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.

Why Don't you read the thread properly? This is not regarding struggling people like you, or me trying to do the best for our kids. It is targeted at people,who work the system, and we all know them professionally and personally.

I realise reading back that the original question is against tax credits, which I do not feel are Wrong, they are working benefits, however when somebody doesn't work, and has no intention of working, but carries on having children and expecting the state to provide, in those circumstances i do feel it is wrong.

As a pharmaacist you only get ill patients? No depressed? No smoking cessation? No acne prescriptions. No contraception? No iron tablets? No ongoing hypertension meds? No athletes foot?

Who is more arsed with money than health? As i have already stated, I believe in a universal healthcare service. Your health is linked to your socioeconomic status, (and also to overcrowding) so you can't really discuss one without the other.

However, I am allowed a personal opinion, and I feel frustrated by the lack of personal responsibility by some people, and also frustrated when someone who is not working at all can receive a higher income than I do working full time.

I also feel this government are rushing reforms through such as the NHS and welfare reforms too quickly.

Firstly rhino I work in an acute setting, so that means I don't deal with smoking cessation.

Any chronic conditions I deal with are when the person is having an acute episode and is therefore feeling unwell.

Thirdly ongoing conditions do not suddenly become not illnesses because they are ongoing.

Fourthly depression IS an illness and as a HCP you should be ashamed of yourself for not knowing that.

Fifthly technically athelete's foot is an illness it is fungal infection so by definition you are not completely healthy if you have it. Furthermore if you are of the mind set that athelete's foot isn't an illness and is nothing to worry about then you don't generally feel the need to go to OOH with it.

HTH.

Everyone's lives have Ups and downs, so the argument 'we could afford them when conceived' ignores the reality that the parents finances were not robust enough to cope with normal occurrances such as redundency and separation. its ignoring planning for your own childrens future and that cannot be a good thing.

Wasabi ...the parents finances were not robust enough to cope with normal occurrances such as redundency and separation. its ignoring planning for your own childrens future and that cannot be a good thing.

Really? How much money should people have stashed away as a hedge against redundancy or separation before you would allow them to have children, Wasabi? Your comment sounds very much like you are advocating only the relatively wealthy should have children because, let's face it, even people on the national average of 25K are unlikely to have that kind of money saved, particularly women who (a) still suffer from income inequality and (b) are usually (but not always) left with the children following a separation.

I personally would not have made the decision to have DC if I had been in a position where i had to claim benefits or tax credits etc. That's a personal decision to me and one that, to me, is morally correct.

Of course life throws us curve balls sometimes and there will be people who have made similar decisions who through redundancy, marriage break up, illness etc find themselves having to rely on state help and of course there should be a safety net for people who need help for a short period of time to help them get back on their feet or for people who are ill, longer term help. I hope I never need that safety net but if I do I will be very grateful for it.

What I don't agree with is the deliberate act of planning a family whilst on benefits - am sure I will get flamed for that but I can't help how I feel. I would have loved another DC but made the decision to stop at one as it would have put to much strain on our finances and left us vulnerable should one of us lose our job.

The thing is, whereis, there are people who are disabled, and they, and the person caring for them, want children. They are on benefits, but are still able to bring into this world children who are capable of being a benefit to society. Why shouldn't such a couple have children? Who are we to state that if you have a disability that means you are unable to work, you may not have children? I cannot see that as a morally correct stance.

God tsc what have you done about teh house?Nightmare

Character building that is what I told myself with our first few renovations when we lived in them! Bucket toilet very nice but at least we chose it I suppose Glad you made it!

You make a good point Dawndonna and my post was not taking into consideration people who cannot work due to a disability which I should have made that clear.

Thank you, whereis.

Tilly, you can only prepare for so much. Thesecond, is a case in point. In our case, I didn't plan for three of my four children to be Autisitc. I didn't plan for dh to be ill, given the wrong medication by the consultant, and then disabled by said medication, and no, we can't sue.

How high should savings be then tilly, honestly where do you draw the line are only billionaires to be allowed to breed? People can be hit by more than 1 blow you know.

What should I have done? I would like to know.

Have not read the whole thread but I don't understand something. There is currently a problem with unemployment, we all know there are not enough jobs/skills around at the moment. Yet there is an element of having children to look after them in their old age etc. How.. I don't understand how we are going to create around 3million jobs in the next 10 - 15 years. This means that of the children been born now a proportion, probably a large proportion at this rate, will also be unemployed.

The unemployment is going to get worse not better because as technology improves the need for labour (at all levels) decreases. It does not increase.

Not sure why people think that the situation will improve with more kids. we cannot just keep on having babies, regardless of your financial situation.

I wonder what world some people live in if they think everyone can afford to save vast amounts of money.

Maybe they just save their child benefit, usual

Tilly please answer our questions.

Nobody and I do mean nobody can guarantee that nothing bad will happen to drastically change your circumstances. You can work hard, make plans and hope for the best but you cannot guarantee.

IMHO people who hold the view of the OP haven't really thought their life philosophy through, nor have they properly acknowledged how fragile life is, and how vulnerable people, including themselves, actually are.

This is understandable as life is scary stuff. But it's a shame we all get exposed to their not fully thought through ideas. Especially when vulnerable people can be seriously upset by them.

Oh, I see the OP is actually against the opinion expressed in the thread title. (Which is actually the view of her friend) So apologies to her for my misunderstanding there. [bublush]