AIBU to think people shouldnt be getting money for having children?

[normality]

i know it is is controversal but i dont understand why some people feel the entitlement to get money for having children and aibu to think it should stop?

I think that if people want children then they should have them but they should not feel they are entitled for some kind of monetary hand out for having them

I especially feel like getting money for being pregnant like the sure start grant, maternity grant, healthy start vouchers ect should not happen because if you cant afford to have a child why should the goverment pay you to do this? what about the people who do not have any children and choose not to or can not why should they miss out on multiple grants and vouchers when they are paying more and more taxes to support the people who choose to have children and then choose not to work?

• i have a dd and although i wanted a large family i could not afford to have more than one child so stopped but never claimed any grants ect because i did not want to be paid for being pregnant as it was my choice

Interesting that child rearing/caring for adults is regarded as a drain on the economy. Try paying someone to do all that domestic labour. Child benefit is paid to benefit childen (clue in the name) not parents. You might like to look at China for an example of State control of family size. 7 month forced abortion is cheap, but unappealing. There are many unintended consequences; poor people 'over' breeding is one maybe, but not the worst.

Why did I get deleted again?

FFs MN is fucking me off big time

People can spout all sorts of crap about poor people on here and thats perfectly fine

but try and support someone and you get deleted

well there is a link there to a thread where you were deleted,maybe you have some memory problems xenia?

your posts against sahm and posters with disabilities are quite often inflamatory and rude.

getting back to the op, i dont think many disagree that the system needs to change but the way in which it is being done is wrong, those on disability etc are struggling to get the money they are entitled to and need, that is wrong/

and i really dont think money is thrown at people who have children there have been some ill thought out examples such as trust funds etc for babies, but its not like people on benefits are raking it in!

Is that what you do now on MN,just report people who have different views to the Daily Mail bollocks ?

no idea usual i didnt see your post?

if i report something its becauase they have said something discriminatory, racist, disabilist etc.

If you think I am being ignorant Julia, I apologise.

The simple fact is, I am having difficulty getting my head around the fact that one poster honestly believes that disabled people should be able to have as many children as they desire, because otherwise they are not being given the same choices as non disabled people.
However, most non disabled people cannot have as many children as they desire, many many many people would love to have more children, but for one reason or another, they have to limit how many they do have.
To give disabled people the same choices as other people, then surely disabled people, like non disabled people, have to make choices too as to how many children they can have based on their circumstances. For example...(in case anyone gets the wrong idea)..If you have a disabled couple, who live in a 2 bedroomed house, and they have 2 children...great!! What if they want more children though...should they be given a 3/4/5 bedroomed house and round the clock care for themselves and their children?
If the answer is yes, then on the basis that disabled people should enjoy the same rights/choices/priviledges as anyone else (and I agree with that, I really do) then surely it follows that non disabled people should also be granted a 3/4/5 bedroomed house and as much support as they need, whether that be financial or practical??
I do understand that disabled people have particular needs, but some non disabled parents need support too, and on this basis, shouldn't everyone, whether disabled or not, have the same opportunities?

If the answer is yes, everyone should have the same opportunities, whether disabled or not, then how sustainable is this in today's economic situation, if as the other poster has suggested, we give disabled (and everyone else) the opportunity to have as many children as they desire, however many that may be and we are all supported in whichever way we need it, be that a bigger house or more money or practical help or any other form of support we need??

Oh for heaven's sake. It was about a principal, not a practical issue.
Let's be sensible. Disabled people should be afforded the same rights as all. People are people regardless of disabilities and make their own decisions as to whether or not they can afford a child, all I was saying is that because a person is disabled and on benefits, they too should be afforded the same benefits as every working person. It's not that hard.
You don't have the right to tell a working couple how many children to have so you shouldn't have the right to tell a disabled person how many children to have, regardless of who provides their income.
Seeemples!

The whole thing smacks faintly of eugenis; only the successful should breed. I guess that's nature though isn't it?

eugenics sorry

Yes that about sums it up

Be careful, I mentioned the EUG word in response to Xenia last night and the post was deleted.

God forbid that anyone should suggest that what she is suggesting is actually cleansing society of its lower orders to allow the rich and powerful to continue their take over of the world.

Yes, Top, I said very early on in this thread that Marie Stopes is alive and kicking.

Whos reporting the posts?

On the topic of course we want parity. Only the rich and poor can easily afford large families in the UK and indeed around the world. if you got no benefits if you had a baby as a teenage girl then you might use contraception or you migh have to live with your mother or heaven forfend yo might have to do what I did at 22 when I had my first baby which was go back to work when it was 2 weeks full time and spend a lot (50% of our joint income) on child care.

One of the biggest problems has been housing benefit. The weekly benefit payments themselves are not particularly generous although I would advocate that everyone should do some work for them. The housing subsidy is.

"Glitterknickaz "Xenia has previously been deleted for disparaging remarks and questioning regarding parents with sn kids. here"

I am not on that link.

I don't mind being accused of being libertarian or a flat taxer or feminist or anti-house wife person anything that I am but I am not anti disabled people. I am not a eugenics person. i don't often say much about disabled people as they are not tomething I particularly have views on so I don't see why it should be suggested I have a reputation for regularly posting anti disabled people comments which are then deleted."

Take a wild guess US......

Saying that the poor should be disinsentivised to breed and encouraging the rich and successful to breed in their place IS eugenics. Whether or not you are a "eugenics person" (which is what exactly?!), your plan for a great and glorious future is to make sure that the poor and less intelligent/successful, do not have children.

And who will clean your bog if that happens? I hate to tell you this but your children on their paltry 6 figure income will be cleaning the toilets of the truly rich and successful, and will be the next generation to fall victim to your glorious plan!

Of course it's eugenics ; people just don't want to admit to having these ugly thoughts.

Oh and Xenia, suggesting that as you earn over 100k it puts you above the rest of us is laughable.

100k is nothing these days. Ok so it is a significant amount more than I earn but it dont make you rich my love! Or wealthy, or even well off!

Come back when you have upped it ten times and then you can suggest that you and yours will do better than the rest of us :o

There are many poor people who are highly intelligent (take students etc) but due to poor personal choices or misfortune may not be earning enough to support themselves.

Xenia you really do take the biscuit and the fucking tin,
do you assume that all disabled people have a low IQ
wow you are so dense

I was doing really well at uni (I got an A in genetics) and I could have potentially had an amazing and lucrative career but due to a poor choice in my personal life (abusive partner) I had to drop out and became very ill with ptsd. I was hospitalised and spendt the next few years working in shite jobs such as cleaning loos, factory work etc.
I did get my degree in the end and I now have a professional job. I am also a single mum (again due to my ability to hold down a relationship or find a decent man) and claimed benefits when dd was a baby so that I could breast feed her. I was despearte to return to work but glad that I was supported so that i could bond with dd. Where does that leave me? Mabe my tendancy to mental ill health mean sthat I should not have bred?

We both have a PhD. That would be disabled dh and carer.

inability sorry

There you go Dawndonna. Life is just too complicated to assume taht people need help because they are fecless and stupid. In my case I am academically ok but I am rubbish at my personal life.

I alos cannot spell tonight! Feckless.