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.

It depends how you define 'lifestyle choice', it's a pretty ill defined phrase. To me, it suggests an indulgence, something above and beyond what might be considered the norm. I think the op mentioned yachts and exotic holidays. I don't think that having children falls into this category, if that's how we define lifestyle choice.

I also think that the hideous cost of childcare in the uk is warping or at least influencing a lot of the responses on here. I live in France, and the comprehensive state provision of childcare / early education tells me that in French society it is considered completely normal to have children, it's just what you do and you don't have to justify your choice to do so by proving that you can afford childcare. Having a baby certainly wouldn't come under the category of 'personal indulgence that you must pay for and not expect wider society to subsidise'. The French approach is more that having babies / families is what people do, it's normal, and the state will support them by providing a lot of collective childcare.

So I'd agree that having children is a choice, but it's not a lifestyle choice as defined above.

squoosh because it would be hypocritical to claim to believe that children are a "lifestyle choice", yet to be basing your life plans on expecting your "lifestyle" to be subsidised in the future by other people's children, no?

This is about low wages and high housing costs, not expensive childcare. If wages were more evenly distributed and property prices and rents were controlled we wouldn't be having this discussion and parents would have real choices.

On the other hand In Germany subsidising parenthood is sometimes seen as a way to keep women out of the workplace so that's not the answer to all our problems either.

Interesting that having children is seen as a choice, whereas having sex absolutely isn't. Apparently people only now have the choice to have or not have children, because of contraceptives. Previously, presumably, having been at the mercy of their animal urges, whether they could afford or wanted children or not...

you should have the family you can afford

What a simplistic statement this is.

Totally ignoring the way people's circumstances change, jobs get lost, the economy takes a downturn, contraception fails, partners leave or die, one of the parents suffers a disability, etc. etc. etc.

7) parents should be helped to have options and putting all our eggs into one basket ie the childcare basket narrows choice

Surely providing good quality subsidised childcare would widen parents' options by ensuring those that do wish to return to work in some capacity whilst their children are small can do so. You don't have to go far on Mumsnet to find women who say they can't work as childcare would cost more than they could earn.

10) full time nursery is temporary and more often than not not an option most don't want anyway

Subsidised childcare is not a synonym for full-time childcare.

2) I don't think shoving babies and toddlers into nurseries should be the norm or aspired too.

You might shove your children, in which case I might suggest you give them a break and send them to nursery where they'll be better looked after. I have never shoved a child in my life. My children were looked after by a fantastic nursery though. HTH

Yes, brilliant. Let's just axe free state education as well while we're at it. After all, why should the child free have to subsidize the education of children they've chosen not to have? Why should the state pay towards any education costs at all? Surely if you've made the lifestyle choice to breed, then your child's education is your families financial responsibility alone? Let's privatize all schools then. If you can't afford an education for your children, then tough. You should have thought of that before starting a family.

Next on the block, the NHS. After all, why should perfectly healthy individuals have to subsidize the care of the sick? After all, surely ones personal health is your own, individual responsibility? I'm back in the US now after 15 years in the UK, and that's the thinking here. Don't think for a minute that England is not on this trajectory, you are.

Oh, and we get no paid maternity leave here. Zero. If you've got a considerate employer then you can crib together about 8 weeks from your holiday, personal leave, medical leave. Only about 3 weeks paid though. Then you can either stay at home or find child are for your newborn. At least you'll be able to hang onto your job, and when your child starts preschool at age 4 then and only then will your child are costs go down. Well, a little bit.

How does that sound?

There you go then.

Families with kids get plenty of support(which we're struggling to fund as it is).

The fact is if you only put extra cash into cheap childcare there will be none left to help families have a sahp for a period which I suspect the vast maj would like and feel would benefit their family more.

It would thus be putting all our eggs in one basket and limiting choice.

The UK has tiny ratios for childcare. In France a childcare worker can look after 8 under threes. Proposals to relax childcare ratios by Elizabeth truss were defeated due to fierce opposition from parents. I feel the right decision has been made but someone has to foot the bill.

Families with kids get plenty of support(which we're struggling to fund as it is).

The Tories have sucked you in good and proper, haven't they! The UK is only struggling to fund things it chooses to struggle to fund.

The fact is if you only put extra cash into cheap childcare there will be none left to help families have a sahp for a period which I suspect the vast maj would like and feel would benefit their family more.

This mythical finite pot of money which will all be spent on subsidizing quality (I believe you have incorrectly inserted the word cheap in your post) childcare is only in your head. In the real world childcare can be subsidized without preventing other types of financial help for families if the government chooses to do that. The two are not mutually exclusive.

It would thus be putting all our eggs in one basket and limiting choice.

No, it wouldn't.

Having kids is a life choice driven by a normal biological urge/need that many of us naturally have. Forget the ‘style’ part.
It is a choice individually but not for society at large and I think most people posting on this are being far too simplistic. It’s not the same as choosing an oven or an aga; it’s a natural progression and fundamental part of our nature.. our hormones want us to reproduce.. yeah we can choose to go against that but it’s pretty natural thing for humans to reproduce!
taking this quote from someone else who is more articulate than me...

‘Having children is often described as a "lifestyle choice", usually by people without children who object to supporting families with children. But this is poisonous quasi-egalitarian nonsense. People who choose not to have children rely on other people's children to support them in their old age. Whose taxes will pay for their pensions, benefits and healthcare if other people don't have children? Whose production will ensure that they have food on the table and money to spend from the returns on their investments?

When people without children support families with children from their taxes - or directly through philanthropic giving - they are contributing to their own futures. They may not realise it, but they have as much interest in ensuring that those children are properly cared for and educated as the parents do.

And I'm sorry, but describing children as a "lifestyle choice" is itself economically illiterate, at least at the macro level. At the individual level, having children is indeed a choice. But for society as a whole, children are essential. Without children, there can be no future growth. Just look at Japan.’

If Dolores O'Riordan, bless her soul, was here right now, she'd be singing zombie, zombie, zombie.