I do not understand why people have kids when they can not afford them.

[sea74]

I know this topic will create lots of critics but i want to share my thoughts and see if anyone agrees or i am the odd one out.
I come from a european country where the fertility rate is 1.4 that is each woman/family has 1.4 child. Grandparents very often are the to help, but women (and men) are responsible enough not to have children if they can not afford them or look after them.
I grew up thinking that i want children not because i want them for me but because i have to donate life and their life must be a good life. Children are not mine but they are individuals.

Having said that, when i moved to the UK, i realised how things are different.
I feel that many people think children will not change their lives, they get pregnant easily, they do not really worry too much (and take contraception) in order to avoid pregnancies.
Then, when they have the child, you see that often these children live in broken families, or the single mothers do not have 50 pounds to buy them a decent meal, or they are left in front of the tv all summer because they had not planned childcare is expensive and grandparents live far.

Children should be planned carefully, i think and it is very selfish to have them without thinking of (and being ready for) the consequences.

Crap wages, or wages that are completely out of proportion with housing costs, have a lot to answer for in this debate, as scroungings experience testifies. We would all live happier, healthier lives and be able to plan our families properly if we weren't for the most part desperately trying to make ends meet.

Yes, the "my right my right my right babies babies me me me" is indeed the worst of mumsnet, loveberries.

Define 'the value of their labour' because there are highly educated people who do very important jobs earning fuck all and some people on millions that do pointless jobs. It's all based on what a few rich people think the poor are 'worth'.
Thats the purpose of the minimum wage! So that poor people can't be exploited and can afford to feed and house themselves! Ffs all work is 'worth' that. On what basis can you dispute that? Cos you don't wanna pay people?

Only read op but Op when I had dds I was in a very long marriage with a high income.

Now a lone parent on a low income.

Not everyone who is a single parent is feckless. Should I give dds back?

Good god this is like the 17 year old girl saying she didn't know why people had children if they weren't going to do anything with them as a mother wouldn't go in the pool with her child at Walt Disney World.

I have a disability which sometimes means I have to say no to doing something too physical with my kids. I wasn't disabled when I had my children but life has changed dramatically for us in ways we never planned.

Because I honestly don't understand how someone could plan a baby they had no intention of financially supporting because it's their human right to have a child.

That's a fair statement.
Your original one made it seem that you were stating that it is not a right. When in fact it is - And for good reason.

The fact that a very tiny minority use it as an argument for not taking responsibility is an unfortunate effect of that, But i would still rather it be a right, than it not be.

The value of their labour is the value produced by the worker being at work.

I actually am confused by the vitriol on here. Nobody is suggesting that current single mums should be stripped of social security support

What is wrong with saying you should only have kids if you can afford them?? It's a completely separate issue to where a person who has kids/is pregnant has changed circumstances.

To compare it to a (perhaps?) less emotive issue - you are not entitled to home ownership. You shouldn't take on a mortgage (a 20+ year commitment) if it is fundamentally difficult for you to afford it (obviously there's a third party here too, the bank, who has a controlling stake). You are not a lesser human being for not owning a house. It's different if you already have the mortgage and eg you lose your job.

For the record I do think child benefit should be capped at 2 or 3 kids - but only for children born after the change is enacted (ie so you would not be affected if you already have 4 kids).

How does you owning a business produce anything? How would you work out what you are 'worth' presumably nothing your just a figure head. That is a very narrow definition that wouldn't work in a lot of instances for example public sector work.

If we all lived in council housing it would be so much easier and better for everyone.

The entitled bunch are out in force today.

Um why would everyone living in council housing be helpful krumbum?

I agree with wordfactory's posts, which were Pretty much ignored

So tell me,what is the cut off income for no children allowed?

Zara - Presumably because it would eliminate ridiculous housing costs, second and third homes etc.

Because no one would struggle in the same way. We wouldn't have people owning two homes and pricing even basic housing rent so that most people struggle just to get by. Mortgages fuck you over just as much. It keeps poor people poor.

Denise, for the record I do run a business and I couldn't disagree with you more. Maybe if you valued your staff they'd be more productive?

Also, zara, children are not houses.

What kind of business do you run Abody?

How do you calculate how much to pay your employees if it doesn't involve the value of the work they do to the company?

I'm glad to see that the abusive posts I reported to MN HQ have been deleted, I've reported the one further up (in capitals), too.

My oh my, people are getting angry and this subject seems to have touched a raw nerve. I'm not sure this is a popular view, in fact it's not, but "controversial" Novak has a good point - the entitled ARE indeed out in force today, hoisting their bosoms at the mere suggestion that children may not be an automatic right and that you may just need to consider your finances before bringing (yet) more children into an already overcrowded world.

usual there would be no cut off, because what a family can cope with is entirely individual.

If you're the type of person who can make your family thrive, whatever the circumstances, then by all means have babies galore.

But if you are already stretched to capacity, then why on earth would you add another child into that mix?

I'm sorry, but the fact that you adore babies, or don't wnat to be lonely is not a good enough reason. The one thing every decent parent knows is that it's not about them and what they want.

^ This.

You don't have an option Denise (unless your breaking the law?) but to pay your employees at least minimum wage. And it obviously is not ruining your business. It's more important that people are able to live than you getting rich. So what is the issue?

I think sometimes things are far more complicated than we'd like them to be, I've been with DH 12 years now (ie. pretty stable), I became disabled about 7 years ago. I've deteriorated to the point I need him as my full time carer - he has wanted to be a dad since he was 16 (now 34) but he waited till he met the 'right' person, before he had to care for me he had a goodish job and was working his way up in a career, before I became too ill to work so was I.

Does DH leave me to find a better prospect? So that he can work for a real wage rather than carers allowance, bearing in mind the man is on call 24/7 except for 16 hours a week. Or are we allowed a family life even though we are state benefit reliant. DH actually saves the state quite a lot of money as he looks after me, he's retraining in the hope that he can get part time work that will fit around me and make economic sense. If I'm to bear our children I'm supposed to do it NOW medically speaking, it's when I have the best chance of full recovery after birth. I volunteer too, but then I'm still not an economically productive unit am I, so I'm supposed to live like a saint - considering I can't take hormones and our first child (who died) was concieved after 9 years sucessful use of condoms?

I'm sorry I've found myself unluckily disabled BEFORE I've had a family, becasue I was waiting and trying to build up a career first. I'm sorry I'm not a real person anymore.

We were very hard up when our DCs were little. We never went out, never had holidays, Christmas presents were modest and often 2nd hand, the children's clothes were mostly from charity shops (and Dh and I simply didn't have any new clothes for about 3 years). We couldn't afford to do the things that most families did - but we could afford to have children, just. We lived on Dh's wages and I was a sahm, so no childcare costs.
It's do-able but there are quite a few sacrifices to be made.

Ah oh I getcha queen and krumbum. I do agree, even though I am mostly a free market champion and capitalist at heart! The success of social housing in eg Singapore is an interesting model.

Agree 100% with wordplay