Should People Have Children If They Cant Afford Them

supermassive

lulu_92 wrote: »

So if anyone is physically able to have children they can pop out as many as they like without a care in the world, treat them however they please and, if that means the kids get put into care, the infertile people of the world should be the ones to adopt them and give them the happiest lives possible (which should be the intention of the biological parents IMO)

How about people think before opening their legs?
How about people stop treating children so badly they don't end up in care with various problems which might haunt them for life?
How about anybody considering starting a family considers adoption before trying to conceive?

Do quote anybody that's said that.

EVERYBODY should think before opening their legs, before having a child, or before making the decision to start trying.

The thought process should include "Is there a way in which I can make both my life better, and somebody else's without the messy undercarriage" or something to that effect :rotfl:

If you cannot afford children, don't. If you want children, there are plenty who'd be glad for you to have them without the expense, and without having to leave the poor children in "care" (which is a pretty ironic name for it.)

At least TRY to be a good person before indulging in the most selfish indulgence a person can have. "I wanted something I couldn't have, but enough money was thrown at the situation to give me what I wanted. A shiny new baby all of my own"

kwmlondon

The UK needs more people very, very urgently. We can either get them from outside the UK or make them. I don't want to make them, thank you very much. If anyone wants to make children then let's pay them to do it. Otherwise our economy will collapse and we'll have to start putting old people down because of the terrible drain they are on our finances.

supermassive

LilElvis wrote: »

So what are you going to do if your partner decides that they want to have a biological child?

Ask him who with.

LilElvis

supermassive wrote: »

Ask him who with.

Co-parenting, surrogacy. Gay men do choose to become biological parents too. Elton John ring any bells?

lulu_92

supermassive wrote: »

Do quote anybody that's said that.

EVERYBODY should think before opening their legs, before having a child, or before making the decision to start trying.

The thought process should include "Is there a way in which I can make both my life better, and somebody else's without the messy undercarriage" or something to that effect :rotfl:

If you cannot afford children, don't. If you want children, there are plenty who'd be glad for you to have them without the expense, and without having to leave the poor children in "care" (which is a pretty ironic name for it.)

At least TRY to be a good person before indulging in the most selfish indulgence a person can have. "I wanted something I couldn't have, but enough money was thrown at the situation to give me what I wanted. A shiny new baby all of my own"

It's the impression I received from reading this thread.

I know everybody should, but the matter is that so many people don't!

The bit I've bolded, I'm not sure if you literally mean an "undercarriage" or you're being metaphorical :rotfl:

I agree that "care" is an ironic name.
I haven't totally decided against adoption at some point. I am perfectly stable financially and from what codemonkey mentioned of the criteria for adoption OH and I would be fine (no debt, criminal records, depression, etc) there are factors that would make me rather have a child "of my own" - some too personal for a public forum and I'd rather not divulge on here.

I don't see how it is the most selfish thing a person can have. Reproduction is an inevitability, as is natural selection.

GobbledyGook

Gavin83 wrote: »

I fully agree. The adoption system is too difficult at the moment and needs to be seriously looked at. I can understand the need to protect the children but at the end of the day they should be heading into a better life. Therefore they should be encouraging couples to head down this route, not place so many barriers in the way. This is however a separate issue to IVF.

It is not always an entirely separate issue. In our case had we not felt that we had to give up on the adoption process we wouldn't have gone down the IVF route. I know at least 3 other couples who looked at things in the same order.

System

codemonkey wrote: »

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'.

That's me excluded from adoption then....

codemonkey

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

That's me excluded from adoption then....

It's not a blanket but I know people who have been excluded for that reason.

System

codemonkey wrote: »

It's not a blanket but I know people who have been excluded for that reason.

Well seeing as i have Bipolar that's probably a big no-no. Which in itself opens up a heap of problems with having children myself anyway, but i'd rather not think about that right now. One day i will have to but i'm not ready for that discussion.

supermassive

LilElvis wrote: »

Co-parenting, surrogacy. Gay men do choose to become biological parents too. Elton John ring any bells?

Elton? Never heard of the fellow. Is he a journalist?

Gay men choosing to become biological parents over adopting is, in my mind, possibly THE most selfish thing to do out of the whole lot. In most cases, the child will start from conception with the expectation that they won't know their other parent. Forcing that factor on a child from the get-go is disgusting. Children in care already, for the most part, don't have contact with their biological parents, but that's already done, can't be prevented. There's no reason to inflict that on a brand new child.

If my partner wanted a biological child of his own, I'd laugh at him for about a week. He has so many genetic hereditary problems I would think he'd be lining up a fresh new set of kidneys.:rotfl:

lulu_92 wrote: »

It's the impression I received from reading this thread.

I know everybody should, but the matter is that so many people don't!

The bit I've bolded, I'm not sure if you literally mean an "undercarriage" or you're being metaphorical :rotfl:

I agree that "care" is an ironic name.
I haven't totally decided against adoption at some point. I am perfectly stable financially and from what codemonkey mentioned of the criteria for adoption OH and I would be fine (no debt, criminal records, depression, etc) there are factors that would make me rather have a child "of my own" - some too personal for a public forum and I'd rather not divulge on here.

I don't see how it is the most selfish thing a person can have. Reproduction is an inevitability, as is natural selection.

It's selfish if you intentionally force it. If it's not natural for you to conceive, throwing money at it until you have a baby... just think of the children waiting for homes, and you're going "no, I want one that comes out of me, not one of these pre-owned ones" :rotfl: