Cost v's number of children

thriftmummy

Wow - this one has certainly caused a stir. Me and DH have decided we only want one child, our son is everything we will ever need, and I'm lucky that he feels the same way. I must say that one of the biggest reason for not having more children is money. Is it selfish to want better for your children than you had yourself? I don't think so. How can it be selfish to want to raise one child right rather than stretch yourself so thin you cannot cope. It is all very well to have lots of children if that's what you want, and I would never critisise anyone for doing so as long as they have the money to support them. I think at the end of the day everyone is entitled to live their life the way that is best for them. Just because something would not be right for you, that's no reason to judge and thinks its wrong.
As for thinking it is ok to breed because you get tax credits for it - my son was an IVF baby, which was paid for my us - is it fair to ask that the tax payer pays for my children to be conceived?

thriftmummy

helpafriend wrote:

I just think long term it will lead to unhapiness. It is very selfish of her to want to lead the life of a childless person when she already has a child. If you want a big house, career, nights out, don't have kids. I think Bill Cosby once said you are not a real parent until you have more than one. That is very true. If you are going to do something, do it properly.


I had not read this before when I made my last post, but this made me really mad. This is a real gripe of mine that people who have more than one child think it is right to criticise those who only want one. What right have you to say that parents of onlys are not doing it right? I would never say to someone that they have too many kids. I'm utterly disgusted and offended by this comment.

across

thriftmummy wrote:

As for thinking it is ok to breed because you get tax credits for it - my son was an IVF baby, which was paid for my us - is it fair to ask that the tax payer pays for my children to be conceived?

personally i do think IVF should be more readily available on NHS even though lucky for me i never needed to go through IVF, IVF is wonderful and very stressful as it is without having the financial stress on top of it, people dont deserve that if they feel they want to have a baby then the NHS should help them try and reach their dream, thriftmummy it is lovely to hear another success story my sister had girl/boy IVF twins and it really was wonderful it affects the whole family around the couple too, we are very grateful of IVF the twins are superb!

steve_cov

black-saturn wrote:

But it is everyones own personal right to have children.

No it isn't. There is a world of difference between having the ability to do something, and having the right to do something.

This is the hallmark of the very worst excesses of Thatcher's "me, me, me" culture, extended from material possessions to size of family. I remember reading about a family somewhere in the Midlands who took their local authority to court because it wouldn't offer them a home which they considered large enough for them and their 14 children.

Although most heterosexual couples have the ability to have a child, nobody has the right to be a parent (which, incidentally, is not always the same thing as having a child).

Being a responsible citizen is an important skill. I accept that I could make less environmental impact, but I try to offset that by driving a small, low-emission car, by recycling and by making efficient use of household energy.

It is difficult to argue that setting out to have children, with the intention that they be raised at the taxpayers' expense, is the act of a responsible citizen.

Less "me, me, me" and more "all of us" is called for.

seven-day-weekend

helpafriend wrote:

My older sister has just really shocked me. She has told me she is booked in to have her tubes tied. The thing is she only has one child, a 7 year old daughter. I always thought she was an only child because my sister and brother in law were having problems conceiving.

I asked her the reasons why she is taking this drastic decision and she says it is because she wants to give her child a good life. They do have a nice life, holidays, nights out and 2 cars but surely family is worth more? She says she would like more, but she does not want to give up her comfortable life.

I felt life she is having a dig at me as I have made no secret of the fact I would like a large family. We have 2 now and are trying for another. My husband only earns £13k, but we get tax credits and get by. I don’t worry too much about how we are going to feed and clothe them as my tax credits go up every time we have a baby. We are in debt, but are working hard to reduce this. I don’t see why money worries should stop us having as many children as we like.

So over to you. Has the cost of children impacted on the number you are going to have? Is my sister selfish? Should you worry about money when planning a family?

Haven't read all the thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating anything.

Why do you say is your sister being selfish to only want one child and you are not being selfish for wanting several? You are both doing what you want so in that way you could both be said to be equally selfish. Surely if your sister dies not want any more children then it would be wrong of her to have any?

And yes, you should consider cost when raising a famnily, it is not right to expect the government to do it for you. I've never believed in child benefit except for the very poorest. If people want children they should pay for them.

steve_cov

across wrote:

personally i do think IVF should be more readily available on NHS

I disagree, partly because I consider it an extension of the "me, me, me" culture I criticised in my last post.

It's nearly midnight, and there are thousands of children in the UK right now who need a home and are tucked up in beds in local authority care. Personally, I think that only when those children all have a home should we consider widening IVF access.

Just because we can do something, it doesn't mean we ought to.

Self-funded IVF is a different matter: within the law, people are entitled to do as they please with their own money. That isn't to say that less wealthy couples who cannot conceive should remain childless, but people have always spent money on things (BUPA, private schools) they could get for free elsewhere.

tawnyowls

black-saturn wrote:

Theres another word for that and it's BULLYING.

Ah well, that's me and 12 others at least (at the last count). I stand by every word I said, and if disagreeing with someone is bullying, then democracy really is finished. What has struck me here is that even though people have expressed themselves quite forcefully on this subject, and the debate has become quite heated, no one's taken to swearing at anyone and in fact, most of the posts here, while disagreeing with the OP, have done it in a very reasoned and logical manner.

seven-day-weekend

across wrote:

personally i do think IVF should be more readily available on NHS!

I don't think it should. It is NOT everyone's right to have a baby and as another poster has said, there are plenty of children in children's homes need ing a loving home. If abortion was not given out like sweets there would be even more. (But that is another debate). IVF on the NHS, IMHO, should only be for those people who can't have children as a result of a medical condition such as being made sterile from cancer drugs.

If people wish to use their own money on IVF, then that of course is their own business.

JFYI, I have only ever had one child (by choice). He does not mind being an only child (He's now 26 and I've asked him). He was not spoilt and we always made sure he had friends.

My own point of view as the youngest of three by 16 years (and therefore in the position of an only child) is that I loved it! I liked having my own space and not having to share a bedroom.

My husband, on the other hand, was an only child who was quite often lonely and found it a great responsibility. But he was the only child of an abusive marriage and then of a single parent, so his case was very different to mine and my son's.

His best friend was the eldest of nine and always wished he was an only child. He says all he remembers are his mother being constantly pregnant, not having enough to eat (no tax credits in the 1950s) and loads of little kids all over the house.

So, I don't think you can generalise and say that only children are disadvantaged and lonely. Some are but so are some children from large families.

black-saturn

I wonder if your going to start having a go at this poster now: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=250350

Dammam

We have 3 children (my wife already had 2 when I met her). I'd probably like more but I simply couldn't afford it. We've just got out of 7 years worth of debt and are finding our feet again and another child would very likely plunge us right back to square one - which would inevitably not only impact on my wife and I, but also our present children.

We are foster carers nowadays, and I also have a full time job. We figured that though we can't feasibly support any new children of our own, we CAN support children who have nowhere else to go. It costs us only our time and patience, brings a little extra money in, saves the council on paying fortunes to put children into institutions and hopefully helps (currently) 2 young lives have a bit of love and stability. It's hard work sometimes - one of our current guests has cerebral palsy - but the rewards are very high. Not so much financially (although what we get is a great help) but spiritually. I think we're fulfilling a number of needs.