Should People Have Children If They Cant Afford Them

FatVonD

supermassive wrote: »

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.

So why aren't you advocating that EVERYBODY should adopt rather than having their won children?

supermassive

FatVonD wrote: »

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.

So you're saying you'd rather go through IVF than take a child out of a miserable life because starting from scratch takes less effort? That's basically what you've said.

Unless the children are feral, but I'm guessing you don't get lumbered with a random little tearaway without any choice.

supermassive

FatVonD wrote: »

So why aren't you advocating that EVERYBODY should adopt rather than having their won children?

They should definitely consider it before knowingly attempting to conceive.

If you're financially well off, and you're physically capable - good fun, have at it.

If you're financially well off and can't physically conceive, maybe don't be so selfish and force it. TRY to adopt.

If you've got no money, keep your legs crossed.

LilElvis

supermassive wrote: »

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.

My husband's cousin and his wife, both legal professionals, adopted brothers aged 2 and 4. The children were incredibly emotionally damaged. She gave up her career to look after them. They paid for extensive specialist counselling. The strain destroyed their marriage, which finally imploded after the younger boy sexually molested his brother. They are now divorced, each has one of the boys and both boys are, a decade after adoption, still highly problematic, physically violent and emotionally distant. Is it any wonder why we chose not to pursue adoption as an option having witnessed this situation.

FatVonD

supermassive wrote: »

So you're saying you'd rather go through IVF than take a child out of a miserable life because starting from scratch takes less effort? That's basically what you've said.

Unless the children are feral, but I'm guessing you don't get lumbered with a random little tearaway without any choice.

Isn't that what ANYBODY having a child naturally is doing? After all, as pointed out by FBaby, adoption isn't limited to just infertile couples.

FatVonD

supermassive wrote: »

They should definitely consider it before knowingly attempting to conceive.

Why only consider it? Why are they not selfish if they then decide to go ahead and have their own biological child anyway if they decide it's not for them?

codemonkey

Ok, turning the IVF argument around, if its so selfish for infertile couples to have IVF, when there are so many children needing homes, isn't it also selfish for fertile couples to have children also - shouldn't they 'just adopt' also?

By the way, 'just adopt' isn't all that easy. It's not like Annie where there are lots of sweet orphans in a home waiting for parents, and its not like babies are given up for adoption any more either. If you consider how bad a family situation is to have a child taken into care, then consider how bad it has to get for that child to then be placed for adoption. We're talking severe neglect, been locked in a cupboard for long periods, abused, possibly sexually, developmentally delayed because nobody has ever talked to them, been exposed to things that no child should see.

Then you have to jump through hoops. You're declined if you've had mental health issues which include depression, so if you had a period of depression in the past, you're declined if you have debt, you're declined if someone in your immediate family has a criminal record, you're declined if you have a dog they consider to be a threat (this includes great danes). These are not reasons in which a child would be taken off someone.

Then if you do get though that, there's a lot of paperwork and waiting around. Your panel will be postponed because your social worker forgot to put in a vital document. Then when you do get a child, its not all sunshine and rainbows and instant love because these kids are grieving for their parents (no matter how crap) and their foster parents. So no, sorry, its not as easy as 'oh well I can't have kids, I'll just adopt some'.

FBaby

They should definitely consider it before knowingly attempting to conceive.

If you're financially well off, and you're physically capable - good fun, have at it.

If you're financially well off and can't physically conceive, maybe don't be so selfish and force it. TRY to adopt.

If you've got no money, keep your legs crossed.

You really are not making a very good case for your argument. What is your issue exactly? That people decide to revert to science when they can't have babies? That it is funded by tax payers? Or are you an advocate for adoptive children?

In the first instance, that's your own issues with medical progress. In the second, fair enough but then you should have no issue with those who self fund IVF.

If your argument is for adoptive children, then again, you should be advocating that no-one should be entitled to get pregnant until they have adopted at least one child. Why should those who need science to become a parent be affected differently to those who don't?

LilElvis

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...

No, the greatest happiness in my life is spending time with my husband and daughter. I was so proud last night at bathtime when she used her foam letters to spell out the alphabet in order on the tiles. She climbed into our bed in the early hours so I had a huge smile on my face this morning when I woke up to see her little face next to mine on the pillow.

My daughter and nephew are what made my dad decide to go through gruelling chemotherapy and major abdominal surgery this year, because he wants to see them grow, to take them out, to read stories with them. Our daughter has not only brought happiness and fulfilment to our lives but much joy to all those in our family. She is a much loved granddaughter, niece, cousin and godchild.

Gavin83

sulphate wrote: »

But that isn't happening, is it? No one is being denied life-saving treatment in favour of funding a cycle of IVF.

I wouldn't say that infertility is a disability, but it is a medical condition. Many treatments on the NHS are funded for those who are not disabled. I have a medical condition which I receive minimal tests and treatment for now and again, it's not a disability. I'm pregnant, clearly not a disability either, and also my choice to have a baby. Does that mean the NHS should start axing its maternity services, too?

In regards to your first paragraph no, it's not. I was answering those suggesting that IVF patients should be a priority over so called self inflicted injuries. Currently both will get treatment but Im of the opinion that we'll start to see some serious cuts over the next few years and along with that services. Therefore if the NHS has to cut services what would be the first to go?

I personally think the NHS should provide treatment for the following areas:

1) Life saving treatments
2) Pain relief
3) Life improvement
4) Mental health

I don't think IVF fits under any of these. Personally when they start cutting services I wouldn't be surprised to see IVF as one of the first to go. Not only does it sit outside the above 4, its also expensive. In regards to your maternity example not treating a pregnant woman could lead to putting the mother and child's life in danger. Not providing someone a child isn't putting their life in danger.

I don't feel the same way as the other poster in that I think IVF is generally a good thing. However I don't believe it should be available on the NHS. If you want IVF pay for it privately.

FBaby wrote: »

I do find it shocking to advocate that those who are infertile should be the ones who should adopt.

Why? Surely the whole purpose of adoption is to provide a couple with a child that they aren't able to have naturally and to give a child a loving home. Who else should be adopting then?