Don't have kids you can't afford!

No you skirted it and said someone people choose to terminate in those circumstances, I know that and I said choice is the key word. I'm asking what you are proposing they do, when they can't bare a termination, when you're so strident they shouldn't have a child they can't afford?

We are the 6th largest economy in the world. You are mad if you think we are not a wealthy country.

We spend about the same share of national income on working-age benefits as we have done since the 1980s. We seem to have afforded it for all that time.

The public finances are largely a mess because we are living longer and so spending significantly more money on social care and health care, but successive governments have cut rather than widened the tax base to fund the increased commitments.

I clearly answered your Q at 13.11 but you chose to ignore my answer because you wanted me to fit your narrative.

So why do you keep complaining and using your own misery at stopping at one child as your reason why others shouldn't have kids they can't afford? Your argument is literally "I'm having to put up with this unhappiness so should they"

We absolutely can afford it as a society. I'm glad you quoted PP as I asked her the same question you avoided - for the 4th time then pregnancy has occured unplanned and she cannot bare to have a termination - what are you proposing a woman does? The one you're so strident shouldn't have a child she can't afford.

You're the one holding 1929 up as an example of amazing individuals thriving off the back of large families raised in poverty.

Bollocks, you are projecting.

I have a great life thanks.

Society absolutely CAN'T afford it, are you even aware of the national debt + cost of UC etc?? We aren't a wealthy country any more.

PPs said it well "We aren’t unhappy with our lifestyles, we are unhappy with the lifestyles of selfish people who can’t control themselves any better than a stray cat".

"If you cannot afford the basics a child needs- food, shelter, clothes etc, then no you should not have one. No child deserves to be raised to struggle like that and no decent parent should want to bring a child into the world to watch them struggle"

Where have I said I hated them or that a teen having 1 DC but then going to work etc to pay for that DC is bad?
You won't find it because I haven't.
I've clearly said that the issue is parents whose DC are already going without yet continue to have DC.

What should they do? It’s not brain surgery. This is how many of us avoided becoming burdens to society:

Use (properly) two methods of contraception EVERY time. Be aware of their most fertile days and avoid penetrative sex on those days.Use the MAP if the condom slips. And plan to terminate if they “fall” pregnant.

oh, and maybe not fuck every feckless loser who gives them five minutes of attention.

As a result we have a massive burden of care to an aging population with no real turnover rate to carry that.

I get the whole bottleneck thing but the answer is surely to go through it, even if there's shit times along the way, not to perpetuate it with an endlessly massive burden of care with a consistently high population. How does that turn out well?

So you thought there was magic money that just appeared to support shiftless people?

So why do you keep complaining and using your own misery at stopping at one child as your reason why others shouldn't have kids they can't afford? Your argument is literally "I'm having to put up with this unhappiness so should they"

We absolutely can afford it as a society. I'm glad you quoted PP as I asked her the same question you avoided - for the 4th time then pregnancy has occured unplanned and she cannot bare to have a termination - what are you proposing a woman does? The one you're so strident shouldn't have a child she can't afford.

I find it shockingly stupid that some do not understand enough to grasp the importance of reproductive rates (both biologically and economically) but think its utterly fine to live in a world where people should be banned or suffer because they 'can't afford' the very basic things all animals exist to do and that the species requires.

People say stupid thing like 'people shouldn't have children because we over populated' without understanding that over population in a bottle neck needs removal from the ELDER generation not ceasing of reproduction. Nature use to handle this but we have done insane things in the last 100 years to increase survival and life expectancy and divert mass 'natural correction' events (like for example a pandemic).

As a result we have a massive burden of care to an aging population with no real turnover rate to carry that. When people use to say 'have kids so theres someone to care for you when your old' and people got offended and fired back 'I wouldn't expect my kids to care for me, thats not a reason to have kids' they seemed to completely miss the point that its not personally about THEM its about the whole population. It doesn't need to be specifically YOUR child wiping your ass but SOMEONES child will need to. Its about an entire society of jobs filled by younger people.

Someones child will be the paramedic driving your ambulance to get you to someone elses child who is the nurse/dr at the hospital when you have a heart attack or stroke. Someones kid will be research dementia looking for things to improve your quality of life and dignity. Someones child will be the home care help or nursing home staff or end of life staff holding your hand through the end. Somebody's child will dress you and drive the car carrying you to you final goodbye.

Children are a necessity to the whole species, its bigger than you and without people having children everything stops working. Truth is its the 'poor' people that carry the majority of that burden while also dealing with being judged, if only the top % had children we would surpass an extinction level drop. Its in EVERYONE interest to support children because even if you don't have any of your own you will garanteed use the services of the younger generation (other peoples children) regardless of their income (and many of the most needed jobs in society are the most shittily paid) so don't judge them.

Sex ed does yes but I was never told about taxes and how benefits come from other peoples taxes so can you really hate someone for having one child when they were too young and dumb to realise it bothered anyone else?

I get it if it’s a grown woman with 4+ kids by different men btw

Bollocks, you are projecting.

I have a great life thanks.

Society absolutely CAN'T afford it, are you even aware of the national debt + cost of UC etc?? We aren't a wealthy country any more.

PPs said it well "We aren’t unhappy with our lifestyles, we are unhappy with the lifestyles of selfish people who can’t control themselves any better than a stray cat".

"If you cannot afford the basics a child needs- food, shelter, clothes etc, then no you should not have one. No child deserves to be raised to struggle like that and no decent parent should want to bring a child into the world to watch them struggle"

Sex ed does yes but I was never told about taxes and how benefits come from other peoples taxes so can you really hate someone for having one child when they were too young and dumb to realise it bothered anyone else?

I get it if it’s a grown woman with 4+ kids by different men btw

Sorry, who said a word about 'ditching benefits'?

So just to clarify, because I work and my children went to nursery from a year old, I don't know how to parent? What an odd view to have.

No-one knows for sure what they will be able to afford in the coming years. You could lose a spouse, your health, your job.

You have to be extremely well-off to know up-front that you have the money to cover all of this.

So what should they do? Use your words and actually may it out. Bully for you you never had an accidental pregnancy but some women are very fertile, so what are you proposing they do?

This was pre-welfare state. Are you advocating we go back to that? Is it the normal childhood you'd want for your kids? I'm sure lots of our grannies grew up in similar circumstances and their grannies grew up in worse ones, but not sure how relevant that is to the current situation or the answer would be to ditch all benefits and mod cons and just let the amazing individuals proliferate.

It sounds like you're unhappy with your lifestyle and are suggesting that others should be as unhappy. You're just as welcome to have more children and claim benefits if you needed to. You sound quite angry that you've "chosen" to limit your family size but you don't really feel it's a choice, hence you're talking quite glibly about taking choice off of others. Society absolutely can afford to ensure every child is fed and clothed and educated, it's about whether we value spending our money on that.

IMO the current narrative of "parents shouldn't be out of pocket" etc is highly dangerous because it completely negates parental responsibility for raising, feeding and clothing their own DC.
It's like Labour want people to have DC and then hand them over to the state.

It's insidious.

Children are expensive, time consuming etc and this should be taken into account when having them. I'm not talking about parents being made redundant etc once DC are here because that's what benefits are for. I mean parents who have never contributed to the system yet are happy for stretched working parents to pay for their DC. I honestly believe we should move to a contributions based benefits system (excluding severe disability).

Parents have a responsibility to feed, clothe and parent their DC. If they fail to do that then there should be targeted support in place until they are able to do those things. Just handing out taxpayer funded freebies isn't the way to go but yet here we are with Labour and their supporters wanting more and more state control over parents and parenting.

We then create yet another generation who don't know how to parent properly so rely even more on the state