To understand why some women have children within a a short time with multiple different partners?

If the 'solution' to this was to remove the welfare state to apparently stop 'incentivising' people from having children they can't afford, how come people still have babies in war torn countries and countries with no safety net whatsoever? In fact, often their fertility rate is higher. It can't just be about lack of contraception because for many other women (particularly those with children already) they would choose abstinence over, say, having a baby in Gaza.

Besides the fact it's a bit eugenicsy / social cleansing, removing the welfare state will not work. Some women will always have children no matter their circumstances.

Well that's the thing with mental health, it can be anything.

In the 1960s they told Bishops that they could cure men interested in children for sexual purposes, they told them part of the treatment was to move them and for them to work on the community.

WPATH mental health advice was accepted by medicine globally and the treatment for autism, body dysmorphia and trauma was to block puberty and in some areas perform surgery on children mutilating primary and secondary sex organs.

As someone else said mental health has been politicised and research is slanted as a result, like a religion it's up to you what you think is most likely.

Prior to Welfare state an innocent rape victim who became pregnant was considered insane.

Mental health stats in court imprisoned Sally Clarke for her babies cot deaths.

Lobotomy and electric shock treatment were once practiced.

I call that quite insane, that's some of the present day and history of mental health.

Much like the women having multiple babies with multiple men and not thinking it through the 'be kind' aren't thinking through the consequences of their behaviour toeards their pets and others suffer the consequences.

No wonder they hate Peterson he explains what their issues are, totalitarian, low verbal IQ, so they like simple solutions and they have a poor comprehension ability, amongst other data.

There is nothing wrong with being learning disabled, the issue is when it comes with a God complex demanding we all live by your ill thought out rules.

I think women do this when they they lack other ideas / ambitions about their lives. Being a mother gives them some status and a vague sense of purpose/meaning.

Its strongly correlated with low educational attainment / lack of self esteem and usually happens in working class communities where its accepted / normalised.

It's also facilitated by the welfare system. I know they aren't living in luxury, but it provides a basic income, and means they can avoid working for years.

I doubt anyone's here is identifiable as the Bekind brigade. People and circumstances are alot more nuanced than that. Kind of the point we're making on the thread ref this situation.

I was watching a few of JPs interviews and videos recently.To make my point ref the above, there's one area I entirely agree with him on and found his argument on that something that made logical sense. The rest, no way at all. If he did actually say that ref psychopathy, he's losing the plot.

It's interesting to think how our views as posters have been informed by our own experience, what we are currently facing right now and what we're watching.

@SpoonHeader I'll need to revisit some interesting podcasts I listened recently regarding psychopathy and sociopathy. The prevalence of psychopathy and the subsequential harm is probably greater within a completely different demographic to this group you're talking about.

The quote that promiscuous people are psychopaths is itself completely insane. Like the homeless people reference. Did JP say that also?

I have greater concerns about other things happening with the expenditure of public funds than supporting mum's and their babies.

Whoever mentioned CMS, yes definitely.

Why is this not further invested in or given greater power? The issue regards self employment fathers hiding their earnings for example. Going for this is surely the best way to go towards addressing this.

I know a few single mums who work tirelessly and their children's dads pay a pittance. Some have untouchable income streams which makes no sense and they absolutely can pay more, but don't.

Aren't teenage birth rates at record low.

There is an article in the BBC today about a couple in Wakefield on 60k combined and the husband is getting a vasectomy cos they can't afford children!

As someone who is facing fertility issues and whose nearby hospital is closing down maternity wards cos of lack of babies (nw london zone 3), I don't want to discourage people from having babies if they want it but we do need to improve education and aspirations.

@Bumpitybumper

This is the uncomfortable truth. The responsibilities of working are very similar to the responsibilities of being a parent. You need to learn to be on time, your time isn't your own, play the long game. If you are having children as a alternative to working then you aren't suddenly going to be the sort of person who is making sure their reading is done or volunteering to coach a sports team.

I worry that they believe the same lifestyle will be available for their children which I'm not certain it will be.

I tell you what, how about you "be kind" types go and take yourself on an experiment. You go live in the Isle of man,go out to work and fund multiple baby with multiple men families and men with multiple wives with multiple children families.

You enjoy the crime and being poor of your utipia when the rest of England gets on with life.

There is no alternative once the children are here. The support provided is the cheapest possible way of managing the situation once its here. I'm fairly sure that if reducing/removing benefits worked out cheaper in the long term than coping with the cost of poverty, it would have been done by the last administration. I think it has to be prevention rather than cure. So incentivise young women to make different choices with better opportunities while at the same time disincentivising the young man who are the other half of the problem with punative levels of CMS.

Do you really want to keep dealing with psychopaths mass breeding? Dealing with the social and financial consequences?

Long prison sentences, mental health inpatient care, sorts the constant breeding out. It all depends on what you think a crime/MH issue is though.

What I don't understand is why the state (taxpayer) lets the dads just walk away without a backward glance or paying a penny towards raising the kids they've created.

I have read about very sad cases

Women having multiple children, which are sadly taken into care immediately

The Government cannot force people onto contraception. Or contraception is not 100% reliable.

Also sometimes men promise the world to achieve sex & walk away, leaving the woman with the child.

The woman is not always to blame.

BTW my smearing stakler on this thread will tell you that I feel the same way about men with multiple wives and households he expects the taxpayers to fund for him. What is it a Jazier?/tax he expects those not of his ideology to fund for him as he is a superior human to us?

It's all the same mentality, they aren't starting in a sensible situation where they could fund it and something bad happened or very young and make a mistake then learn, it's an attitude that they are superior humans and we are their tax slaves. You can fool yourself they aren't personality disordered type thoughs, if it eases you being robbed by them all you like.

@SpoonHeader you can have compassion, understanding, yet also feel uneasy at how taxes are spent if this area happens to be your biggest concern.

The problem is, what's the alternative? There isn't one. Most of us don't want ' fallen' women in asylums ( I know the Andrew Wilson brigade probably do.)

Where do these kids all go? They still need to be paid for through no fault of their own.

In a humane society, we can't go round suffocating them all. I hope most of us don't want to either.

Ask for my money, I will judge.

Pay for them yourself I have no interest other than socially.

I don't know how you could make that happen without impacting the child though, and as a society we have agreed that children should not be made to suffer for the actions of their parents.

I am blue Labour and I have to remind myself that there will always be people who abuse any given system, including this one. And that supporting women like this, and thus her children, is the price we pay for the safety net that any one of us might need at any time.

The only thing I think could ever be effective without being actively inhumane is to intervene through the education system - be much more hardcore about instilling 'good values' generally, and also making sure that all children leave school understanding how a society works. Effectively, stigmatizing those who don't work out of choice. It's not particularly pretty, but it's the least damaging option, and it could become unnecessary within a couple of generations.

I suppose there's also an argument that, since sending children into childcare settings under the age of one is now the norm, the 'under three' rule should be removed for women on benefits. But I don't think it's a good norm at all, for anyone, so I wouldn't want to reinforce it.

So much awful judgement on this thread - psychopath, unintelligent, out for the benefits? Really?

That might be the case for a minority, but all the young teenage mums I know had babies because they were too young to know about contraception/couldn't have an abortion/contraception failed.

Then another baby when they were old enough to have a proper relationship but having a child already put the same strain on the relationship as any other blended family.

Then, if you have had two babies early in life, a decade or so later you might decide to give the whole family with a husband etc another go. That might work or not.

The reasons for multiple failed relationships are as broad as are the reasons for divorce. But if you start in your teens you've got more time to try again.

None of that excuses the men who just walk away from their children.

Another point - these young families may need taxpayer help when young but might then be positive contributors to the tax kitty as they work later on across a few decades - helping to fund all the old fogies with their health needs and care.

Stop judging bigots!

If you call it 'parent poverty' then there would be less concern. People expect adults to fend for themselves and improve their own circumstances. They deeply resent 'their taxes' spent supporting other adults. Shift the focus to the child and most people with a shred of decency will agree that interventions should be made to prevent them starving or becoming homeless. Child poverty? That's defenceless human beings that we have to support. Parent poverty? "No one made them have kids".
It's very helpful indeed to centre the child in anti poverty work.

It is of course her body her choice and no one should take that from her. However that doesn't mean it's not potentially a problematic choice, for her and her children. So I think it is valid to discuss these situations rather than shut them down by saying that.
I think its important to think about the circumstances that led to a young women having multiple children, and with each one making her life more complicated and difficult, increasing her likelihood of poverty and disadvantage, while multiple young men stroll off leaving a trail of chaos in their wake. What is about her envirinment and opportunities that make her think this is her 'best life'? What is going on that these irresponsible young men get to walk away barely questioned, as though its to be expected if women allow it?

You can have compassion and fund them all yourself.

That's the trouble with the "be kind" suicidal/toxic empathy types, they also want to spend others money and risk their safety, the reality is that they are only kind to some.

Slightly off topic, but I do really object to the term ‘child poverty’. How can it ever possibly be separated from ‘parent poverty?

But why?

It is literally the woman's choice.

Unless you intend to force sterilisation or abortion.

I also watched the documentary Babies Behind Bars on Netflix, which was about incarcerated pregnant women in the US hoping to be put on a scheme which allowed them to keep their babies with them once born, while they served their sentence.

It was absolutely heart breaking to watch. But there was one woman there who had had many children who had all been taken into the care of others. They interviewed her teenaged daughter who did say, her mum had a special thing for babies, but when they are no longer babies she moves on. So I do think some women do feel a strong compulsion to have children, even when circumstances are not suitable.

Yes, there seem to be people on here who think having a baby is always a good idea no matter how unfavourable the circumstances of the would be mother

Quite. I find these people extremely selfish. No thought for the actual real person that is being created

The resentment boils down to the fact that many of us are subsidising feckless fathers who would rather not pay themselves. No one castigates Kate Winslet for having multiple baby daddies as she can subsidise her kids herself.