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.

Hecubas
As you work in an acute setting and I work in a health promotion role then I apologise for misunderstanding your terminology. I do not see a person with depression as "sick" I see them as a well person who has depression. I don't know why you continually put yourself down as pharmacists have been through so much training and they are so knowledgeable They deserve nothing but admiration.

Posters have made a number of assumptions about me personally and professionally, just be because I expressed my personal opinion regarding the necessity of personal responsibility regarding birth control whilst not working to support ever more children. I also think it is disgraceful that so many people are caught up in the vicious cycle of benefit dependency.

Due to me having this opinion, I have been told:
I see benefit claimants as scum (I do not, and haven't intimated that anywhere).
I look down on you and believe your children should not exist (I do not).
I put money before health (I don't, but there are finite resources).
I must be crap/unempathetic in my profession (I adhere to my code of conduct and deliver non judgemental practice. After all, the children are already here, so I do my best to help those families, ie letters of support to housing).
I want children to starve, I hate children and all sorts of other accusations making me a veritable modern day child catcher.

I am open minded, I initially posted on here believing financial penalties were the answer, but after thought provoking posts from several posters I changed my opinion, believing instead that raising aspirations of future generations and good quality PHSE would be more beneficial.

"Nice to see you have reconsidered. "

Please dont allow yourself to be bullied through misrepresentation Rhinosaurus. Its a common trick on MN - dont take it personally.

You should have stuck with your Paxman style 'answer my question' earlier and ignored all the wriggling and diversion.

Should we encourage people via benefits to keep having kids that they cant afford to support? No of course we fuking shouldnt. We know it and the posters arguing against you know it too. Wont stop them arguing though.

Wow rhino its not often people (admit to) change their mind on mn.

I was thinking today about the idea of only paying benefits for the first 2 children- and got to wondering-is that 2 children per woman, per man, per couple, per household?

It's awful isn't it TSC. Job hunting is soul destroying too. You spend hours on job search websites, completing applications, doing background research etc all to produce an application that probably noone will even read and if they do they won't reply.

It can be more tiring than working. For example I had 3 hrs sleep, dd2 has spent most of today screaming. She still hasn't properly settled so I am so far behind I am going to have to pull an all nighter probably same tomorrow.

I can see how someone would give up trying and opt to stay on benefits. Not saying that's right, it's not it's just I cam see how you could end up that way.

What misrepresentation lookto?

Bejeezus

I have not changed my mind that people should not continue to reproduce whilst expecting the state to pick up the bill.

What I have changed my mind over is limiting benefits to two children, as this ultimately could cause the children hardship when the feckless and irresponsible parents inevitably ignore this. I also don't see how it could be enforced if children were not being fed, clothed etc. social services as already stretched to the limit.

The tactics used on here by some posters towards people who disagree with them are disgusting, I have been accused of lots of things I have not said including calling people scum! I have even had my professional skills and integrity questioned, when nobody on here knows sod all about me or my work.

Thing is rhino you don't need to say you think they are scum. You said 'we need less of them' I presume, the fewer the better? Like none at all would be the ultimate goal? And more people like yourself? The attitude towards 'them' is to treat them as if they are subhuman-you can't talk about breeding out a section of society without repercussions!. You can't expect your integrity not to be questioned. You don't need to say half the things you and others have been accused of, because its written between the lines in bold italic capital letters. I'm not even sure if you realise it yourselves

I don't know where I have referred to "needing less of them", I didn't talk about breeding out a line of people, i talked about people who continue having child after child whilst expecting the state to support them, and why there should be such a sense of entitlement in this section of society when others have to carefully consider such decisions.

I don't think you can question my integrity due to what i consider a valid personal opinion, any more than I can question yours regarding your manipulation and projecting of your opinions onto whatever I say because you disagree with my views.

I think those who have child after child while not working are not as high in number as people think.

The ones like this I worked with all had other issues going on that influenced their behaviours.

One lady who had 8 children by numerous fathers had her own horrific folder in social services relating to a very abusive childhood. In fact the SW who read it said it made her cry to see what this Mum had gone through. As a mother she loved her children but her poor experiences of parenting brought her to the attention of social services who then put in support to try and prevent the cycle from continuing.

Sometimes it's not as simple as it looks, to outsiders this Mum was just a single parent with too many children. Dig deeper and it's often far more complex sadly

Including disabled people on benefits, lookto?

Apologies rhino I don't think it wad you that said that particular gem

I really cannot see why the state providing for 2 children is controvercial. The average family size is around this number. When my friend said she could only afford 2, but would like more, it seemed like a really normal: she looked at her situation, thought about providing for her family and came to a sensible conclusion.

Really, should anyone who has 2 children already, think about having more when they cannot take responsibility for the ones they have?

2 children per mother wasabi? Or per father? Or household? Or couple?

"Really, should anyone who has 2 children already, think about having more when they cannot take responsibility for the ones they have?"

The word financial appears to be missing from that sentence. After all, there are millions of parents in this country who don't take parental responsibility during the working week. I'm one of them. Does that mean I shouldn't have any more children?

Perhaps next time you want to do a character assassination on a stranger, on the basis of their views (which aren't actually that extreme) on an Internet forum, you could get your facts right Bejeezus?

Pot/ kettle.

I agree that if at the time of having children you can't afford them you shouldn't have them, we're all open to terrible things happening but to have naff all from the off is pretty crappy. Same as people who know their children will care for them from a young age.

"Same as people who know their children will care for them from a young age."

So someone who has MS or Cancer, they shouldn't have kids? What about disable people, do they get the green light? Or would it depend on the exact debilitating nature of their disability?

To be honest rhino the specifics of what you and others have said are neither here nor there. The underlying attitude is common to you all, and comes shining through.

Character assassination? Get over yourself. I enjoy that a few of you are so 'sensitive' whilst holding the views that you do. One rule for one

Try picking your feet up huh?

I'm clearly talking about couples who are both in a position to require help (and know so) when the child is still a child. Not one parent but both, it's so selfish to have a child knowing that they won't have a childhood.

Step families: just the same as any family not reliant on state support. You look after the children you have already first of all. So if A and B have 3 children between them, they can have one, with full state support. If they have 2 each, they focus on the existing ones, as they cannot support them.

Until we live in a society where we can afford to fully support people that need help dressing, eating, washing etc I just don't understand how or why they would want to have children to do the caring for them.

That's making assumptions, Posie. How do you know that they won't have a childhood? They will attend school, have friends, etc. Just because people need help washing, dressing etc, doesn't mean that they aren't capable of giving their children as good a childhood as anybody else.