Is it a right to have Kids you can’t afford!?!

[KN2212]

I am totally fed up of listening to people complain about how broke they are after having kids. Babies and childcare are cripplingly expensive but that’s pretty much common knowledge, right?

I fell out with a long term friend of mine about a year ago. Since the birth of her DD all she did was complain about the situation she’d orchestrated.
Her and her (now ex) partner had no home of their own, low income, high debt and no savings when they decided to go ahead and have a child (though granted had been together for 7 years). The poor boyfriend busted his butt working 13 hour shifts 6 days a week in a call centre whilst they all lived in one cramped room at her parents and she complained he wasn’t doing enough. Due to her crippling shopping debts and inability to hold a job they were never going to make enough to live and knew that pre getting pregnant.

(Other friends are in similar situations, complaining about how they ‘can’t afford to go back to work’ because of childcare costs but equally can’t afford to live if they don’t go back to work!!! Come on and take some responsibility you knew this was going to be your situation.)

Whilst she was complaining over coffee one day about how the benefit system wasn’t giving her enough free money I called her out on her obvious poor planning and asked why she didn’t wait and save pre child. She got very defensive and said that they were never going to be able to afford a child due to their financial situation so why bother waiting?

It just got me thinking really hard, since when did having children become a right? It seemed so clear to her that she deserved to have a child despite not being able to afford one and that the government should now support her because she deserved to have her daughter.
Am I wrong in thinking that having children you can’t support is completely irresponsible and shitty and entitled?

I know a lot of women who want kids but are having to wait and plan and save and do it ‘the right way’ it seems unfair to them. When women like my ex friend do exactly what they want without planning and then hold the government over a barrel saying that their kids don’t have food and clothes. It just sucks like the children shouldn’t have to suffer but the tax payer shouldn’t have to pay for your unfair choices.

To clarify I have empathy for unplanned pregnancy’s no contraception is 100% but that’s not the kind of situation I’m talking about here. I’m talking about planned pregnancies.

I agree DieAntwood, also kids can’t understand that circumstances are temporary. The parents may have thought that having 4 children and having them close together is the ideal family setup, and are perhaps like many of us are forseeing a boost in income once all children are at school.

I guess the thing is is that there are so many unforeseen circumstances and factors in life which influence our situation. Perhaps people have one more child than they can afford because of a contraceptive failure. Perhaps like me that failure happened when they were young and they wanted to complete their family before the age gap was too large and so they could have a few short years of small children and then focus on career building once in their mid twenties.

My point is unless there are hugely clear, well detailed and archetypally irresponsible behaviours that are really obvious, most people are just trying to do the best they can with whatever situation they are in.

What frustrates me is that while DH and I are trying to find somewhere we can afford to live that would be big enough for us and baby, and hoping against hope that my contract role is made permanent so we can start to TTC before I turn 34 (about to turn 33), my Mum’s neighbour who has no job and has just popped out her 5th baby in almost as many years with her also unemployed bf has just been given a lovely council house with a huge garden which she will not have to pay rent for. Before that they were all crammed into a 2 bed flat. But the fact that there wasn’t room for them all didn’t bother her, she knew the council would give her somewhere bigger if she just kept on having kids and she’s more than happy to let the state pay for her expanding family whilst hardworking couples like me and DH struggle to get in a position to even start, because we want to do it responsibly.

@AngeloMysterioso
Why do you care what she does? I mean really think about your answer. Why do you personally really care.
If you're sacrificing having longed for children because you don’t think you can afford it, the only person that loses is you. The state doesn’t care that you’ve saved them a few thousand out of their billion £

And @AngeloMysterioso
I really hope you’ve had a fertility check.

It's people like you lowtide that are the problem. She's trying to be responsible and do the right thing. If we all acted so I maturely and decided to kick back and let the state fix it THERE WOULD BE NOT STATE. Ignorant is not strong enough a word for you. And don't be so proactive, it's nothing to do with fertility and everything to do with being responsible. And yes, it does bother people. A lot. Why should sensible, mature realistic and thoughtful people pay for the choices if the opposite.

*immaturely

provocative of please excuse my furious typing.

@Thecrabbypatty
I’m not part of the problem. I don’t have kids at all! I have paid 40% tax. Never been ill. Never used state school, never used go for my non existent kids.

We all have a part to pay in society. We all look after the user cunts we can’t stand, to the people we think deserve it. There is no choice on who we decide to look after or not look after.
That is a fact of a good humane society.
End of

Maybe people would love to chose who we help and don’t help.
Perhaps they should all read Mein kampf, or maybe they already did!

I have no issue paying for schools, health, pensions and everything else being part of society entails. People don't chose these things, they don't choose to be ill, disabled or in need. They can choose whether to procreate, regardless of if they can provide a basic standard of living for their child. That I object to.

YANBU.

I stopped at one as I could comfortably provide for one.

Why have more (planned) if it becomes a struggle financially.

@Thecrabbypatty
Yule argument doesn’t make sense at all. I wouldn’t mind if it did make sense. But it just doesn’t.
Most people who cannot afford to pay off the basics rely on the state. Therefore they can afford the basics.
So who do you want to NOT get state help?
Considering you think schools/ pensions/ health care is OK to receive?
What is not ok to receive? I’m genuinely interested in your answer

*your!

It's not OK to bring children into the world with an expectation that the rest of the population will pay to raise them. Your child, your responsibility. That's pretty much it. Yes, when life knocks you on the arse the state should help you to your feet but that is not the topic of this post.

So many complex issues. How do you define ‘afford’? Circumstances change, people change, one person’s idea of being poor would be another’s luxury and vice versa. Anything that starts to cross over into eugenics (which is what this verges on) is dangerous. The tabloids have a lot to answer for with their constant publication of ‘family of 15 claims £200,000 benefits a year’ (or whatever).

@Thecrabbypatty
I fucking hope that you and your kids have private healthcare and private schooling and don’t claim any benefits including child benefit.
Other wise. Guess what!! I’m paying for your kid to be looked after with my fucking taxes.
Idiot

I love your sweeping assumptions. LOVE THEM!! Hilarious.

What is not ok to receive? I’m genuinely interested in your answer so this was clearly untrue. You asked, I told you.

How do you define “afford”?
Is the word open to interpretation? It’s perfectly obvious what afford means, nobody gets to redefine the word.

I would say the word ‘afford’ is open to interpretation yes. Does it mean being able to bring your children up with no help at all, eg not claiming child benefit? Providing and affording the very basics for your children is one thing, but there are so many people living below the poverty line- you could argue that they can’t ‘afford’ children? It’s a very dangerous game to start trying to pinpoint exactly what makes you able to ‘afford’ children.

@Thecrabbypatty
you did answer it. With a really unclear answer.
for schools, health, pensions and everything else being part of society entails

What do you think being part of society entails? Where is your cut off. It’s all very vague. Schools (children) health (children) pensions. So 2 out of 3 are things that directly help children regardless of their parents financial ability to provide? Do the parents who didn’t think about affording their child also get to have help with schooling and healthcare?

You’re argument just doesn’t stack up. It’s a knee jerk kind of argument with no basis in sound facts.

If we can’t all contribute towards the deserving and undeserving then we aren’t a society.
Again. Go back to Germany in the early 30s and see how that worked out

lowtide it's down to choice. Parents who have children knowing full well that they are unable to support them are working under an expectation that someone else will. If you want to dive into the murky depths of the reach of the welfare state get yourself over to MN politics.

Afford in this instance means being able to provide for your children yourself, without expecting someone else to cover the cost for you.
Child benefit is kind of irrelevant in that it used to be available to anyone without means testing?
I don’t understand the kind of “the government is telling people they can’t have a third child unless they can prove it’s aproduct of rape!” nonsense.
The government doesn’t give a shiny shite how many kids you have, it just dd declines to pay for an indefinite amount of children.
If you can afford to have them anyway, crack on.
Who factors in benefits when deciding affordability anyway?

The argument of 'well circumstances may change' doesn't make any sense and is irrelevant to the thread; we are talking about people who don't consider how they will provide for their children before they try for a baby. That has nothing to do with a sudden death which leaves the family with financial problems. The first you have control over, the second you don't. I thought that was obvious.

OP isn't saying that working class people shouldn't have babies; she's saying don't have babies if you literally cannot afford to pay for their basics and expect everyone else to pay for what you want.