Too many kids

[OoerBlah]

So I've just watched Cathy Come Hone, the Ken Loach play from 1965. It's heartbreaking, no doubt about that. But it made me wonder if there is ever a situation where people might think that having kids if you can't afford them is just, well, don't do it?

I know accidents happen and not all kids are planned. I also know that life is complicated and consequences can't be foretold. But particularly in this day and age of so many finding it difficult to find homes and provide for themselves let alone children - is there ever a time when we should say if you can't afford kids, don't have them?

[MrsTerryPratchett]

So many are finding it hard to provide because the rich are hoarding assets and treating human rights like housing and food as commodities to profit from. Unless we want only the rich to be able to have children, and I'd rather not just have a braying herd of shite Etonians in the world, we should be trying to have a normal job available to people which pays for a roof, food and a good life.

That makes me a radical in some quarters.

[Batteriesallgone]

Children are a biological imperative.

It's like saying if you're poor just kill yourself, you're barely living anyway

I do sometimes wonder why people put themselves through the stress of having children in poverty but then I have to kick myself and remember that's my privilege speaking.

[ReallyTired]

Surely there is a happy medium between breeding like rabbits and having no children. Many rich people stop having children after having two or even one. I don't understand why people on benefits should have five or more children. Accidents do happen, but the uk has excellent contraception services and abortion is available on the NHS.

[MrsTerryPratchett]

The only people I know with loads are loaded. The poor people I know have stopped at one or two. Except for some First Nations people I know here in Canada. But since they suffered cultural and actual genocide having lots of children is an act of rebellion.

[Batteriesallgone]

Also what's the end point of this line of thinking? Forced sterilisation? Conception only allowed via paid for IVF?

How much money is enough to have children? Is having a child knowing they'll have to share a room with a sibling perfectly fine / unreasonable / abusive / grounds for forced adoption? Where do you draw the line?

[LubiLooLoo]

Maybe there is also something to be said for different aspirations. If you are career minded you're likely to have more money and less children, but if it's your dream to have a big family... Well it's an expensive dream

I do understand the feeling when you see the worst case scenario of the benefit family with 9 children and a cupboard full of 9p noodles. But this isn't the case for 99.9% of poorer people, who love their kids and make the most of life. Love is way more valuable to children than anything cash can buy anyway.

[ReallyTired]

The world is over populated. We need to control the number of babies we have. Having more than two children us selfish, even if you can afford it.

I think that the govement policy of limiting benefits to two children is fair. Lots of people bleat that we don't have room for refugees, but don't think that there should be any limit on the number of children the state supports.

Men who have child the with multiple partners and pay Insufficent child maintaince are a major issue. I have no idea of how to curb this problem. There should be tougher punishments for men who do not meet their patental duties.

[AStreetcarNamedBob]

mrsterry you're one of the rich who is hoarding assets. Unless you've given it all to the poor in Africa.

So don't be so hypocritical. You've got 50 times the wealth that they have yet here you are hoarding it.

[ReallyTired]

I think it's unfair to only target those on benefits who have large families. Wealthy people who have an excessive number of children are milking the state. The cost to the tax payer of educating five children and providing health care is more than what most people earn, yet alone put into the tax system. Maybe better off families with lots of children (like the Camerons) should pay extra tax.

The benefits system is for those who fall on hard times. Once a child is born you can't send it back. A wealthy family can end up on benefits with one stroke of bad luck. It's vital that existing children are supported.

[Iwasjustabouttosaythat]

Yep, agree with PP that the world is overcrowded. You shouldn't have more than enough to replace the parents. Ethically. I know people love kids and big families but it is really selfish. That said, the unexpected does happen. Twins, triplets and so on, contraceptive failures, all fair enough. Just endlessly breeding cause you like babies is irresponsible though, and that goes for anyone from the poorest to the richest. Nothing you can do about it though, except for educating people about the dwindling resources their children are going to have to fight over. I don't know why anyone would want to put their kids through that.

[Mummyoflittledragon]

Reallytired I really don't understand what you mean. In what way are those on benefits being targeted? Taxes are pretty high already and too high for many, hence the tax credit system.

[ReallyTired]

" Nothing you can do about it though, except for educating people about the dwindling resources their children are going to have to fight over. I don't know why anyone would want to put their kids through that."

The difficulty is how you punish the parents for a total lack of responsiblity without punishing the children. Measures like universal free school meals or breakfast clubs help the children but do not give anything to the parents.

We have free sterilisation and abortion in the NHS. There is no excuse for people to have more than three kids. Certainly there needs to be compassion for the unexpected like triplets. However having further children after twins or triplets is unnecessary.

The one child policy in China was far too brutal, but there was some sense.

[abbinobb]

So someone who doesn't want an abortion should have one if they've accidentally got pregnant after already having 2 children?
Children are people not belongings and children born to wealthy people are worth no more than children born into poorer families. Besides the way this country works you basically have to have poor people because who else will do the minimum wage jobs that need doing?
It's impossible to ethically limit the number of children people have, and if you were to do it it would have to apply to everyone not only wealthy people (or it would be a bit like selective breeding) but then what? You force an abortion on someone? Forced sterilisation after the second birth? You'd end up with unregistered kids with no access to healthcare etc and all kinds of fucked up shit.

[abbinobb]

Not to mention the fact that in a country where there is enough money the fact that people, even those working full time, can't afford to do basic shit like have a home and food and children is ridiculous.

[ReallyTired]

"Reallytired I really don't understand what you mean. In what way are those on benefits being targeted? Taxes are pretty high already and too high for many, hence the tax credit system."

Child tax credits are in work benefits . The name "child tax credits" is very misleading. People who continue to have more children while claiming child tax credits are scrounging off the state.

No one should be forced to have an abortion, but they should not expect the state to fund their choices.

Tax credits have allowed employers to get away with low pay. In the past if you wanted a cleaner in central London you had to pay her enough to make it worth her while. If there were no tax credits then employers would be forced to pay a living wage to get unskilled work done. The problem is how on earth you get rid of the tax credit system without causing extreme hardship in the short term.

Is it really sense to subsidise someone to work for years on end. The cost of paying child care for two pre schoolers is more than the cost of paying for the family to be on benefits. Surely it's nuts to subsidise someone in an unskilled minimum wage job just to massage the employment figures.

[UnexpectedBaggage]

Most people don't have more DCs than they can afford. I do agree, though, that it is anti-social to have more than you can afford to house and feed and very unfair on the DCs already born.

On a global level it is wrong to have more than 2 DCs, the earth's resources won't last forever.

If people don't believe in abortion then they should be extra careful with contraception and not expect society to pick up the tab for their beliefs.

Education is the answer, I suppose.

[ReallyTired]

If you don't believe in abortion then you should opt for sterilisation after number 2 or abstain from sex or use contraception.

I agree with the previous poster that on a global level it's wrong to have more than two children. However it's wrong for both rich and poor people. Those who can afford it should be taxed more to pay for the health care for maternity and education of third and subsequent child.

The U.K. does not need babies. There are plenty of talented immigrants who want to come to the uk.

[Ifailed]

if people don't believe in abortion then they should be extra careful with contraception and not expect society to pick up the tab for their beliefs

No, they should either refrain from sex or get sterilised, no contraception is 100% safe.

[abbinobb]

You don't get tax credits after the second child anyway now.

[Mummyoflittledragon]

Reallytired. This argument goes back to the recent thread where the op was upset at not having tax credits for a third child. Most posters agreed she was BU. And the issue with taxing the substantially well off more is that we risk they'll simply move abroad taking their income with them.

[ReallyTired]

Most substantially well off people don't have an excessive number of kids. A policy would need careful thought. Somehow society needs to make socially unacceptable to have a large family whatever someone's social status or religion.

I know a Muslim family with ten kids because they don't believe in contraception. Surely such beliefs should be challenged in the 21st century.

It's not just money, but finding time for every child in a large family.

[elQuintoConyo]

Wow ReallyTired aren't you a peach?

[ReallyTired]

Children in large families do badly in tests.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2600224/Children-large-families-worse-school-tests-Results-5-worse-reading-numeracy-pupils-two-siblings.html

[greenfolder]

You should never plan more kids than you can reasonably anticipate supporting and can cope with. The vast majority of people don't have kids that they can't support. A few might. Such is life really.