Cost v's number of children

catkins

newleafer wrote:

My children WILL NOT go through that because I selfishly couldn't control my urge and desire to have a baby when I could not provide for them everything they needed and I dont mean the best but I mean everything they need.NW

What a refreshing and sensible post. ONE of the reasons (and there were many) that I did not have children was that I would have wanted to be a SAHM and I knew I could not afford to be. For years and years I earned far far more than OH and we could not possibly have lived on his wages.

This thread has made me more angry than any other thread I have ever read on here. Why the OP needs to have 4 children when she cannot afford to I will never understand nor why she feels it is perfectly alright to take more and more in benefits. As for black saturn's remark that is nobodies business except the OP how many children she has - well as we are helping to pay for them I think it is our business. If people can afford big families that is up to them. If their circumstances then change and they need benefits that is different but to start off needing benefits and just carry on having children is selfish and stupid. I would be willing to bet that the OP if she does end up having more children will probably never go back to a proper job. So how much money will she "be putting into the pot"? (not my words but black saturn's)

tawnyowls

krisskross wrote:

Not enough people agreeing with you then?
As well as heat and kitchen, pot , kettle and black spring to mind.

Must admit, to mine too. So far, and correct me if I'm wrong, we have black-saturn and helpafriend in one corner, and the rest of us (parents or childless; working or non-working parents; have been on benefits for some point or not) all pretty much agreeing 3 points:

1) It's not the OP's business how many children her sister chooses to have, nor the sister's reasons for choosing not to have more children (nor, for that matter, anyone else's choice for either) - its up to the individual, subject to point 2.

2) Choosing to have kids is not a right, it's a responsibility, and while you may end up on benefits through circumstances, having loads of kids that you know, before even having them, you can't afford but you go ahead anyway in the happy assumption that the taxpayer will pick up the tab is irresponsible, and makes people who do keep their families to the size they can afford and who do pay their taxes (whether or not they have kids) feel used.

3) The fact that other people on this board (to whom the OP seems to have reacted as badly as to her sister) do not appear to feel the need to have a massive brood of kids to make to feel 'complete' does not make them somehow less of a person than the OP. In addition, it does not make those who do have a small family 'unreal' parents, and those who do have a small family (or indeed no kids) are not lazy, unfulfilled, or a shirker of some kind of divine responsibility to the human race.


Hmm. While the majority may not always be right, it's certainly striking how so many people from such disparate groups seem to be so much in agreement. I truly hope the OP has opened up to at least some other points of view from this, and that she will give her sister support instead of condemning or despising her decision.

black-saturn

krisskross wrote:

Not enough people agreeing with you then?

As well as heat and kitchen, pot , kettle and black spring to mind.

No I can't see the point in you lot backing me and helpafriend into a corner like a witch hunt. I'm drawing a line under this thread so that you with nothing better to do than argue can carry on amongst yourselves. Hope your happy with yourselves.

black-saturn

tawnyowls wrote:

Must admit, to mine too. So far, and correct me if I'm wrong, we have black-saturn and helpafriend in one corner, and the rest of us (parents or childless; working or non-working parents; have been on benefits for some point or not)

Theres another word for that and it's BULLYING.

Lyndsay_21

just been reading through the posts and i am amazed, I have 2 children under 5 and am a sahm i have not worked since having no1, OH has always worked apart from 6 months when he was made redundant and then we were living off of jobseekers, it wasn't as hard as many make it out to be in fact when OH got his job we were probably better off on the JSA then off of it however we want our children to have a good work ethic and i want to go back to work when the children start school.
But i would desperatly love another baby in fact i am desperatly broody but for 2 reasons we wont have anymore

1) OH doesn't wasnt anymore
2) we cant afford it.
I was one of 4 children and we never had fancy holidays or the best trainers or a nice car but i do want my children to have some of the things i didn't and why OH works damn hard to earn the money.

I think it is selfish to just pop one out and expect the tax credits/tax payers to pay for it.

krisskross

black-saturn wrote:

Theres another word for that and it's BULLYING.

I think you need to quote the rest of the post as well, not just a very carefully chosen phrase.

black-saturn

krisskross wrote:

I think you need to quote the rest of the post as well, not just a very carefully chosen phrase.

On another thread I got told off for quoting the whole post and was told to only quote the bit which was relevant to what I wanted to say. So this is what I did in this post. But thankyou for your wise and learned advice of sitting about on message boards all day.:beer:

teb_2

black-saturn wrote:

Theres another word for that and it's BULLYING.

So if the majority agree and the minority is out on a limb with their opinions then that is bullying????? Your last couple of posts have gone down to a lower level, B_S and smack of childish retort instead of adult reasoning.

black-saturn

You can't reason with these people. I have asked the OP to close the thread as I feel it's going nowhere and people are being too insulting.

Broken_hearted

Black saturn with all due respect go have a coffee or something. You are letting it get to you way too much.