Too many kids

[OoerBlah]

So I've just watched Cathy Come Hone, the Ken Loach play from 1965. It's heartbreaking, no doubt about that. But it made me wonder if there is ever a situation where people might think that having kids if you can't afford them is just, well, don't do it?

I know accidents happen and not all kids are planned. I also know that life is complicated and consequences can't be foretold. But particularly in this day and age of so many finding it difficult to find homes and provide for themselves let alone children - is there ever a time when we should say if you can't afford kids, don't have them?

I think it is wise to plan how you will manage children both financially and in terms of your time.

I have 3 children and my last was a 'surprise'. However, we use private healthcare, dentist and education and are higher rate tax payers with our own business so pay corporation tax as well. This is all fine but I refuse to think that because I have 3 children I am some type of drain on society.

Anecdotally the only people I know with 4+ children are either very rich or very poor. Personally I couldn't cope with 4 children from the time/attention perspective.

Be fair OP :) it was you who originally stated you believed that things were not just as bad as they were in the 1960s but worse.

I do agree housing is at crisis level, partly because of overpopulation, but the case you referred to is exceptional. Children are given a priority for housing and stay with their parent(s) as a rule.

I didn't say things were worse than the 60s, I said things are not so terribly different. You seem to be reading things I haven't actually said.

Globally, we need to reduce overpopulation. Western children use up 10 x the resources of children in the developing world. it always irritates me when people like Jamie Oliver preach on about the environment when he's on child number 5.

Argh. His wife uses cloth diapers though, don't you know

Yes, it seems that the Jamie Oliver's of this world like to bang on about issues while excepting themselves from the equation. I suppose it must be nice to live in vacuum.

I didn't say things were worse than the 60s, I said things are not so terribly different. You seem to be reading things I haven't actually said.

Do you really think this?

True, but I still think we are a long way from the slums

I think many/most of the problems centre around London in any case. There are other areas of the country that are OK for housing, thank you very much.

Goodness me, people really do like to cherry pick snippets of conversations and be affronted at them out of context.

Do I really think IN GENERAL things are the same as the 60s? Of course I don't. Do I think, in the context of the conversation about lack of adequate social housing that things are not so different from the 60s? Why yes, I do. Particularly in the context of the 60s as depicted in Cathy Come Home.

As for areas outside of London being just cushdy for housing. Well, I don't live in London and the area in which I live the housing situation is horrendous. Private rentals out pricing anyone but the very well off from renting and social housing lists so overcrowded that getting somewhere via that route within even ten years is probably impossible.

So again, do I think it's as bad a situation for housing as depicted in Cathy Come Home? I wish I could say no but that would be bullshit.

Hmm, I was expecting there would be a bit more of an outcry about my 'deliberately having more than 2 children is immoral and selfish', but am delighted to find only a bit of gentle criticism. Having read the entire thread - I have a question - contraception failures/multiple births aside (I have no problem with either of those situations, stuff happens) - why do people choose to have more than 2 children? Is it for the benefit of the parents or the children, or society as a whole, or what? I am honestly not seeing where the motivation comes from, and I would sincerely like to hear the reasons and the justification.

We have free sterilisation and abortion in the NHS

To say we have free sterilisation on the NHS isn't strictly accurate. What we have is "free sterilisation should your GP consider you intelligent enough to make a decision".

I'm mid 30's, DH is early 40's and we have 6 children between us. I have 5 biological children. We had a contraception failure for DD3 (3yo). Whilst pregnant I asked about sterilisation and was told no chance as I was too young. After a horrible labour I asked about sterilisation (loudly) and was told no chance as I was too young. After coming out of PND I asked about sterilisation and I was told I was too young. Instead I was told to have a coil.

So I had a coil fitted, and in May I had DD4. When pregnant and considering and abortion I begged to be sterilised, when pregnant and keeping the baby as I couldn't go through with an abortion I begged to be sterilised and after DD was born I begged to be sterilised - all three GP's at our practise consider me too young for sterilisation despite the fact I've conceived using condoms (twins and my own fault), on the pill and with a coil.

They refuse despite knowing they've also refused DH a vasectomy due to health issues of his own (to do with anaesthetic issues and a clotting problem).

The only other person I know irl who has more than 4 (she has 5) has also been refused sterilisation on the basis of age (she's around 34ish).

lalalyra and others in a similar position, I would like to state categorically that I am not judging you or your families. It's the people who choose to have more than 2 children, who make an active decision to do so - whether or not they can afford them (that's not my issue) - that I don't really understand. I am so sorry that you've been let down by the health service, and I have every sympathy for you. I'm sure you have a lovely family :)

My dad was one of 7 and my mum one of 4. My grandparents were all in normal working class jobs and 6 of the 11 went to Grammar School. Conditions might have been a little crowded but back then you could afford (just about) to house and feed your family without benefits. Something has gone very, very wrong in society since then. My paternal GF was a postman, yet managed to buy a house and support his kids. This just would not be possible anymore without assistance.

Furry You are judging people like me. DD3 was my 4th biological child, the 5th child in our home. DD4 was the 6th. We chose to have a child together despite us already having 3 between us. We were happy to have the four, the extra two weren't planned (and I'm annoyed that I wasn't allowed a sterilisation after DD3 because is a big change from 5), but four was our choice.

I don't expect anyone else to understand it. I don't understand people who find golf interesting or who climb mountains. I wanted a big family and luckily for me DH agreed. My children are well looked after, they're neither spoiled nor neglected, they get one on one time with me (despite the fact people seem to think this is impossible), they are expected to pitch in with things in the house but are not skivvys to me or ther younger siblings. We do, imo, considerably less damage to the nation's finances or the planets resources than some families with only 1 or 2 children.

Hedda
You simply cannot generalise. And telling parents with large families that they aren't providing for their childrens needs IS insulting.

I didn't say that.

What I did say is that parents divide their finite resources between the children they have. It's not as if you get more hours in the day or a larger salary for every child you have, is it!? (Well, I understand Tax Credits do go up a tiny bit, but that's a different matter).

(Yes, I get that there is massive variation between families, but I'm talking about for every individual family considering adding another DC.)

lalalyra I'm so sorry to hear you were denied sterilisation due to age!! That's appalling.

BeenThere
YY. my Grandparents had 4 children and managed to support them all with no benefits renting a suburban 4 bed Semi on the outskirts of London on a factory workers wage (only just, mind you, but it was possible).

Something has gone very wrong when families of 2 kids with both parents working cannot afford basic costs.

I agree. I know that it's awfully sad to think of not having children, but you seriously can't bring kids into a situation where their basic needs aren't met..
I've also noticed some piss poor people who cannot afford the children they have, and it's sad to see what they/their kids don't have...it's awful seeing the divide between the children who have, and the children that don't.

Furry I have 7 dc , I do have multiples and one contraception failure. However five dc were planned. ( And we are now thrilled we out seven)
We chose to have our dc for the same reason people chose to have two I imagine. We love spending time with our dc, they bring dh the most joy in our lives, we love seeing the bonds between each sibling. Seeing them hold hands when nervous at a new event, my five year old patiently teaching her two year old twin sisters how to make a sandcastle. The night time whispers, the giggles ,eve the bickering that teaches them tolerance.
My dc ( older ones) have two after school activities a week. All homework is done , we spend time individually with our dc. I am a sahm and my dh work is very flexible so the dc get plenty of attention and time with us.

Seven children, bluntly speaking, reveals an obscene disregard for the current state of the planet. I can assure you that parents of 2 children are no less enraptured by their sibling bond, just a bit more aware of the fact that we're constrained by finite resources.

I have zero interest in how parents of larger families manage homework or whatever. I care only about how we can provide for all of the species on the planet.

We love spending time with our dc, they bring dh the most joy in our lives, we love seeing the bonds between each sibling. Seeing them hold hands when nervous at a new event, my five year old patiently teaching her two year old twin sisters how to make a sandcastle. The night time whispers, the giggles ,eve the bickering that teaches them tolerance.

When I see reasons like this for having huge numbers of children, I have to wonder what you imagine people with smaller families think about their own kids. That they don't really like them, and that's why they stopped?

Seven children, bluntly speaking, reveals an obscene disregard for the current state of the planet. I can assure you that parents of 2 children are no less enraptured by their sibling bond, just a bit more aware of the fact that we're constrained by finite resources

Thats a particularly dickish comment. Not to mention being completely stupid. Its not a few extra children wrecking the planet, which you should know if you are going to insult peoples families for ecological reasons.

What I did say is that parents divide their finite resources between the children they have. It's not as if you get more hours in the day or a larger salary for every child you have, is it!?

I might have many more hours in the day to spend with my children than other people do, so yes, in fact, I do!
And I do get a larger income for every child I have actually, but Im not in Britain.

Seven children, bluntly speaking, reveals an obscene disregard for the current state of the planet. I can assure you that parents of 2 children are no less enraptured by their sibling bond, just a bit more aware of the fact that we're constrained by finite resources

This argument gets trotted out often, but surely it's not just as black and white as that? My DH's friend 2 children, we have 6 and I bet you any money they are considerably worse for the planet and country than we are... A large family who are considerate to the planet are surely better for it than a small family who don't give a fuck?

There has actually beena lot of research done on the links between birth order and a child's outcomes in life. I just googled 'birth order and life outcomes' to bring some up. You occasionally see summary things on news sites about it, haven't found one immediately.

Generally - doubtless on mumsnet, as they already have, people will pop up and say oh but this isn't true cos I'm different - but generally, there is a trend where higher numbers of children and being lower down the birth order affects your chances in life adversely. There are manyfactors involved and various individual circumstances that affect matters, etc etc, but generally an adverse trend.

For environmental reasons alone I agree we collectively have to limit both the number of kids we have, and the lifestyle choices we make. Again, generally, the richer you are the bigger the effect you have on the planet. It's the few extremely rich taking up most of the resources which we can't afford more than the poor and lower middle.

Incidentally, social housing in Britain is in such a bad state that councils are seriously struggling to house even emergency cases of homelessness now. It is not the case that you will get given a house if you have kids and hasn't been for some time.

This argument gets trotted out often, but surely it's not just as black and white as that? My DH's friend 2 children, we have 6 and I bet you any money they are considerably worse for the planet and country than we are... A large family who are considerate to the planet are surely better for it than a small family who don't give a fuck?

Your argument makes no sense mathematically. It's impossible (and unreasonable) for 6 people and all their future offspring to somehow commit to using the same resources as say, 2 average westerners and all their future offspring. The delta grows exponentially and green vs non-green lifestyles become totally insignificant.