Should People Have Children If They Cant Afford Them

LilElvis

supermassive wrote: »

Touched a nerve, did I? Diddums.

Well, IVF is CLEARLY the same as going into a sweet shop if that's what made you take the selfish decision to do what you did instead of choosing adoption.

Either apply to adopt, go through potentially years of hoops and get a child that otherwise would've been pretty miserable, or spend loads of money CREATING a child that wouldn't have existed just so you can be pregnant.:rotfl:

Think of this for a second without using your cervix as a brain and you'll see how utterly ridiculous IVF is.

Actually, it's kind of like taking out a massive loan to get a car that costs loads of money to run. It's madness. Get a pre-owned car.

So only the infertile are capable of adopting? Idiot :rotfl:

I didn't undertake ivf to go through pregnancy but so that we would have a child. It also has given me a hernia, a totally numb lower abdomen and likely contributed to an early menopause. I don't regret it and I doubt our daughter does either.

Unlike you I do have a functioning brain. It has worked well enough for me to gain a good education and have had a rewarding and successful career. We can now afford for me to not work so that our daughter has the best possible start in life. IVF is not easy, either emotionally, physically or financially, and we spent a long time discussing and researching it before we went ahead. My cervix is just a piece of my anatomy, like my big toe, and had no input in these decisions.

Your car analogy is ridiculous. What does a car or a car loan have to do with anything? I own a Mercedes, ex demonstrator (so great reduction on a car that was a couple of months old) and paid cash for it (as we did all of my IVF treatment if that makes any difference

FatVonD

supermassive wrote: »

What I think is a bit ironic, perhaps, is that if you're financially stable, and can't conceive naturally - by the time you conceive with IVF you'll be flat broke!

Not necessary, as has been mentioned in some areas three cycles of IVF are offered and in other cases it works first time.

FBaby

I normally generally agree with your posts FBaby, but I must say, I think the bolded bit is quite an insult to genuinely disabled people. (I know you don't mean it like that though) It's unfortunate, hard luck etc, but it's certainly not a disability, and shouldn't be treated as such.

There's legally defined disability and there is perceived disability. I do believe that infertility can become a disability in that it can affect someone the same ways some physical or mental disabilities can affect people.

You say it is unfortunate and bad luck, but isn't this the case to any disability?

It is my view anyway, having worked with people who suffered from long term infertility. It affected the lives of some in horrendous ways, but debating whether it equates to a disability wasn't as you said the point of my post. I do find it shocking to advocate that those who are infertile should be the ones who should adopt. How about a cap at three biological children and after that, if you want more children, you have to adopt, at least until there are no more children to adopt? Where does it stop?

LilElvis

supermassive wrote: »

What I think is a bit ironic, perhaps, is that if you're financially stable, and can't conceive naturally - by the time you conceive with IVF you'll be flat broke!

Nope. Paid nearly £25k on IVF and then when our daughter was a month old we went to the bank and effectively paid off the balance of our mortgage. Our monthly payment is now £14

supermassive

FatVonD wrote: »

Ignoring for the moment how offensive your post is...

As has already been mentioned, once a woman finds out for sure she is infertile she is likely to be over the age when she/they would be considered as prospective adopters of a baby or young child.

She/they may be able to adopt a child with disabilities meaning that in all likelihood they will have to give up the career that got them to a position of financially being able to afford a child to become a full-time carer.

She/they may be able to adopt a group of older children who are likely to be quite damaged emotionally and may need care that a first time parent may be ill equipped to provide.

The answer is not for responsible people to pick up the pieces for the !!!!less idiots that pump out children regardless of the fact they are incapable of parenting them properly but for those people to be stopped from reproducing in the first place.

Oh, I'm sure if you'd accused men of thinking with their genitals, it wouldn't be seen as 'offensive', though. :T

The fact of the matter is that, yes, these people should be stopped, but you can't castrate the lower classes at birth. Although it'd solve many problems.

Where you CAN prevent any further hardship is by going through the channels you need to in order to adopt. Obviously by a certain age that's deemed out of the question, but as you've mentioned, you may adopt an older child - if you have a baby, they WILL get older, I promise. So there is very little difference.

There is also no guarantee that a child you raise from birth will not be problematic.

"picking up the pieces" of other people's mistakes is really indicative of your view on orphaned children and those in care. They're not people to you, are they? They're simply objects of other people's misfortune. How empathetic. How caring.

This is the exact same, but more expensive, as the "breed a dog vs rescue a dog" debate. Don't say it isn't, just because of species, that doesn't make much of a difference.

supermassive

LilElvis wrote: »

So only the infertile are capable of adopting? Idiot :rotfl:

I didn't undertake ivf to go through pregnancy but so that we would have a child. It also has given me a hernia, a totally numb lower abdomen and likely contributed to an early menopause. I don't regret it and I doubt our daughter does either.

Unlike you I do have a functioning brain. It has worked well enough for me to gain a good education and have had a rewarding and successful career. We can now afford for me to not work so that our daughter has the best possible start in life. IVF is not easy, either emotionally, physically or financially, and we spent a long time discussing and researching it before we went ahead. My cervix is just a piece of my anatomy, like my big toe, and had no input in these decisions.

Your car analogy is ridiculous. What does a car or a car loan have to do with anything? I own a Mercedes, ex demonstrator (so great reduction on a car that was a couple of months old) and paid cash for it (as we did all of my IVF treatment if that makes any difference

Your education hasn't taught you how to read very well.

It is immoral to forcefully bring a child into the world when you can't have one, when there are so many other options. It is selfish. That's the beginning and end of it, really. In a nut shell.

I'm glad your money has managed to bring you such happiness and joy. Wonderful products you've been able to buy like a mercedes, a baby, a house...

Gra76

I don't have the time to dig through 11 pages of arguments, so as my answer is no. People shouldn't have children if they can't afford them. It's very irresponsible.

My sis-in-law is a case in point. Met a guy 4 years ago and they were trying for a child within the first 2 months. She gave birth to her first child before they'd been together a year. Fast forward 2 years and they'd split up and she was a single parent struggling for money. She recently got together with another guy (an ex-BF from years ago) and they've just announced that she's pregnant again after she'd been seeing him for maybe 3 months or so.

She hasn't got 2p to rub together as it is. I find it very hard to say "congratulations" instead of "silly girl". There's a good reason he's an ex-BF too, and the last thing I want to see is her being a single mother to two kids from different dads in years to come but I've got a horrible feeling that's exactly what's going to happen.

So no, having kids when you can't afford it isn't a good idea as far as I'm concerned.

supermassive

LilElvis wrote: »

Nope. Paid nearly £25k on IVF and then when our daughter was a month old we went to the bank and effectively paid off the balance of our mortgage. Our monthly payment is now £14

I don't think you'd necessarily fall into the category of not being able to afford children, in that case haha

You're in a very fortunate situation that you've been able to afford to do that, but I honestly don't agree with it in principal, with all the children that are already born into the world without having that expense spent, and that are desperate for a home. It strikes me as just wrong. An indulgence for those that can afford it.

FatVonD

supermassive wrote: »

Where you CAN prevent any further hardship is by going through the channels you need to in order to adopt. Obviously by a certain age that's deemed out of the question, but as you've mentioned, you may adopt an older child - if you have a baby, they WILL get older, I promise. So there is very little difference.

There is every difference.

To use your dog analogy, it's the difference between getting a puppy that you take to dog training classes and knowing roughly the sort of dog you will have at the end of it and taking on a dog with problems when you are not a dog behaviourist and stand little chance of ever overcoming those problems.

FatVonD

supermassive wrote: »

Your education hasn't taught you how to read very well.

It is immoral to forcefully bring a child into the world when you can't have one, when there are so many other options. It is selfish. That's the beginning and end of it, really. In a nut shell.

I'm glad your money has managed to bring you such happiness and joy. Wonderful products you've been able to buy like a mercedes, a baby, a house...

I had some sympathy for (and agreed with) some of your earlier posts but now you're just sounding very bitter.