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.

@angelsackiz
You’re blatantly choosing to ignore my point. It doesn’t matter wether someone is reliant on a benefit (Disability, tax credits, child benefit...etc)
It matters that household incoming/ outgoing is not producing a monthly deficit when someone decides to have a kid.

You’re making a very general implication that those reliant on disability can’t manage their finances and survive, be careful as that’s simply not true.

A disabled couple who live within their means and (maybe struggle a bit) but get by, of course deserve to start a family.

If they have a car loan, credit card debt...etc and are already a few hundred short of surviving each month, that’s a TOTALLY different matter.

I’m gonna make the same reference again because I totally believe in it.

Would you walk up to a store cash register with a £100 dress when you knew you had £5 in your account? It’s just common sense. If you wouldn’t do it with a dress you sure as hell shouldn’t do it with a child.

I haven’t read the whole thread but clearly people need to take financial responsibility for themselves and their families.

That said as others have noted there are advantages to a society with well set up affordable childcare. Where I am from crèche is very affordable. University is low cost so you can do further study whilst your children are young and get back into your career when they are in school.

Mind you taxes are high.

Did you just compare choosing having a child with the person you love to buying a dress?

Ethel I agree.

All sorts of situations can lead you to needing state help when you have kids. You could start off not needing any then circumstances change..

Saying that, it's people who already have kids who are relying heavily on benefits then go on to have more which annoy me. My friend did this, had 3 already, was living solely on benefits then had 2 more with a new partner who already had 2 of his own. She then posts of fb all her "happy memory making " she does with her kids. I'd be "memory making " if I had 5 kids and could stay at home and rely on the state but unfortunately I stopped at 2 because I couldn't afford more and whilst she is at home making memories I am out at work paying for those memories!

if wages are so low they need to be topped up by the government, people could afford kids if they were paid better.
So I guess it depends on your definition of not affording.
We have had tc almost since they started in early 90's, we had 3 dc.
So, that is affording them, surely.

Why are people still talking about people having multiple children and relying on the state to pay?

THAT ISN'T HAPPENING ANY MORE. The state is only paying for 2 children. That's irrelevant now. Nobody can have more than 2 children and get benefits for them.

The state is paying for my friends 5 children because like thousands of people she had them before the 2 child thing came in. She doesn't work and she isn't homeless so it is safe to assume the state is paying.

@Teacher22 - I think you put it very succinctly.

The very wealthy don't have the constraints, so I will paint a picture of the situation as it has been for those Wi-fi do not have the freedoms associated with financial freedom.

The 'squeezed middle' are the ones who have a personal moral sense of duty towards society, themselves, and their future children.

They must cut their cloth accordingly. House size/area is dependent upon affordability. It ideally involves a degree of planning, budgeting and saving. Children are usually more spaced out in age, due to insane childcare costs. They don't have the luxury of indulging their 'rights' to have children because they want them.

There is an awful lot of juggling involved. If things go wrong, it can necessitate complete replanning (downsizing, reducing anticipated family size, and totally throwing out your desires and best laid plans). Then spending fraught years managing childcare logistics. Larger age gaps means more years of trying to get the kids to different places (schools/clubs) at the same time. This often means parents can be forced to work fewer hours/ compacted hours/ different shift patterns.

Big sacrifices to ensure that both parents retain viable careers, often at the expense of the quality family time that can be enjoyed during those years.
This ethic is then absorbed by their average of 2 children per family.

Historically, the welfare state has allowed others the luxury of indulging in their 'right to have children', and the expense of the 'squeezes middle'.

They will have imposed their rights upon the rest of society, without the need for planning. More children come along, and they could demand a larger house, and proportionately more tax payers' money to indulge in those 'rights'. There really wasn't a great deal of sacrifice involved because the rest of society was expected to keep them afloat.
The more children they have, the more tax must be absorbed by the traditional family of 4, mentioned previously.

So, those 8 children wiould then be likely to absorb these ethics, creating even more imbalance generationally.

Yes, benefits are being capped at 2 children. This is a 'work in progress' however, so society must continue to support the 8 children that this family already had.

Is it any wonder that there is not overwhelming sympathy for those that have now been priced out of the 'right' to have unlimited children?
It's not a particularly palatable argument for those of us that were already priced out of the luxury of that choice!

I absolutely agree that affordable childcare/housing is absolutely critical in trying to fix the situation.
Unfortunately many of us have been screaming this for an awful long time. It's a shame it took the realisation of the benefits cap to make a lot more people actually care.

@CatchEmAll why are you friends with her then if her lifestyle annoys you that much? She's not going to be able to "rely on the state" forever, she will have to get a job eventually when her kids are old enough and she'll struggle after being out of work for so long. Hardly something to envy. I feel sorry for those people.

I say friends loosely because I haven't seen her for ages and just recently unfollowed her from fb due to the constant smug post about her memory making.

It's nothing to envy at all because personally I find my balance of working and demonstrating a work ethic to my kids is a more realistic way to raise them.

Bitch I think Throw was just trying to describe someone she knows We all have acquaintances.

Yabvu.

Keep your judgey, sticky beak out. If his job paid well instead of just above minimum wage, she'd be able to go shopping now and then while affording a rent or mortgage. You are very short sighted.

That friend of yours had a lucky escape.

And yes. Having children is a basic human right. Or should some be euthanized?

Just been reading more of the thread. Op, you smack of bitterness. Through and through. I feel sorry for you. Be angry at the system of you think it's wrong. Not individuals. They are walking their own path in their own situation, most of which you know nothing of. If you're that bothered, get political not bitter.

@Neshoma yes, but it's funny how much detail people on here seem to know about people who are just "acquaintances." I certainly don't know the ins and outs of the financial situations of my acquaintances. Oh, but of course everyone on MN knows someone who is "playing the system" because apparently they "openly brag" about it. Never seen that in real life myself, mind, but it seems to be a common thing on MN.

The UK actually gives low support in terms of financial relief to families raising children compared to much of Western Europe I believe?

Frazzled Kate- people did get political, that’s why we now have a conservative government. The two child cap will finally start to discourage some people from having large families. To the pp who mentioned disabled parents -I do think if neither parent is able to work when considering ttc then they shouldn’t be having children . B coming disabled after the children are born is an entirely different matter .
The only families I’m aware of with large numbers of children are either very well off or the largest one -7 children ( eldest is 9 ) are totally reliant on benefits . It’s not ok!

The problem is 2 working parents on a full time minimum wage can't afford housing and childcare, as the costs have risen out of line with the cost of wages.

Add to that the time it takes to go to university and develop a decent career and we are way past the optimum point for human fertility.

Society has gone very wrong somewhere.

Having children is a right, I do agree with the cap on supporting children to 2 as it was pretty limitless before. However, people can always improve their circumstances, Or even they can change for worse. you never know what is around the corner.

The old euthanasia card.
The children are human, and have rights.
Wherever you draw the line, it's unfair for someone.

If having a shit load of kids is a 'basic human right', then the government must remove the benefits cap altogether. ANYONE who wants a dozen kids, just do it!
Those who would be struggling to cover their mortgages should get funded to upscale their properties. Any additional mortgage payments should be paid in benefits.
Why should the overcrowding rule not apply to private home owners? It never has done, whereas there have always been rules to ensure that those who rely exclusively, or substantially, on benefits are adequately housed once a suitable property can be made available.
If it's a basic human right, we can't prioritise improving living conditions for those who have never been employed - regardless of circumstances.

Except that's clearly not economically viable.

That's why some people have an unfair advantage, and arguments continue that they should be allowed to continue to do so, because it isn't the fault of a child that their parents exercised their human rights.

The economy cannot sustain benefits as a lifestyle choice.
I'm not a benefits basher at all. I see why it's a more viable option for many people, who would ideally want to work. They can't afford to. It's insane.
At some point all of us need to be held accountable for prioritising the human rights of our children, instead of demanding that we can reproduce irresponsibly because we'd quite like another baby.

Tigerlove- I'm commenting specifically on the op's beef with her friend, a friend who had only one child and was living in one room. Not sure why that made her so mad with said friend.

I think there should be better sex education in school, and lessons in budgeting, relationships, managing finances, the realities of child care etc. Many girls from my school year had a baby at 17/18, before they'd had a chance to establish a career or save or settle down with a partner. I'm not sure if those pregnancies were accidental or planned.

I don't think anyone should be denied the right to be a parent based on income. Some parents work full time, earn minimum wage and rely on tax credits or funded nursery hours to get by. In some areas jobs are scarce and if you don't have a degree or specialist skills, the work isn't there, or it's so poorly paid it's not enough to live on without gov help.

But what does annoy me is when people decide to have a second or third child when they're not in a good financial position. Why not take a few years to clear your debts, re-train, work, build up some savings etc.

I have a friend who is pregnant with her second (first is nearly 3). Since having the first she's made no effort to look for work or improve her career prospects. Her child is in nursery several days a week (2 year old funding) and her partner works part time. They receive many benefits and help from parents. She's always complaining they have no money for anything. I give her lots of my DD's outgrown clothes as she says she can't afford to buy her a warm coat, new shoes etc. She told me they'd been trying for another baby for a few months! It just seems so irresponsible. I felt like saying 'Why don't you study, or get a job, or make some steps towards providing for your first child before having a second?!' She's only 25 so it's not as if time is running out to conceive.

Frazzled Kate- people did get political, that’s why we now have a conservative government.

Yes. And I don't think any sensible person can say it wasn't due an overhaul.

Great post from Throwawayagain.

As PP have said, the two children tax credit rule should help in the future. The situation before whereby if you kept having more children even though you couldn't afford to it meant a bigger house and way more money was just ridiculous. Especially when maternity services and school places are so stretched.

That said, I have relatives in the not very wealthy area that I grew up in, and girls are still having babies when in their mid teens due to lack of inspiration, and because it's what all their friends are doing. ☹️

@frazzledkate
Bitterness? I’m giggling.
How long are you supposed to put up with someone complaining endlessly about the irresponsible, selfish and self destructive decisions they keep making?

That girl is representative of all the other women currently out there making equally terrible choices to bring a life into this world that they knowingly have no way of providing for. The type of women who’d be rejected by the RSPCA if they applied to adopt a cat but squeeze a baby out with no plan or means to provide and that’s fine!

It seems like a pool of my generation are just refusing to be responsible and seek instant gratification at any cost. Only, as so many have pointed out on this thread, it’s really the child who suffers most for their being unable to provide. So it creates a vicious circle of child poverty that the irresponsible parents (who should have made provision in the first place) then blame on the government.

KN2212 Should those worldwide who live in poverty not have children either? Should all poor folk not have children until they are in a position of affluence? Cause that would leave alot of people having to deny what is for most a basic human desire, to have children.