To feel irritated when families have multiple children they cannot afford

[Teddy7878]

First of all I accept that no contraception is 100% foolproof and pregnancy sometimes can occur even when people are trying their hardest to be careful.

I also accept that sometimes people's circumstances change and they could go from being financially comfortable to losing their jobs etc during their children's lives.

What really winds me up though are people who actively try and get pregnant when they already have several children and cannot afford the ones they already have. I sometimes see threads on here where people state they have less than £50 to feed a family of 7 for a week and no money at all for any luxuries whatsoever.

My DP and I will be in our mid 30s when we have our first child and we have decided it might be our only child. We want to be able to afford to give it a great life so have saved up hard for a few years beforehand. Between us we earn 65k so we live comfortably and don't have debts (other than the mortgage). It upsets me that we have to make the decision to only have one (possibly two) children and other people are having 5+ kids when they can't afford them.

Money isn't everything, a loving family home is always going to be the most important thing, but if you can only afford to eat lentils and never take your kids out anywhere fun or go on holiday or afford a car or pay for them to do activities outside of school or buy them a few nice things for Xmas then why keep continuing to have more and more children and making your situation even more stressful for everyone involved?! Why not just stick to one or two children?

@CatThiefKeith, I was agreeing with you, that's spot on.

Wallahibillahitallahi, no that's true, but the damage caused by child abuse does lead to consequences like that.

YANBU

It boils my piss too. Many have them cos they don't want to work and live off benefits. More fool them, the government will be putting it down to 1 child soon, no more benefits after that.

As people have said upthread, large families living in poverty has been an age old issue, when people were far worse off than today they still had children (slums of the Victorian era). People have fewer children when they have other options such as education, career prosperity, relative wealth. Making people poorer doesn't stop them having children but it does cause life long harm to those children.

Less children would also be born into unstable families where the couple are barely dating before deciding a baby is a great idea.

I was in a stable relationship for many years when I had my first child thanks. He just turned out to be a twat many years down the line after the second child was born.

Personally i think parents who stay together 'for the sake of the kids' will always be a lot more unstable than my small family will ever be.

The point of older siblings having to provide care and household duties should also be frowned upon.

Actually I agree with this. Was watching a certain show last night where she was giving all the kids different jobs to do. It did make me grimace a little.
The lady we know of that has more than she can handle also does this. Its not their job. It's yours as a Mum.

My DD sometimes has to help me when I'm poorly but then she's only got 1 sibling to help me with not 5 or 6!

I've mused in the past about a system shake up - where necessities are given and not money/free housing.
Eg, some kind of hostel where young families can live, that offer in house childcare,health care, education and training, where clothes and food are mainly donations topped up where needed.
And the goal is to advance yourself beyond needing that help.
Getting educated and progressing to work, earning and providing for yourself and your family - at which stage financial help and your own house, childcare funding etc is given to those putting in the effort and working.
Making having your own money and own place to live something worth striving for.

I can dream.
I'm sure there's a million and one reasons why it wouldn't work

WHAAAT?? are you seriously suggesting that older kids caring for younger siblings and doing chores is damaging, or even wrong in some way??? This thread is insane and disgusting.

How do you all come to judge everything and everybody by MONEY?

At the age of 6 my dd had to change schools after being bullied and sexually abused over 18 months by a group of class mates. She was out of education for 3 months, medicated, seeing a psychologist. All 'lovely' MC white children from affluent 2.4 families. I don't care how much money a person has or how they get it, or how many kids they have; as long as they are not arseholes, breeding miniature arseholes

And people choose to have less children, because they don't want to reduce holidays/lifestyle etc. Why are you so mad that other people make different decision s/ have different values in life?

@Pinky333777, actually that does happen in some cases. They're mother and baby units, and social services send young mum's there to be assessed and the consequences of not agreeing to it is that the child is taken into care.

It's not offered as an option for mums not being assessed by social services as far as I know. There wouldn't be enough social workers! But it's a great idea, it would probably cost more tax payers' money in the short term to set up, though, I should think.

Yes punky that's a fucking workhouse. Closed down in this country because they are inhumane

You lot are grim

I'm kind of on the fence about " sympathy and compassion". To a certain amount I agree, but there is also an element of people have to take personal responsibility for their choices. So my sympathy and compassion only goes so far. As said previously it's seldom the Disney version of large families when poverty is involved.

There has always been people who have loads of kids they can't afford. For a variety of reasons. And I think there always will be. I really don't think there is an answer to it. As a society we financially support these people, and I don't think stopping that support completely is the answer either. If it's not the state that supports, its family, friends, neighbours. Someone else always has to step in, always have done and I think always will do.

Yes, it was called Social SECURITY for a reason. The government doesn't just alturistically give away all your hard earned taxes. And don't think you aren't protecting yourselves and your precious way of lives above everything else

Wallahibillahitallahi why are you so mad? People expressing a different view of the world to you have been variously described by you as gross, grim, bitter, nasty, inhumane and your attempt to have any kind of reasonable debate shut down (by your request to have the thread removed) obviously hasn't gone well.

I am mad, too right
I don't like to see the pompous underbelly of the middle classes in the UK. It sickens me. No surprise that MN platform this craps, really.

I don't think any of you even understand how capitalism works. You NEED to have poor people on which to construct your superior lives and attitudes.

Don't bother replying. I'm out

WHAAAT?? are you seriously suggesting that older kids caring for younger siblings and doing chores is damaging

No. But there's a huge difference between getting your children to do all the farm jobs whilst you tend to baby no8/9/10, and asking them to load the washer for you.

One of the children we know of often has to say no to her mates going out as she has to look after baby no 5 whilst mum takes child no3 who's poorly again to the doctors. How is that fair?

Nothing wrong with responsible family planning, but think there is something wrong with society if car ownership and meat eating are seen as the sine qua non of responsible parenting. They're not exactly good for the planet, you know.

I am mad, too right. I don't like to see the pompous underbelly of the middle classes in the UK. It sickens me. No surprise that MN platform this craps, really

Are you out because you know you're wrong and can't think how to argue it?

Because I grew up in poverty. Not even a council house, charity housing. Sometimes dinner was some pickled beet root between two bits of white bread. I recall walking home from school in my done in shoes and rhe sole coming off one and feeling ashamed as I walked home alone barefoot.

I pulled myself out of it, luck and sheer determination not to live that way, to provide better for my own child, so she wasn't hungry or ashamed, she didn't have to do without. Your assumption that the people who disagree with you are the pompous middle class is so very wrong indeed. I've been there and I can comment, as I'd guess so can many others on here.

Older siblings caring for younger ones is what always used to happen. But it was always the older sisters not the older brothers! It cost women the chance of their own life, and they frequently remained spinsters. That isn't what I would want for my DDs.

The truth is we need the safety net that is social security. If we remove benefits someone else will have to help the larger families and yes it will mean girls will lose opportunities to improve themselves.

And more social services involvement will result. And more kids will fall through the net and social workers and teachers will be blamed for that.

Be careful what you wish for!

Some very Dickensian attitudes expressed here. I particularly like the suggestion that parents from poorer backgrounds should have their excess children removed and given to rich I fertile couples. What a lovely idea, saving them the expense of ivf and tax payers money at the same time.

Pinky your suggestion of mother and baby hostels could well be worth considering - though the cry of "workhouses!!" will probably go up any time now. Yes it would cost money, but would it necessarily be any more than the issues are costing now?

Such an idea might help those mums who we're told have never been taught about keeping a home, budgeting, childcare and all the rest; it might even support some to continue their education, knowing they'd have proper childcare

Certainly it's not without potential problems, and it wouldn't have the appeal (to a minority) of a fully funded private home, but that doesn't seem a reason for anyone to reject the idea out of hand

That is not what I meant, sorry it came across that way! I meant that there would be more children whose parents couldn't cope if child benefit was removed and that could be a consequence.

I actually said, be careful what you wish for, it's definitely not what we want to happen!

Also,if the people were catholic wouldn't they be married as they wouldn't believe in sex before marriage.

Not convinced on that one.

@woodhill, it's called picking and choosing which part of Catholic teaching they want to follow. And a lot of people don't follow their faith day by day, but are strongly influenced by 'catholic guilt.' Abortion and contraception are so-called 'mortal sins'. It's a terrible doctrine really, especially in Africa, where wives can't insist on their husbands wearing condoms and so they're vulnerable to HIV.

There are very big catholic families where women suffer awful domestic violence as well - not allowed to divorce either.

Always brings on a rant!!

Quite Mittens