Should People Have Children If They Cant Afford Them

Hedgehog99

Maybe people should have to have a financial evaluation/competency test before they have a child - and take out private "benefits insurance" in case they fall on hard times later - just as they're planning to make people do to pay for their residential care in old age. Having a child is a lifestyle choice, so those who do it should pay for it.

We need to take a global view: nobody anywhere is justified in having lots of children. We're already using up resources at a rate that is more than is sustainable. The best option is to reduce our numbers voluntarily now by reducing our birth rate.

Someone in the less-developed world is bringing another mouth to feed into the war-torn world where food shortages and famines are common. Someone born in the developed world cannot help but consume a lot of resources, just by their mere existence (there isn't room for us to all be self-sufficient), and the developing world is aspiring to a Western lifestyle of white goods, cars, electronics and increased meat consumption.

The government sticks its nose into every other aspect of our lives, yet there is an enormous taboo about restricting family size. Countries who've tried it (e.g. China, India) are not always viewed favourably, and stories emerge (e.g. the recent deaths in the Indian sterilisation clinic) that further entrench our belief in our right to choose.

One of the biggest things is female education. Educated girls grow up to have fewer children - they understand their biology, they have better careers and are more assertive when discussing family size with their husband - and, when they have daughters, they encourage their education too. The lack of self-esteem of some UK teenage girls is shocking, and it means they get bullied into early first sex and the risk of teenage pregnancy because their waste of space BF won't use a condom. Why haven't their mothers raised their girls with better self-esteem? Why haven't the boys been taught to respect their girlfriends?

And don't get me started on the Radfords...

bluelass

Hedgehog99 wrote: »

Maybe people should have to have a financial evaluation/competency test before they have a child - and take out private "benefits insurance" in case they fall on hard times later - just as they're planning to make people do to pay for their residential care in old age. Having a child is a lifestyle choice, so those who do it should pay for it.

We need to take a global view: nobody anywhere is justified in having lots of children. We're already using up resources at a rate that is more than is sustainable. The best option is to reduce our numbers voluntarily now by reducing our birth rate.

Someone in the less-developed world is bringing another mouth to feed into the war-torn world where food shortages and famines are common. Someone born in the developed world cannot help but consume a lot of resources, just by their mere existence (there isn't room for us to all be self-sufficient), and the developing world is aspiring to a Western lifestyle of white goods, cars, electronics and increased meat consumption.

The government sticks its nose into every other aspect of our lives, yet there is an enormous taboo about restricting family size. Countries who've tried it (e.g. China, India) are not always viewed favourably, and stories emerge (e.g. the recent deaths in the Indian sterilisation clinic) that further entrench our belief in our right to choose.

One of the biggest things is female education. Educated girls grow up to have fewer children - they understand their biology, they have better careers and are more assertive when discussing family size with their husband - and, when they have daughters, they encourage their education too. The lack of self-esteem of some UK teenage girls is shocking, and it means they get bullied into early first sex and the risk of teenage pregnancy because their waste of space BF won't use a condom. Why haven't their mothers raised their girls with better self-esteem? Why haven't the boys been taught to respect their girlfriends?

And don't get me started on the Radfords...

I will say one thing about the Radfords (from 17 kids and counting) the father has his own bakery and she seems competent in the childrens care. Their child benefit allowance probably tops my weekly wage though.

lazer

supermassive wrote: »

I don't think you should have children whether you can afford them or not. Awful little creatures are starting to dictate what I, as a free adult, can and cannot do!

Seriously, though, if you can 'just' afford a child, don't have one. If you care enough to bring life into the world, make sure you can afford to give that child the things they deserve for a decent upbringing.

This refers to social normalities associated with money so they're not outcast at school
A catchment area for a good school
Finances to be able to reach further education
The finances to take them to educational places (zoo, museum etc) (and a car to go in).

If you can't afford to do that and still have leftover money, keep your legs crossed.

This is snobbery.

Further education is not a nessicity, and even if it were, your child can put themselves through it (as nothing is paid until the child starts earning nowadays)

How do you define a good school?

Taking children educational places in a car is needed for a decent childhood? Have you something against public transport, and there are plenty of free fun places to take children without expensive zoo or museums!

You can't afford a child if you can't afford to feed it, clothe it, send it to school and put a roof over its head, the rest are luxuries.

I am only 30 and grew up with my dad working in a factory, and mum was a stay at home mum, we never had much money, not enough for my parents to put us through uni, and expensive day trips were few and far between, although we did get taken to free museums. No foreign holidays, generally a week in a family members caravan. Lived in a rented house with no central heating etc.

Did we get teased at school, a bit, but nothing we couldn't live with, probably made us grow up as stronger people anyway.

I put myself through uni, and am now in a good job, with my own house etc.

My parents got no benefits (except family allowance) and I had a very happy childhood, I had something more important than money and education and cars etc, I had time with my parents, I had love, and always had the basic necessities.

If someone has enough money to provide for the basic necessities for a child then they can afford the child, if however the government thinks they don't have enough and gives them benefits, then they will take them. Just because people are on benefits does not mean they can't afford a child, it may mean benefits are too generous

Topcat1982

bluelass wrote: »

When I said live in our house I meant she wants me and my hub to move out and find somewhere so they can have it all to themselves. And oh she thinks if and when my hubby snuffs it our house should go directly to them and me out on my ear.

Just say no!

moomoomama27

bluelass wrote: »

I will say one thing about the Radfords (from 17 kids and counting) the father has his own bakery and she seems competent in the childrens care. Their child benefit allowance probably tops my weekly wage though.

.....and the rest! I doubt a bakery would finance that many people, they probably claim more off the government than a family of 6 on full benefits!

What annoys me about the Radfords is the claims they make that other than child benefit, they are self sufficient, so no working ur child tax credits then.......ummmmmm

supermassive

lazer wrote: »

This is snobbery.

Further education is not a nessicity, and even if it were, your child can put themselves through it (as nothing is paid until the child starts earning nowadays)

How do you define a good school?

Taking children educational places in a car is needed for a decent childhood? Have you something against public transport, and there are plenty of free fun places to take children without expensive zoo or museums!

You can't afford a child if you can't afford to feed it, clothe it, send it to school and put a roof over its head, the rest are luxuries.

I am only 30 and grew up with my dad working in a factory, and mum was a stay at home mum, we never had much money, not enough for my parents to put us through uni, and expensive day trips were few and far between, although we did get taken to free museums. No foreign holidays, generally a week in a family members caravan. Lived in a rented house with no central heating etc.

Did we get teased at school, a bit, but nothing we couldn't live with, probably made us grow up as stronger people anyway.

I put myself through uni, and am now in a good job, with my own house etc.

My parents got no benefits (except family allowance) and I had a very happy childhood, I had something more important than money and education and cars etc, I had time with my parents, I had love, and always had the basic necessities.

If someone has enough money to provide for the basic necessities for a child then they can afford the child, if however the government thinks they don't have enough and gives them benefits, then they will take them. Just because people are on benefits does not mean they can't afford a child, it may mean benefits are too generous

Too often I see this view, that "enough to scrape by is enough to have a child" it isn't. OK, so technically you can keep the child alive - well done. But in terms of quality of life - as you said, you had some teasing, lack of things like central heating etc.

It's not snobbery to expect people who want to bring a life into the world to want to be able to provide the best they possibly can.

Wanting to bring a life into the world in order to provide bare minimum is not at all moral. You put yourself through uni, good for you, but there are people out there in the exact same situation you were in as a child that don't go down that route, and it's all linked to finances.

If you earn enough to be able to support a child through the first 18 years (or more) of their life, then yes, you should have a child. If you do not, and expect the child to flourish through scraping by, then I'm sorry but that's wrong.

It can be compared (although you'll likely say the comparison is rude or something) with owning a dog. If you can't afford the vet bills, decent food, and to keep the dog in good health, as well as training it to be well behaved, then don't get one.

Think of it like a job. The best candidate gets the job. The best potential parents should get children. Those that are clearly unsuitable and will make a mess of things? They're the ones that mostly have children. Hundreds of the things. They don't grow up to put themselves through uni, they grow up burgling my house.

lazer

supermassive wrote: »

Too often I see this view, that "enough to scrape by is enough to have a child" it isn't. OK, so technically you can keep the child alive - well done.


Everyone wants to provide the best they can, but this differs per person.


Its not just about keeping a child alive - its about keeping them healthy and happy and giving them a good childhood, but a good childhood isn't determined by money.


But in terms of quality of life - as you said, you had some teasing, lack of things like central heating etc.



Nearly every child gets teased at some stage over something, its part of growing up, I never even realised growing up that my parents didn't have money - don't feel as if I missed out on anything.
So I got teased because I had hi-tec trainers instead of Reebok or Nike, I wasn't the only kid in the school without them. Lack of central heating, didn't bother me at all, we had an openfire, supersers, electric radiators etc - we weren't cold.


It's not snobbery to expect people who want to bring a life into the world to want to be able to provide the best they possibly can.

Wanting to bring a life into the world in order to provide bare minimum is not at all moral. You put yourself through uni, good for you, but there are people out there in the exact same situation you were in as a child that don't go down that route, and it's all linked to finances.


No it isn't - further education is free at the point of access, its down to lack of financial education and people not understanding this - and further education is not essential - should cleaners, plumbers, electricians, hair dressers, child care assistants etc all need to go to uni, or are these less worthy jobs in your opinion?


If you earn enough to be able to support a child through the first 18 years (or more) of their life, then yes, you should have a child. If you do not, and expect the child to flourish through scraping by, then I'm sorry but that's wrong.


It depends on your meaning of scraping by my parents could have more than scraped by if my mum went out to work and I could have had nike trainers and they could have afforded a better house with central heating, but that would have been at the expense of time with her, it was great having summer holidays with my mum at home, and most of her sisters didn't work either, so we met up with cousins and had the best summers, lots of outings to each other houses, boardgames, out on the bikes, picnics in the park etc - cheap but brilliant entertainment every day!




It can be compared (although you'll likely say the comparison is rude or something) with owning a dog. If you can't afford the vet bills, decent food, and to keep the dog in good health, as well as training it to be well behaved, then don't get one.

Think of it like a job. The best candidate gets the job. The best potential parents should get children. Those that are clearly unsuitable and will make a mess of things? They're the ones that mostly have children. Hundreds of the things. They don't grow up to put themselves through uni, they grow up burgling my house.


Money does not make someone a suitable parent, someone can have plenty of money and their child could still grow up and burgle your house, be on drugs etc.

Having enough money to provide for your child and nurturing that child, giving them the best start you possibly can, putting your child before yourself, spending time with your child, etc is what makes someone a good parent, it doesn't matter if you can afford to send the child to uni, it doesn't matter if you don't take them to museums, the "good" school only has so much influence, the attitude of the parents is very important to a childs education.


Does the parent sit down and read with them, help with homework, do they encourage them - with the right help, a child can flourish in any (well almost any) school.

Mojisola

I can think of few people who are hopeless as adults because their parents made their growing-up years too comfortable and some amazing people who appreciate everything they've got in their lives because they know what it's like to struggle a bit. They didn't have a lot of material wealth throughout their childhood but their parents set them up well with all the skills they needed to thrive.

If you only measure success by the amount of money you have, I know a lot of 'failures' but they are wonderful people who do more good for society than many rich people in 'good' jobs.

supermassive

lazer wrote: »

Having enough money to provide for your child and nurturing that child, giving them the best start you possibly can, putting your child before yourself, spending time with your child, etc is what makes someone a good parent, it doesn't matter if you can afford to send the child to uni, it doesn't matter if you don't take them to museums, the "good" school only has so much influence, the attitude of the parents is very important to a childs education.


Does the parent sit down and read with them, help with homework, do they encourage them - with the right help, a child can flourish in any (well almost any) school.

So are you saying you'd have been less likely to succeed or more likely to succeed had your parents had enough money to further invest in your upbringing?

Your family is clearly an anomaly. I'm talking about the people from my town who I've had experiences with that are stereotypical. It's the town currently on this series of Skint on channel 4.

lazer

supermassive wrote: »

So are you saying you'd have been less likely to succeed or more likely to succeed had your parents had enough money to further invest in your upbringing?

Your family is clearly an anomaly. I'm talking about the people from my town who I've had experiences with that are stereotypical. It's the town currently on this series of Skint on channel 4.

I'm saying they had enough money, I didn't need any further money invested in my upbringing, who knows what effect more money could have had, if it was at the expense of time with them, then, yes I could have been less likely to succeed, if however it didn't impact "quality" time, and didn't cause them any additional stress etc, then possibly more likey, however as both myself and my brother made it to uni and are now relatively successful, I think they made a very good job of our upbringing.


PS - success should not be measured in terms of money, if a child of mine was in a £100k a year job, and was unhappy in the job, didn't get to spend anytime with their family, was always stressed etc - I wouldn't count that as being a success, on the other had if my child had a mediocre job and was happy with their job, and with life in general - I would count that a success.


Success is being happy with your life choices and having enough money to get by.


My family are not an anomaly, there are many people from poorer working class families that have went on and made something from their life, most people want the best for their children - it is the exception that don't, yes there are some of the stereotype benefit families, but that is not the majority, you probably don't recognise many of the "poorer" families in your town, as they look like you, dress like you, talk like you etc, they don't stand out from the crowd the way some "chavs" do.