to think that having children is not a "lifestyle choice"

[YorkshireTeaGold]

Sooo, saw a thread on aibu where the op complained about childcare costs and was told by another poster that she shouldn't complain as having kids was a lifestyle choice.

I've heard this so many times recently, both on mn and in rl and it massively pisses me off! My father actually told me not to complain about morning sickness as I wanted children.

I have 2 dcs and think that this is just maintaining the equilibrium of the world. Reproduction is a biological need, like eating or survival, it's not like taking up golf or buying a yacht. I can see maybe having no kids could be a lifestyle choice for some, as could having 9. But a couple? Not a lifestyle choice.

Plus it hides a political issue in that it's really difficult to afford to bring up children atm. I did a online check (think it was in the guardian) and dh and I are 75th centile for earnings. However 1/3 of this goes on the mortgage, 1/3 on childcare and 1/3 to barely cover the bills. It's ridiculous that this is the case, and if only people who truely afforded it had kids then it'd just be an elite minority reproducing. The government should organise the country so an average family can afford to buy a house and work.

But globally we are running out of resouces- fossil fuels, water, helium, elements on which we all depend like indium and paladium without which we would not be chatting on this forum, fish and eventually food.

We cannot go on reproducing at this rate and have long term survival.

So the conclusion is - keep the costs of childcare high, to deter people from procreating, for the good of the planet?

Oh it's that simple, obviously.

"So the conclusion is - keep the costs of childcare high, to deter people from procreating, for the good of the planet?"

Childcare is high enough now and millions still have children. They don't have to use childcare if they don't work.

If we want to limit population without going to the lengths of China, it's easier to say that the state will no longer support CB or tax credits and that you need to make choices based on affordability. Keeping childcare high alone wouldn't work.

The costs of childcare are high because the cost of labour has to be at a certain point and childcare inobles high levels of labour.
The high cost of childcare and having children needs to be taken into account when making the decision to have children otherwise it is an irresponsible choice to make.
Just like buying a house - you wouldn't commit to buying a house you couldn't afford; you work out the repayments and calculate if you could afford it if interest rates went up etc etc.

It's more a biological urge than a choice IMHO, not to say you shouldn't take responsibility for your actions of course.

And it's all very well pointing out the overpopulation issue but that doesn't make the desire to have kids any less.

The best and most natural idea is to have fewer kids in order to give them a better lifestyle which is exactly what women who are lucky enough to have access to reproductive control have been doing.

No the world is not overpopulated that's a myth.

Actually it is not. A couple of years ago a study was published by (I think) American researchers who concluded that at current levels of consumption, with current levels of technology, the maximum sustainable population of planet Earth is about 4 billion!

This does assume that no significant new sources of mineral wealth / fuel are discovered and that no enormous technological advances are made so it is a little flawed but it is the best measure so far of this planets capability to support us as a species.

Now I don't know the name of the study or the researchers off the top of my head and I can't be bothered to look it up (assuming I could even find it again) so don't bother asking me to 'prove it' because it's too much trouble. But you are wrong, it's not a myth!

Britian, in particular the south east is over populated. There are plenty of immigrants who want to come to the UK. Britain does not need more babies.

Before demanding benefits I think its important to remember that someone has to pay for the benefits. Does it really help you to increase the overall tax burden to pay for your child care?

"If we want to limit population without going to the lengths of China, it's easier to say that the state will no longer support CB or tax credits and that you need to make choices based on affordability. Keeping childcare high alone wouldn't work."

A very high proportion of children are unplanned. Getting rid of CB or tax credits would simply mean more children living in poverty.

The uk isn't the se.

Where I live needs more babies being born.

Jackieharris

I expect that babies in your area move away for work. If there was enough work then lots of people would flock to your area all over the world.

There are areas of outstanding beauty in the UK where housing is cheap, but hardly anyone lives there because there is no easy way of supporting yourself other than farming or tourism.

"We cannot go on reproducing at this rate and have long term survival."

Birth rates are falling globally, yet the global population is still rising.

It's not about the rate we are reproducing at, rather it's the reduced rate we are dying at (extended lifespans, lower rates of infant mortality).

It will take much more then a drop in the number of babies to decrease the population. So who would you like to wipe out?

No, some of my peers did move to London for a decade or so but move back here for a better work life balance once they want to settle down. There is high unemployment amongst unskilled people and too many graduates fighting over call centre jobs but there are lots of high skilled desirable jobs too. It's not some rural 'farming & tourism' dead end.

Thanks op for having children. You have done me and my fellow humans a massive favour.... Said no one, ever!! YABU. You chose to have children knowing the cost of your mortgage, bills and should have had some idea of how expensive raising children would be, yet you still chose to have them... You made a lifestyle choice there.

I do hope all the "children are a lifestyle choice" brigade will be selflessly refusing to draw their UK state pension (paid for directly by future generations - i.e. other people's children who are not even born yet); or indeed, refusing to make use of anything paid for by general taxation when they are retired. Instead, I expect those people will be living entirely off their own savings and private medical insurance, depending on no state payments, benefits, pensions, healthcare and so on - because, after all, retiring (and making use of medical treatment, winter fuel payments and so on) is a lifestyle choice to depend on other people.

YABVU

I am pregnant with my first & the choice to get pregnant was entirely ours, we didn't HAVE to do so to balance the numbers or any such nonsense. Yes, biological clocks play a part but thats purely physiological. If reproduction was a biological need, everyone would need to reproduce! I also know sacrifices & compromises will be required when DC arrives, such as balancing work with motherhood, childcare costs, less time & money spent on shopping, handbags, fancy restaurants etc. but all of that is a conscious choice!!!

Ludicrous to think otherwise IMO.

And why would you hope that?

I think lots of people, many of them parents, have given non emotive reasons as to why they think having children are a lifestyle choice. Those people are currently happily paying taxes which contribute to the current state pensions.

You think that people who pay their taxes, contribute to society but happen to think being a parent is a lifestyle choice should be punished for thinking as much?

Odd.

Okay let's say poor people stopped having babies, after all, what poor person can afford an extra 1000 a year or whatever it costs to feed these terribly wasteful and unnecessary small people. The rich might have one or two, let's say one out of three dies an untimely death, shit happens, and the growing number of adults that have no interest in having children increases.

We are left with a group of well accounted for children who then have to support us through the one third our life when we will be frail, sick and not fit for work. The poor would then no longer have poor children and the rich will have to send their children out to learn trades and sweep the streets, and sadly for them, look after their own children.

Child benefit is a national investment,not a handout for the needy.

It may be a lifestyle choice but many countries have subsidized child care programs. All of Scandinavia for instance, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Canada. These benefit both families and the economy. Shocking to see how many people in the UK hold the belief that family life is something that only the wealthy are entitled to. That's some real right wing thinking there. Why just not forcibly sterilize anyone who fails to meet a certain income bracket? Scary.

Agree completely that the childcare systems that they have in place in the Scandinavian countries is something we should aspire to.

Would benefit women in general as well as those on lower incomes.

I agree Estrellita, it's very unsettling, this extreme attitude.

If people are complaining that taxpayers are suffering I suggest a policy to pursue fathers for their share of maintenance would be helpful, the rates are a pittance at the moment. If it scares men off and makes them wary of unsafe sex so much the better.

goldencrown that was exactly what I was thinking

Imagine if the poor stopped 'breeding' omg the rich would have to wipe their own parents' shitty arses when they're 90!

It may be a lifestyle choice but many countries have subsidized child care programs. All of Scandinavia for instance, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Canada.

Yes - such mainstream thinking there, and that is not an especially lefty list of countries. It's just common-sensical to support cheap good quality childcare and to consider these issues a societal concern.

Having children is totally a lifestyle choice. DH & I consciously, after 13 years together and 6 years of marriage, chose to close the door on our footloose, child fancy-free existence, and adjust our lifestyle and rearrange our finances to have DS. We will probably have another child and that will be a lifestyle choice too, as will be the decision likely to not have a third - all because of the impact none or one or two or three kids would have on our lifestyle.

Just because we consciously decided to have children doesn't make our decision any more or less of a "lifestyle choice" than someone who foundthemselves accidentally pregnant, or who was laissez faire about contraceptives and had 9. Given the extent to which contraception is available in first world countries like the UK, having children tends to be a "choice" whether consciously made or otherwise.

Whether it's a lifestyle choice or not is totally irrelevant to the fact of whether having chidren is a desirable thing from a public policy point of view - which it probably is, up to a point.

I certainly don't think we should we aspire to the Scandinavia model.

1. we're not Scandinavian
2. I don't think shoving babies and toddlers into nurseries should be the norm or aspired too.
3. I don't want the country raising taxes and spending more on childcare.
4. I don't think cheap childcare should ever be a goal.Quality costs and ratios are low for a reason- the benefits to the children themselves. 5)concerns have been raised in Scandinavia 6)children should always come first and parents being pressured into putting their kids into childcare by default a la Scandinavia is not the best option for many(or their parents)
5. parents should be helped to have options and putting all our eggs into one basket ie the childcare basket narrows choice 8)we can't afford it
6. if we have spare cash I'd rather it went on those who really need it.
7. full time nursery is temporary and more often than not not an option most don't want anyway
8. you should have the family you can afford.It's not about only the rich having kids but planning,saving and being accountable for the family you can afford. Most could and do fund a few years of temporary childcare and more could do so by tightening belts before and accepting the temporary years of austerity having a child brings.Those that really can't ie the very poor before and after dc should be the ones getting help.
9. childcare is but one cost of having a child that makes parents poorer.There are other areas equally deserving if not more deserving of having spare cash( which we don't actually have) thrown at them.If you take parental responsibility for funding the care of your child away where will it end?Free food for all just because you have a child(oh forgot we already have that daft idea with free school dinners which take food away from poorer older kids who could do with it more), free clothes,free holidays......