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.

Sometimes its a choice, sometimes it is an accident.

Making a choice does not imply that you should take notice of what other people think when doing making it whether that be neighbours or anyone else.

It's up to individual families how many children they have. If you don't agree with the benefit system, write to your MP about it. It's none of your business how many kids others have.

Others can think what they want of my choices, it doesn't bother me. It's like when people say it's like when people say it's selfish to drink too much because it costs the NHS money. If you don't agree with the universal health care system we have, campaign against it but I shall go on drinking what I like thank you very much.

I do think children are a choice ... but I also think that we start to tread on very dangerous ground if we start suggesting that only certain types of people should be allowed to exercise that choice. They are a choice, yes, but they are a choice that everyone should have the same right to make.

I also think that we need to remember that the choice is the choice of the parent, not the child, and that it isn't fair for society to let a child suffer in poverty because of a choice someone else made. This is one of the many reasons I passionately believe in a welfare state.

In benefits threads they are often referred to as such, with parents 'making taxpayers pay for their choices'

I've noticed that people who moan about parents who are in poverty receiving benefits and saying they shouldn't have had children they couldn't afford are still more than happy for their own child to have a state education and state healthcare ... which is also funded by the taxpayer, including taxpayers who have chosen not to have children. I don't see any of these people who spend all their time spewing hatred at benefits claimants extending the same vitriol to middle-class parents of large families who use the NHS and the state education system for the children they chose to have. So it's more about snobbery than the money, IMO.

Basically, I believe everyone should have the right to choose to have a child because otherwise you're edging into eugenics territory and we all know what way that path goes, and I believe that the state should ensure that no child lives in poverty - for the sake of the child, who shouldn't suffer for its parents' decisions.

I don't, however, think that means other people have to put up with someone's child's disruptive behaviour and I do think it's perfectly reasonable to exclude children from certain spaces. You have a right to choose to have a child. You don't have a right to let that child run around and scream in coffee shops, you don't have a right to bring your child with you to adult events and expect it to be catered for, and you do have a responsibility to at least try to minimise disruption as much as you reasonably can if your child has problems that keep your neighbours awake.

Under most normal circumstances having a child is a choice.
But I believe if you choose to have a child it should be your responsibility to look after them.
If you cant afford one you shouldn't have one. It shouldn't be everyone else responsibility to pay for them. I do appreciate that peoples circumstances can change but you shouldn't have kids if you know you cant afford them before you've even had them.
Same as it shouldn't be everyone else responsibility in public to put up with a misbehaving child. I accept when a kids upset and you can see the parent actively trying to calm them down, but there's nothing more annoying than a parent who thinks they can stop being a parent once they get on a bus because its a enclosed space and just lets their child run wild.
Next door neighbors with crying children are difficult, they're in their home and i'm sure that don't want a child screaming the house down either. But there's not much you can do about that.

Why? Seriously, what gives us any more right to survive than any other species?

I don't think it is a question of rights, at all. We are a biological species, and like any, we have the urge to self replicate and carry on the species.
And personally I quite like humans on the whole, I like the wonderful things they do, and I wouldn't like them to die out. I'd say that is a fairly popular view amongst humans?

Winebottle, it's all very well saying it's up to individual families how many children they have but what if they can't afford 1 but have 10? What about the fact that the planet is overpopulated and this country certainly is? I think it is other peoples' business how many children families have. Why should people have large amounts of children and expect others to pay for them? I know that things happen such as losing a job, ill health etc but why do people feel it necessary to have more than 2 children? If you have 2 there is far more chance you will manage if problems occur.

At least some benefits are now only being paid for 2 children. This should have happened years ago. I just don't understand the amounts of money handed out because someone has children.

I think it is other peoples' business how many children families have

What do you propose? Forced contraception until a panel passes yuor application to get knocked up?

Eh? It's nothing to do with humans having more rights than other species.

But we are humans. Of course we're invested in our own species' survival.

Nobody chooses to have a child who will keep their neighbours awake with screaming all night. In fact I imagine thats pretty awful for the parent too. If you do have that child though you can't choose to give it back!

mydogisthebest What you can afford is relative. People in years gone by had less money and more kids. Most people on this thread could easily survive with 10 kids. They would have to make serious sacrifices but it would be possible if that is what they chose to do.

I don't agree with the state picking up the bill for it either but you can't blame the individual families involved. Having children is a fundamental liberty. If the state offers them money for that, I don't blame them for accepting it. There is no point opting out benefits because you don't get to opt out of taxes.

If we have got space for hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year, I'm sure will find space for my 10 children.

Well we haven't got space of hundreds of thousands of immigrants have we? We also haven't got space if everyone decided to be selfish and have 8, 9, 10 kids.

Of course if money is offered in the way of benefits people will accept it. I am sure I would but it's not right that people were having children in order to not work or work minimum hours and get given more and more money each time they had a baby.

I know someone with 4 children. She works 16 hours a week. She has been offered full time but she won't take it because she will be worse off. She gets something like £1,800 in total in benefits. That is ridiculous.

How can this country afford to pay so much out just because people have chosen to have children? How much is someone with 5 or 6 children getting? How much if they have more than that?

As I said, no one has to have children. It is a pretty selfish choice really.