned arguments for her views (which is what leads me to think this is all some elaborate prank). If it were merely a philosophical debate that would be fine, but (assuming beyond expectations that this is a real scenario) children are involved here whose lives will be adversely impacted by her needs and choices. That's what concerns me. I may not want kids of my own but I don't like to see them hurt and made to feel that they don't measure up and they're not enough.

It is not that they don't measure up it is that they re so wonderful I want a houseful. Why can't you see that? I am giving my children the greatest gift ever. LOVE. Love from their parents, love from their siblings, love from (their future) nieces and nephews, love to their children from the large family I hope to produce.

Your attitude seems to be that people are damaged from having siblings. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reason you are so frustrated is that I don't fit your view of the stressed out parent. The childfree tell themselves all their lives that parenting is so BAD and they are clever and smug for making the choice not to go down that road. When some one like me comes along, a woman who loves being a mother, it frightens you as deep down inside I think you know what you are missing.

For those that are childless through infertility I have nothing but the deepest sympathy.

helpafriend

cupid_stunt wrote:

I think this could be very upsetting for some people. My nan for example was pregnant with her second child at about 28 when she had a miscarriage and couldn't have any more kids.

Does this make her any less of a parent to my dad?

You don't have to do something more than once to do it properly. In fact as with most things if you do it properly first time round why bother doing it again?

I am talking of parents who have an only child by choice. I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for those who suffer infertlity.

black-saturn

viktory wrote:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

She doesn't. The tax payer does.

And you were on benefit until your OH came along and sorted you out. You said so in the other thread.

teb_2

helpafriend wrote:

The reason you are so frustrated is that I don't fit your view of the stressed out parent.

CRAP! The reason why we are all so frustrated with you is not because of YOUR choices for YOURSELF, its because you think your choices should be right for everyone else too! That's the problem! What's good for you isn't going to be good for someone else necessarily.

The benefits bit came in when we all tried to explain why your choices were not so good, especially for everyone else.

cupid_s

helpafriend wrote:

I am talking of parents who have an only child by choice. I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for those who suffer infertlity.

yet you still said to be a parent you have to do it more than once. Now whether it was through choice or not my nan only did it once - therefore not fitting in with your previous post.

I can understand why you want lots of kids - i want kids. I want 2 but practically more than that i feel would cost too much.

I do think it's important to be able to afford them though. And if we win the lottery or hubby gets an amzingly well paid job we might have more. But i don't want to struggle to feed and clothe 4 kids when if i only had 2 they'd have much easier and possible happier lives.

If you want lots of kids good for you - but you should make sure you can afford them without necessarily relying on benefits too much.

For a start you never know when the government will change and benefits might decrease. How would you manage then?

It's just that you love children obviously, but maybe your sister isn't quite as enthusiastic and is perfectly happy with her lot. But you don't seem to understand why anyone would feel this way - just because you don't

wigginsmum

Good to see you develop some balls and argue back at last! Well done!

No, people aren't damaged by having siblings. Unless they're like one family I knew at school who had 9 kids and couldn't physically feed them so they had to go through the bins. But hey their parents wanted a big family and didn't think about how to pay for it all, but that doesn't matter. I remember one of them coming to our house for tea, stuffing herself with sandwiches till she threw up and begging to come back again, poor kid.

I'm not particularly interested in whether you're stressed out or not; you simply come across as not very forward-thinking or mature.

I'm happy with my decision; it's one I made in my early teens and I love it. Does that make me smug? Probably I wouldn't change it for the world; in fact having to have a child would've made me suicidal with horror. I'd've had my hysterectomy in my teens instead of at 39 if I could've done.

You're happy with your decision. At least that's what you say, but deep down you're disturbed by your sister's decision and see it as a criticism of you. Deep down you know she's made the sensible decision, as you admitted in your other thread that you have debt problems which are escalating and money is tight. Furthermore, if you were truly happy with your decision, you wouldn't be trying to convince yourself that all us childfree people are secretly tortured and jealous.

I can live with the fact that people choose to be parents; you're upset because people choose NOT to be.

helpafriend

cupid_stunt wrote:

It's just that you love children obviously, but maybe your sister isn't quite as enthusiastic and is perfectly happy with her lot. But you don't seem to understand why anyone would feel this way - just because you don't

I think it is maybe because we come from a large family ourselves and she knows how close we all are and what a great support system it brings. To be honest I think her husband has had some influence as he is one of two and had a spoiled upbringing. He probably thinks spoiling kids is the way to go.

My mum and dad don't have 2 pennies to rub together, but when we all go round for Christmas it is just so wonderful. Also they always have someone to help them out, with shopping or the garden which is great.

teb_2

*teb's OH runs in screaming aaaaarrrggghhh and pulling her hair out in frustration, Big Brother Nikki style then runs out again to throw herself on the floor in sheer frustration at this thread*

:rotfl: