Do you consider kids a choice?

[SideEyeSally]

I know Mumsnet isn't a monolith but I've found that whether or not a child is seen as a choice depends on the context. In benefits threads they are often referred to as such, with parents 'making taxpayers pay for their choices'. Whilst in threads about children's noises disrupting neighbours night after night it's just what babies do, not a choice the parent has made knowing it is likely to disturb the neighbours. Is this just a case of different people responding, or do you think (some) people have (some) moral incoherence on the way children are viewed.

Surely it's a question of common sense? When deciding whether or not to have a baby, we obviously considered whether we could afford one. We didn't pop next door and ask if they were ok with us having one.

I see what you mean, but when I think about it I don't see why I think that way too.
The effect on every individual taxpayer for your (no you you, but rhetorical you) /your child to receive benefits next to nothing, whereas being woken every few hours by the child next door can ruin your mental health. Surely given the scale of the impact if we're going to say that we need to consider others in our decisions to have kids, it's those personally affected that should get the most consideration? Why should neighbours who are directly and tangibly effected in their everyday lives suck it up but monolithic taxpayers as a whole, who's opposition is usually based on principle rather than a direct effect on their life be important?

Without children the human race dies out, which I might be fine with. but it fairly obvious that on a macro level, we need children to continue to survive. Whether someone can afford a child is micro level. They either can or can't and the people commenting either think we like in a laissez faire, every-man-for-himself capitalist thunderdome or a lovely, socialist no-man-is-an-island leftie utopia. Or somewhere in between.

But once you accept that children exist, we have to put up with them being children and we have to pay for them if their parents can't. Because what else are you going to do?

FFS I should proof read.

See now I agree with you that the state/society must make sure that very child is provided for (consider myself pretty lefty), but I also tend to side with the disrupted neighbours in screaming kids cases, in that their lives are being personally ruined for someone else's choices. Not that I think they should be thrown out or anything, I just think the parents are morally responsible for their neighbours suffering and should apologise and minimise where they can. However, this seems to be the opposite way round to many folk who advocate acceptance of the choice of children on a micro scale but not a macro one (Oh well toddlers will scream, but parents should have to take responsibility and pay for their own kids school books- for example)

I don't think I'm explaining myself very well. I have the cold and can't sleep and am eating salted caramel tablet which is about the only thing I can actually taste the sweetness in right now.

For the majority of women in the UK then yes I think children are a choice (in some minority groups in the UK and in some other countries there may be far less choice). At the end of the day though I think if you have kids you need to be principally responsible for them, which means financially and to, whatever extent possible, being responsible for them not upsetting / annoying others. However as someone with 2 young DDs, I can assure that there are times that I do everything 'right' but they still scream, have tantrums and act in a manner which is annoying to others; and it may not always be possible for me to remove them from that situation (being stuck on a plane with a crying baby is a classic example). At the end of the day you can't completely control the behaviour of another autonomous being.

My neighbours at the time I got pregnant were drug dealing arseholes. The stoners ringing the wrong doorbell at all hours and the permanent stench of weed were way more intrusive than any baby, and the reason we moved - there are so, so many things that can bug your neighbours - all you have to do is look at threads on here - piano practise, hedges, barking dogs..... it's really not something that should factor into the decision in the same way.

Well I suppose in the examples you've used, the difference is that a person can choose only to have a child once they are financially secure (no guarantees that one will stay financially secure of course, and personally I think that there's something wrong with our economic settlement if a couple working 40 hours a week can't afford two kids but that's just me) whereas once you've had a baby, if they cry a lot in the night, it's something you don't have perfect control over.

More generally I don't think the reason we support parents should be how much or little choice they had in having kids - if we want our society to continue we need children, but also, children are vulnerable and need care and as a society we have a responsibility to ensure that vulnerable members of our society are cared for.

The noisy neighbour bit doesnt make sense

The majority of people with kids dont ruin their neighbours lives by having kids.
Plenty of peopke make their neighbours lives hell and dont have kids.

I think having children is a choice and also a right. However, it is not a right that needs to be exercised over and over again. Environmentally and economically, i think we should all limit the size of our families. I also think there is far too much pressure on people who have a child to produce another, even if they are patently not enjoying parenthood.

Whether or not someone can afford a child has no bearing on any disturbance they might cause to others. They are completely different things so it is reasonable to view them differently.

The two are not comparable.

The neighbour part doesn't make sense, agreed, because it basically doesn't matter and is temporary. Even if you don't have kids, it's likely that somebody in your local area will have kids so the neighbours will be disturbed by somebody or other's, and most babies go through a stage of crying at night, it's not an avoidable thing, it just happens or it doesn't.

I do think having children is a choice but I also don't think it's this massively selfish thing which it's fashionable to think at the moment. It's actually good for society as a whole for people to have children, and it is quite a big undertaking/responsibility. It's not like choosing to throw a loud party which is beneficial only to yourself and irritating to everyone around you. Someone has to raise the next generation (and hopefully do it well) and the more other people who have kids, the less that responsibility is on you personally.

I suppose what I'm saying is that it's unreasonable to expect parents to eliminate every possible negative effect that their children might possibly have on others, especially when you justify that with "They chose to have kids" - yeah and so do 80-90% of people, otherwise our species would die out (but first our economies would stagnate and crash). So actually - on a personal level, it's a choice yes. On a population level? No, it's not a choice. It's necessary for there to be children until we get to such a point in technology that we can stop ageing and/or become immortal. It's a shame that some people find children annoying, but they would do well to remember that we were all children once.

As an individual a child is a choice, as a society we need children to carry on.

I don't mean BTW that you should just leave your children screaming night after night or encourage them to practice their screechy violin at 3am, but I don't think that's anything to do with children making normal child noise, it's just about being a courteous neighbour. As others said you could make the same argument about noisy sex or anxious barking dogs or playing loud music.

I have heard it all now! People should consider their neighbours when they are deciding if to have a baby?!?!

We made a choice to have a child after weighing up the pros and cons/finances etc however I don't think I considered the neighbours (which was possibly thoughtless of me) as we have pretty thick walls and have never had any complaints from them and would be respectful if they did eg try to shout quietly!

Sometimes it's not a choice, contraceptive failure etc. Even when it is a choice, it's certainly not a free choice, I was given a pram with a baby in before i could even walk & talk, followed by decades of steering towards my destiny by family and the outside world. It is also essential for the continuation of our society. We are already seeing a negative impact to people having less children (raising of pension age, social care provision etc). As a society, we just cannot bring ourselves to value the mountain of unpaid labour that parents (still mainly women) engage in. I think that's where this aggressive "it was your choice to have children" comes from.

But even accounting for contraceptive failure it is still a choice to continue with the pregnancy and bring a child into the world.

Fundamentally, in a country with free access to contraception and abortion, yes - having a child is a choice.

Even if you consider the walls etc when having a child, where you live isn't always a choice.

Children are a choice. You can choose to have them or not. You can either (a) not get pregnant (b) terminate (c) have it adopted out. But there is always choice.

What people don't have is social responsibility. This is very much and 'I'm aright Jack' attitude absolutely typified by some of the more vocal and aggressive posters, who for ever seem to want any OP to cut his knackers off/dial 101/LTB/call someone a cunt in the supermarket queue for looking at them all funny/stick brick through a windscreen on every parking thread et al. I realise most are just gobshites keyboard warriors but the projected level of violence is horrifying. What's more worrying is that these people can (a) sit on a jury and judge you (b) imbue their own off spring with their attitude.

Your two points aren't comparable but I think I get what you mean.
Individually having a child is a choice (for most women in the uk) however on a societal level we need to have children. Luckily Mother Nature has made it so most people feel the urge to procreate.
I always wanted children and would be very unhappy without so even though it was a choice to have my son, my hands were tied in a way by my biological urge.

Society as a whole needs children, so society has to be tolerant of children doing normal things, like crying and playing in the garden.
My neighbours have a yappy dog - they didn't ask me first and the yappy dog contributes nothing to society!

Society as a whole needs fewer children, unfortunately.
That doesn't mean we don't value and cherish the ones we have, just that we need to take the choice to have kids much more seriously, and be aware of its consequences.