To be fed up when people have an opinion on how many children you have or want

[brummiegirl1]

I have 2 young boys aged 2 and 7 months and would like 4 children if i'm lucky enough as i was an only child and knew i wanted a big family. Before i went off on maternity leave with my youngest a woman at work said are you done now and i said i would like more children in the future and she said im mad.

Other people have also asked the same thing. Is it me? I wouldn't dream commenting on how many children someone wants or has as it's up to them, when im asked now i feel all defensive about it and don't want to tell them like im a naughty teenager not a 33 year old married woman!

No, it's making the assertion that it's poorer families that could least afford the tax. If they are already struggling financially to support what they thought would be 2 children, then the second birth happens to be triplets a tax is likely to push them over the edge. Or is the tax per pregnancy?

What if you'd decided you could afford 3 children, but the last pregnancy resulted in a multiple birth?

And what about those living solely on benefits? How would this tax apply to them?

So Tasmania, tell us about your lifestyle: number of cars, foreign holidays, energy consumption etc. Does your family eat meat? I'm wondering how much effort the critics of large families put in, or is their contribution largely in the criticism of others?

As said Binary a multiple birth if it was one of the first two births would count as one.

So you can have one child, and your second is a multiple birth of four. You wouldn't be taxed anything unless you decided to have more.

If you had 2 and decide to have 3rd - well the whole policy is about discouraging people from having more. So you have to accept the risks involved with that.

And if you live solely on benefits... seriously? Why would you ever choose to have so many children?!? That's what's wrong with society - that people don't even think it's wrong putting kids on this planet when you can't even afford to bring them up.

Yellow - I answered all those questions much earlier on in this thread.

Yes seriously. Because people that are living solely on benefits do sometimes have large families. How would a tax that they can't pay so wouldn't pay act as a deterrent? It just wouldn't. And society would still be picking up the bill for them, or would you cut the benefits and in doing so penalise the chdren?

Just as an aside, oil is used well, pretty much everything.

Forget the heating and the car for a moment and think about food, washing, detergents, cosmetics, medicines, doctor's visits, plastics, toys.....

At some stage I might trawl back then Tas.

And what if your don't live with you, eg have been adopted or fostered whether that be through choice or not.

The tax idea is far too black and white for an issue which is varying shades of grey.

So yellow if we all decided that you were absolutely right, and there was no reason at all to not have as many children as God/Nature (deltee as applicable to you) wanted to give us, would you be at all worried then?

When every couple in the UK and indeed the world had upwards of 5 or six children, assuming they were fertile? what would it take for you to become a little uncomfortable about this? I'm not being facetious - I am genuinely interested to know how this mindset works.

"When every couple in the UK and indeed the world had upwards of 5 or six children, assuming they were fertile? what would it take for you to become a little uncomfortable about this?"
Not likely to happen though, is it?

Obviously it would be a concern. But very, very few people, now that there is a choice, wish to exercise that choice as I've done. The work involved and the risks involved appeal to remarkably few. You only have to flick on other threads to see that, even if you're not aware of it in RL. So it's a spurious argument and won't come to pass.

Cross post. Not just not likely juule, it won't happen.

I'll try and pick my words carefully here, because believe it or not, I really don't want to offend.

However, the choices we make impact other people, so coming back to the wording of the OP, we cannot expect others not to judge those choices and form an opinion on them. Making moral judgements is part of what makes us human. Telling someone "they have no right" to one opinion or another is daft. How we choose to act on those judgements is another thing. I am not talking about hastily made snap judgements, or prejudice of course. It is obvious to me that those on this thread who are questioning those who have decided to have many children have thought long and hard about their opinion, and it is based on facts and evidence. So therefore they have a right to those opinions.

On the other hand saying "I have nine children because it's my right to do so," and when challenged about the effect this might have on others, discounting it completely....well, this is what people are making their judgements about. The "two children or less" brigade appear to be those who think about the wider and long term impacts of their behaviour on the rest of the world, and the "I'll have as many children as I like and it's no one else's business" brigade appear to be those who don't.

Bollocks Ariel. Impossible to generalise. The overwhelming majority of women choose to have a smallish number of kids because these days they can and because that's the right number for them, not because they calculate it to be the right number for the planet. And who's shouting about 'rights'? Not me. Plenty of mothers with two DC will be completely self-absorbed without a care for the world. I see some very, very conspicuous consumption amongst smaller families. It's ridiculous to make a general claim about the moral high ground!

The point you are manifestly failing to grasp though is that if you feel "judged" fir having eight kids, that's probably the reason why the judge is judging. And that a family with two children who consume "conspicuously", will still in the long term consuming less than your family.

No need for the bollocks.....

most take into account what is right for the family they already have. There are many things I want in life but life is not always about what you want or what is your right

In fact Ariel I don't feel in the least judged in RL which is what matters. Being judged on MN doesn't faze me at all.

So Freudian are you implying that it's always negative for existing children to have another sibling? That's potentially quite an arid approach. I don't see this as a rights issue at all. I absolutely don't claim having any particular number of children as my 'right'. I'm fortunate yes, but I haven't had these children on the basis of some notion of 'right'.

Just because someone feels judged, doesn't mean the judgement is valid.

Some mothers feel judged if they ff. That doesn't mean they are in the wrong. Just that some other person has decided what's best and considering someone else a lesser being for not doing things the way their way.

Alright, whatever you say.

You're spending a lot of time on here defending yourself though.

"most take into account what is right for the family they already have."

How is that contrary to having several children?

Ariel I'm so used to multi-tasking and doing ten things at once that I can assure you dipping in and out of MN to say bollocks takes no more than a minute here and there of my time :)

That said, I am having to log out properly now....

Both "sides" are naturally very entrenched in their opinions here. Those with the large families are naturally taking it more personally as they see it as a criticism of their choices and by extension, their children. Those on the other side are arguing more objectively and less anecdotally.

if you read the rest of my post it answers your question