Should People Have Children If They Cant Afford Them

System

I'm 28 and in no financial position (or from a romantic pov) to have kids yet it does worry me, i hope in y my 30's i will be in a better position but at the back of my mind that biological clock is ticking. It worries me by the time i will be financially solvent i will also be infertile.

My mum had my siblings at 32, 35 and 36 so i'm hoping i still have a few yeasr left, compared to my nana who had an early menopause at 30

marleyboy

bluelass wrote: »

Should anyone consider starting a family if they really cannot afford to. People these days think they can have it all, then expect family and friends to finance childcare, buying or renting property or holidays etc.

I cannot say ANY of my friends or family have asked me to finance their childcare\rent\mortgage or holidays.

Maybe your too much of a soft touch OP, Just say No!

Rebel_Cause

FatVonD wrote: »

. I thought it was the financially secure that you wanted to become parents?

There are people out there that have children for all the wrong reasons, such as social pressures, family pressures, vanity reasons and the fear of not being seen as 'normal.' They say it is a struggle, then say it is all worth it and wouldn't change it for the world, they manage, everybody else does. Marriage and children is normally a conversation starter, an ice-breaker if you like, especially in the workplace.

When people at work ask me if I have children I tell them "No, I like my freedom/We are happy as we are" I usually speak about my freedom when they ask if I want any in the future. I had a colleague try to challenge my life choice recently. But I ended the conversation by stating that it would be bad for someone to have a child because that is what is the norm in society. I had another guy tell me I was selfish, that old chestnut! I am selfish for not wanting to bring a child into the world that I do not want. Surely it would be worse to have a child and completely neglect them and carry on with with childfree, care-free life like the child never existed. You see so many cases of parents, usually mothers running off to the other side of the world and leaving their children to shack up with an internet lover. This male colleague makes it sound as though having my own child in an overpopulated world is more SELFLESS than adopting one and giving them a better life, a life they didn't ask for resulting in them being abandoned and forgotten in a children's home and just a statistic on a social worker's list! :eek:

Ironically, it is the parents who ask me about my choice that say "I don't blame you, hang on to your freedom!" :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

LilElvis

Marisco wrote: »

Personally I think even that is way too old, even for conceiving naturally.

Why? What happens at age 40 that should disqualify you from becoming a mother?

No mention of fathers who can continue to procreate well into their 60s and 70s.

Gavin83

FBaby wrote: »

Isn't this view against disabled rights? People who can't have children could argue that they are very much disabled, physically and mentally.

Not being able to have children is not a disability in any way.

sulphate wrote: »

I don't agree that IVF is "not required". The NHS deals with many things that you could argue are self-inflicted such as sports injuries, type 2 diabetes etc. Once you start suggesting things that the NHS should and shouldn't pay for, you open a huge can of worms.

You can't compare IVF to those. They might be self inflicted but your still 'repairing' a person, curing an injury or treating an illness. It's completely different to IVF.

Personally I don't think IVF should be available on the NHS. It's expensive and unnecessary. I wouldn't be surprised if when they start looking at ways of cutting NHS spending in a few years this is one of the first things to be cut and rightly so.

LilElvis

Gavin83 wrote: »

Not being able to have children is not a disability in any way.



You can't compare IVF to those. They might be self inflicted but your still 'repairing' a person, curing an injury or treating an illness. It's completely different to IVF.

Personally I don't think IVF should be available on the NHS. It's expensive and unnecessary. I wouldn't be surprised if when they start looking at ways of cutting NHS spending in a few years this is one of the first things to be cut and rightly so.

NICE have ascertained that infertility is worthy of NHS assistance, though very few CCGs across the country actually comply with their recommendations for treatment and some have already stopped funding treatment at all. This includes treating patients whose infertility is directly related to having had cancer and associated chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Close to two thirds of IVF treatment cycles in the UK are privately funded and this figure does not take into account the increasing numbers who are now traveling overseas. I can't believe that a reasonable person would deny another proven, efficative treatment for a medically recognised condition not of their making over someone who has effectively created their illness and has it in their own ability to mitigate their need for medical intervention , ie the obese.

Buzzybee90

Gavin83 wrote: »

Not being able to have children is not a disability in any way.



You can't compare IVF to those. They might be self inflicted but your still 'repairing' a person, curing an injury or treating an illness. It's completely different to IVF.

Personally I don't think IVF should be available on the NHS. It's expensive and unnecessary. I wouldn't be surprised if when they start looking at ways of cutting NHS spending in a few years this is one of the first things to be cut and rightly so.

That's frankly horrible in my opinion, no one should be denied the opportunity to have a child where it is medically possible. Women and men crumble because of this and you're dismissing it like it means nothing, but smoking 50 a day and being treated for emphysema is fine? No. No. No.

Gavin83

There's a big difference. Regardless of if its because of their own doing or not you are providing life saving treatment, or at least treatment to improve the quality of someone's life. That's what the NHS is for. I compare IVF treatment to providing cosmetic surgery on the NHS. Neither are essential, the person won't die and will be able to continue with life normally without these treatments.

Ideally everyone would get limitless IVF treatments in the NHS along with anything else they want. However we don't live in an ideal world. These things all cost money and my point is quite simply if they had to cut something it should be one of the first things to go. Are you seriously suggesting a smoker should be denied cancer treatment so a couple can have a round of IVF?

Seriously as someone else has suggested what is wrong with adoption?

GobbledyGook

Gavin83 wrote: »

There's a big difference. Regardless of if its because of their own doing or not you are providing life saving treatment, or at least treatment to improve the quality of someone's life. That's what the NHS is for. I compare IVF treatment to providing cosmetic surgery on the NHS. Neither are essential, the person won't die and will be able to continue with life normally without these treatments.

Ideally everyone would get limitless IVF treatments in the NHS along with anything else they want. However we don't live in an ideal world. These things all cost money and my point is quite simply if they had to cut something it should be one of the first things to go. Are you seriously suggesting a smoker should be denied cancer treatment so a couple can have a round of IVF?

Seriously as someone else has suggested what is wrong with adoption?

You'd have to radically overhaul the adoption system before it became an option for more people imo.

I've had multiple miscarriages, several rounds of IVF and the year we spent dealing with the adoption people was the worst of my entire adult life (given my experiences with my own biological parents I am all for strong checks to protect adopted children, but the process we dealt with was awful).

FBaby

Not being able to have children is not a disability in any way.

Clearly the attitude of someone who doesn't know what it is like to desperately want a child, something that most people can have with little effort, and yet can't without assistance.

Whether you have children yourself, don't care much about having them, or assume you will do later in life, you clearly are clueless if you can't appreciate that not being able to have a child very much feels like a disability to those who go infertility.