How many kids are 'too many'?

jrrowleyws

Yep, if you cant afford them without making me pay for them (benefits etc), wear a glove when you make love, simple as!

helenhugs

We have 4 children & i'd love more but we know that if we did we wouldnt be able to give them as much as we can now. Ok so mine don't have the latest brand of clothing etc but they are all fed & clothed well, they are good kind children & all have lovely manners (most of the time).
The right number of children varies on each family & I do believe you should be able to support your own children without relying on benefits, but benefits are wonderful things for those who do need them for circumstances they couldnt forsee.
When I had my 1st child at the age of 18 I was on the pill (for heavy periods) we used a condom (he had been sexually active prior to sleeping with me) & I had been told I would never have children. He was obviously meant to be. I ended up as a single mum on benefits for a couple of years before I got together with my husband & he works extremely hard to support us all. We are lucky that we managed to get on the property ladder before the boom & I am a SAHM. Not everyone is in such a lucky position & i realise that.
So too many children is more than you can support & give the time & attention that each individual needs.
hugs
Helen

belfastgirl23

It's the exchange of time for money that's at the root of this trouble. It's right to point out that 'goods' for children can cost as much as you want to spend, and conversely can cost fairly little if you shop around and happy to use 2nd hand etc. The biggest cost is in terms of one or both parents having to either give up on work or give up on advancement at work in order to have proper time with their children. Personally I can't see the point of having children to hand over to a childminder all the time - that's the worst of all worlds. Not criticising anyone who does, it just seems the same as having a home you can't life in

If we could all just get the work-life balance thing right it would help a lot!

azjh77

Just out of interest - does claiming child benefit/child tax credits make me 'benefit scum'? I have been called this before - but I think that was because I had 4 children with me and hubby was at home.

shaileytuff

i agree with belfast girl, we have 2 dd and god love them, however, we are lucky but throughout my and dh time together we have worked hard and taken risks to get our lives sorted so that when we had the girls, i could stop work, however we have also got to live with a bit of debt, but it is a small sacrifice for us to have me at home being there to help, support and nuture our little ones

i do think if you are not going to be looking after them majority of the time, then maybe you should wait til you can to have children, it depends every bodys situation is different, however i know children are a blessing and a joy so people shouldn't not have them just because they can't afford it although it isn;t right that some people have loads of kids sit back on the benefit system while others work their guts off to pay their own way and to teach their children morals

dont shoot me down just my opinion!¬!

comping_cat

DKLS wrote: »

For me one would be too many, However if a family can feed, clothe and raise children with Love and Care, and not rely on the state to fund them (& no i dont mean Tax credits or family allowance, before the benefit brigade pounce on me)
I say go for it have as many as you can afford/manage.
My best mate comes from a family of 10, but his dad was a multi millionaire.

I so agree, i have no problems with anyone having as many/as few children as they want, i just dont think that the benefits system should pay for it (as above, i think tax credits/child benefit are completely different).

agentsquirrel_2

i've got five, eldest is now 21 youngest is 9 and we have a four bed house, granted its a squeeze but i agree with the other post which said whats wrong with sharing a room, we all did it. i think to be honest kids are more expensive these days because parents seem to think they 'need' a £100 mobile phone and a ipod, fancy trainers, the latest video game system, truth is they dont, my two eldest girls wanted mp3 mobile phones, pay as you go on orange from woolworths £24.99 each, ok they're not fancy phones but they look ok and they work and the price is right for a kid who will be fed up next month with it. kids are only expensive if u think they need material things more than love, food, warmth. in these days of 'carbon footprint' this and that whats wrong with charity shop shopping, i do it, we've had some bargains for under a fiver. maybe its me and i'm old fashioned but i grew up in a two bed terrace without central heating, double glazing etc (oh i miss the coal fire,) and there where six of us. plus pets.

angelfire

belfastgirl23 wrote: »

Personally I can't see the point of having children to hand over to a childminder all the time - that's the worst of all worlds. Not criticising anyone who does, it just seems the same as having a home you can't life in

If we could all just get the work-life balance thing right it would help a lot!

belfastgirl23 - I have a 2 year old who is at nursery full time and the 'point' of her being there obviously apart from me being at work, is to learn social skills and help her general development - both of which, I feel, she does better being at nursery than she would if I were at home with her.

Unfortunately, it isn't possible in this day and age to be able to stay at home with your children and at the same time build a future for them and/or give them everything they need. so for many people, if they WANT children, then the only way they can have them is to return to work.

Having said that I don't feel I/we have the 'worst of both worlds'. My youngest is developing well and is a well adjusted, happy child - we have a lovely home within the catchment area of good schools and once old enough, we'll be able to afford to send her to any extra curricular activities she chooses. Personally, for me, this is all preferable to staying at home for the first two years, having a lot less money, having to live in an area where the schools are not so great and never being able to afford to support my children in activities or hobbies they choose, etc etc

i'm not having a go here, just trying to explain how there is most definately a point in having children and putting them into nursery while you work.

Deviated from the main post a bit i know!

angie_baby

jrrowleyws wrote: »

Yep, if you cant afford them without making me pay for them (benefits etc), wear a glove when you make love, simple as!

I agree!! I must admit though i did give birth at 16, :eek: but have worked full time ever since.
I dont agree with these big families of 10 who have been on benifits since finshing school.
As long as you can provide for them, and not people who pay there taxes i have no problem with big families.

angelfire

To reply to the main issue of the thread, i'll second what many have already said and say that you should have as many children as you can afford - both monetary, mentally, physically (how many years can you handle continuous broken nights sleep!) and emotionally....