If you can't afford children you shouldn't have them.

[MrsArchieTheInventor]

"If you can't afford children you shouldn't have them" [and] "child benefit and tax credits should be abolished" with the mantra that if she choses to be childless she should not be forced to pay for the 'breeding' choices of others.

A Facebook friend of mine. I didn't retaliate.

'A few parents may end up with children in care'

I can't believe someone actually posted that and thinks thats ok .

Bowing out now, partly because it's time for bed (lightweight) and partly because I feel it's a little bit personal to Hecuba and my intention was never a personal attack on anyone.

What are you ashamed of? no one has said the kids should suffer. please think before you post

Hec - would you mind terribly if this thread, which weirdly has been about countering myths about those who should be "allowed to breed" not be derailed by this again?

If you could post without the dreadful hyperbole about your personal circumstances, I think it would help to shape the debate rather than derailing it.

Especially to SHirely who took by terrible humour in good faith

I think this is the lowest I've ever seen MN , and I've seen some vile shit spouted on here.

Taking the benefits away from people who conceive another child is making innocent children suffer wicketter. Apologies if this is distasteful, but it's a fact.

Erm, I didn't say you weren't allowed an opinion without having another suggestion. There isn't need to imply that I did.

Either way, you think things should stay as they are and that's fine. I just happen to disagree, and think something should be done to discourage people from conceiving children when neither parent can provide.

It amazes me that anyone thinks children are a right that should be granted even when someone else has to pay for them.

I'm a massively humorous person, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's called social security payment for a reason. If it was stopped, people wouldn't stop having kids; there would be more kids in poverty and there would be more crime, violence and disorder.

The feckless in society are an unavoidable fact of life. Benefit payments protect you up there in your ivory towers, so you'd better hope they don't stop payments

i have never said take the benefits away but want to make sure it goes to the kids through vouchers etc. i have dealt with a lot of deprived children who have an x box and a ps3 but no food. that is wrong. i just want the benefits to reach the right places and people

"ok people. the bottom line should be that if you cant afford it you shouldnt get it. you cant rely on everyone else to support your child for 18 years. i dont expect my own parents to do that so why should i expect you to. sorry just getting really annoyed that this is becoming the norm. i am not saying the kids should suffer but the parents need to be held responsible. something has to be done. at the end of the day YOUR KIDS, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY!"

"no one has said the kids should suffer. please think before you post"

Errr... Hang on...

But Shirely and Tethers - you are very unhappy with any suggestions made and shoot down everyone else, buto what would you do - just keep on asking other people with declining incomes themselves to keep on shelling out into a rising cost base?

Whatme, I would question the basic premise that anything needs to change at all.

where did i say the kids should suffer. i am saying that people need to take responsibilty. obviously, if they have already had the kids they need to be protected but in the future please think about them before you

I was waiting for the x box argument

People need to remember we are in recession. Yes that means the benefits bill is difficult for the Government to meet. It also means a significant number of people who have worked either since leaving school or since leaving University will find themselves in need of benefits. Many of these people will have children. Noone can know what the future holds. Nobody wants to be made redundant, become ill or lose a loved one but it is a fact of life it happens.

All these benefit debates seem to through up opinions and suggestions to fix it based on the myth that all benefit claimants are feckless scroungers. Now I am not for one minute suggesting that feckless scroungers don't exist, of course they do but they are in the minority. Their existence should not be used as justification for making life worse for those who have fallen on hard times.

Futher more children do not ask to be born. You cannot chose your parents. If parents are truly feckless then SS should step in.

Simply cutting benefits is a cheap fix like tying on a broken exhaust on a car, it stops the rattling for a bit so sounds better and pleases the neighbours but the car is still buggered.

To solve the benefits problem they need to look at the bigger picture of the whole economy, all benefits and all people. For generations governments have focused in on an individual problems, announced a fantastic fix but have never considered the collateral effects and the rules of unintended consequences. The result a complicated, expensive system that not even the insiders can navigate completely effectively.

Wicketter, you can't tell me what would happen to the children whose parents don't take responsibility.

As far as I can see, the only option is to remove the children and take them into care- which means the child's entire existence is funded by the state.

If you don't have a contingency plan for the children of parents who do not stop at two children, you are sentencing those subsequent children to suffer.

This is one ugly thread

Whatme, I would question the basic premise that anything needs to change at all.

I don't think that's viable anymore, Tethers. The Benefits bill is too big to ignore, its 25% of Government spend and the Government is skint. If it doesn't act first, the markets will force austerity onto it.

And IMO as the "middle class squeeze" kicks in, and people are asked to fund other people's kids while not being able to afford their own anymore, there are going to be some hard calls to make and this is one of them.

I'm not shooting anyone down actually WMW. I understand that this is a difficult concept for some people but I do not agree that benefits should be restricted to families with more than 2 children and I am standing up for my belief and arguing them coherently and without personal attacks.

I do not believe that slashing CB and out of work benefits, and In Work benefits in order to "deter" (ick, doesn't that make procreation sound like a crime for poor people?) people from having more than two children would actually help cut the deficit.

I believe that the deficit (or rather the OMG DEFICIT!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE OF THE DEFICIT!!! is greatly exaggerated in order to push through some pretty draconian laws actually) will not be cut by making these sorts of policies...

again, at the risk of repeating myself boringly, although you seem to like it WMW, you tease!, I think that the poorest in our society are being manipulated into turning on ourselves, and those further down the income scale, in order to hide the horrendous and disgusting ways in which huge corporations and the richest in this society are behaving.

I'm starting to wonder WMW whether you're one of the top 1 percent?

Hmmm, have not read the whole thread, but to answer the question are you saying only the rich should have kids....

As to the argument of the childless not paying for children, who will look after you in your old age then, be your doctor, dentist, run your corner shop if not someone elses children. Children are the future of all of all, society should contribute