Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think it's mean when people on here proclaim that gaving children isn't a right?

209 replies

malificent7 · 07/08/2019 06:09

Normally uttered by comfortably off fertile people with about 3 children and aimed sometimes sneeringly at less well off women ..or women with difficult circumstances.
Aibu to think that having children may not be a right but it is a biological imperative for many; like most animals we are designed to reproduce.
Btw...i am very happy with my 1 and only dd so this is not to do with me.

OP posts:
ShatnersWig · 07/08/2019 07:57

The NHS was not set up to provide things like IVF. But unfortunately everyone wants the NHS to do everything. Well, we all need to increase our income tax by 5 p if that's what we want.

And I'm sorry, but when there are things that the NHS won't fund that cost as little as £6 per year to prevent conditions worsening so that as the person ages they will be a huge burden on the NHS, and which affect people on a day to day basis for life, but they will fund IVF, something is wrong.

I'm sorry if that upsets people, but as someone with such a condition that fucks me off.

WitsEnding · 07/08/2019 07:57

There are many people who would have loved to have children but never found their partner.

I believe everyone should have the right to have children (as in not to have their ability to have children restricted by outside agency, such as China's one-child policy), and everyone should have the right (of choice) to use contraception.
If they don't have the opportunity or the capability that's a completely different discussion. Children aren't possessions to be allocated.

Hundredacrewoods · 07/08/2019 07:59

@getmeacupoftea I think that means that states should not interfere with a person’s right to have a family. It doesn’t guarantee a child because that would be impossible.

getmeacupoftea · 07/08/2019 08:03

I'm just pointing out that it is a genuinely listed right to have a family.

Deemail · 07/08/2019 08:04

@goatinthegarden I think you're making an informed decision that's right for you.
Society as a whole places demands on people and the majority of us grow up thinking one day we will become parents, it's conditioned into us to think without children we won't have a family.
I wish people were shown how hard been a parent can be and also how rewarding, the challenges they'll face, what children need to be raised well and grounded, and how it's a life long commitment and the alternate life they could have without children and all that would entail the good and the bad. That way people could make more informed decisions to suit their own life and personality.

Andysbestadventure · 07/08/2019 08:07

It took us 14yrs of TTC to have DS(2) OP.

Yabu. It is absolutely not a right.

Thewheelsarefallingoff · 07/08/2019 08:07

The statement doesn't work as a concept for me. It doesn't make sense at all.

It starts to make a little sense in cases of forced abortion or forced pregnancy and birth, but I think theses scenarios are almost the opposite to whatever people that say, "having children is not a right" are on about.

jennymanara · 07/08/2019 08:08

Rights are things people have a right to have. So having food, shelter, freedom of religion, etc. Rights are things that the Government should uphold. So Governments should ensure citizens can practice religions, that they have enough food to eat, etc.
Citizens have a right not to have their fertility controlled by Government. So if women want to get pregnant, the Government should not interfere in that by forced sterilisation, etc.
But having a right to have children means the Government should intervene and ensure citizens have children if they want. That would inevitably mean that Governments should help citizens to have a child if they want through paid for IVF, surrogacy, adoption. It would also be in conflict with taking children into care for being abused or neglected.
The idea of rights in relation to parents having children is the wrong approach. It puts parents or potential parents before the rights of children.

Lolly25 · 07/08/2019 08:08

I believe that no one has a right to having children, but for me that doesnt include infertile or poor people at all, as the majority would make fab parents, it's those that have them, but have no time for them, the type of parents as in another thread who abuse or neglect them. That is when the right to have children doesnt quite cut the cloth.

Mumberjack · 07/08/2019 08:12

I’ve said that having children is a privilege not a right and that was when I was having fertility investigations, and when I lost my child. Before someone tries to conceive it’s taken for granted that things will go well and it’s the ‘fertiles’ with the unhelpful comments that I found didn’t realise how much shit they’d managed to avoid. The whole planning a baby around school years thing (and the disappointment of a summer baby) is one example.

ArtichokeAardvark · 07/08/2019 08:13

I haven't read the full thread, but the OP has irritated me enough to respond.

Very very few people would ever say that someone does not have the right to have children. However, I emphatically agree with the many people who do say that you do not have the right to have children and expect someone else to pay for them. If you are going to have children then you should be able to afford it. Kids are stupidly expensive and having children if you do not have the means to support them yourself is mind-bogglingly wrong.

And as for using biological imperative as an argument, that is complete and utter rubbish. If you are going back to the animal kingdom and saying that mammalian instinct compels you to have kids, then you might as well say that it's ok for men to father multiple children with many different mothers because biological imperative compels them to spread their 'seed' as widely as they can to ensure the survival of their genetic line. Fortunately, humans have evolved beyond this and we tend to take a pretty poor view of men who impregnate and then abandon women (as animals would do).

Goatinthegarden · 07/08/2019 08:14

@deemail

You’ve summed it up perfectly. I’m sure that I would enjoy my life if I had children, and would indeed find them very rewarding. I get immense pleasure and pride from helping to progress and develop the children in my class. I imagine if I had my own children, that feeling would be magnified ten fold. I also realise how much work it entails, and I really value my sleep, sanity, hobbies and free time.

We need to stop suggesting on a societal level that people are missing out if they don’t have children. It is possible to have a fulfilling life without offspring and having children is just one of many paths available.

Bluntness100 · 07/08/2019 08:14

like most animals we are designed to reproduce

I think this is much meaner to be honest. Particularly to people struggling with infertility.

plunkplunkfizz · 07/08/2019 08:17

FGS. A right to family life specifically does not mean a right to have a baby. It is the right to have a family free from state interference except where justified.

Floopily · 07/08/2019 08:19

I'm childfree. I have absolutely no issue with IVF funding via the NHS or with people having as many children as they want. What I struggle with in terms of 'rights' is that there are quite a lot of people, once they become parents, that then think they have additional rights to those enshrined in law. So for example obviously there are rules around parental leave, flexible working etc which have to be adhered to. But in addition in my workplace we get 'no I can't possibly work Xmas Eve I need to be with my children because it's magical for them' or 'I must be given priority for a parking space because otherwise I'll be late for the childminder'. I got tutted at by a woman the other day because I didn't step aside getting on a train to let her and her 10ish year old child get on first (she actually hissed at me 'shes a child let her on first'). I didn't push in, I was there before her and her child was perfectly able to wait a few seconds before boarding. The woman on my estate who thinks her child is entitled to scream and shout in the street as much as he likes 'because he's having fun he's just a kid stop being such a bunch of killjoys' when the neighbours complain about him.

So for me it's not the right to have children that I see as an issue, it's the view that having a child gives you some sort of additional rights or priority over everyone else, that you having a child means that the rest of the world has to accommodate that because you made a choice to have one. In my experience it's a not insignificant proportion of parents that act like this. You chose to have a child, that absolutely will make your life more difficult and complicated, but it isn't everyone else's job to fix that for you.

ChardonnaysPrettySister · 07/08/2019 08:19

How is having children a right?

Rights are a social construct, reproducing is biology.

SnuggyBuggy · 07/08/2019 08:20

I think the concept of rights isn't going to be helpful when it comes to many issues.

ShatnersWig · 07/08/2019 08:21

Floopily You're spot on there.

plunkplunkfizz · 07/08/2019 08:23

Rights are a social construct, reproducing is biology.

And ill-expressed arguments tend to sound more like punchy sound bites than anything meaningful?

What’s your point?

DistanceCall · 07/08/2019 08:23

No. Having children is not a right. I would say it's a privilege. (And I have no children).

You shouldn't have children if you won't love them or take care of them. And I would argue that having more than two is irresponsible, these days.

Laiste · 07/08/2019 08:24

So - is the OP talking about

  1. the philosophical concept of rights in relation to having a child - the right to have children being something you can in theory give or take away?

or 2. the (somewhat) simpler argument about the 'right' to infertility treatment on the NHS.

or 3. just the insensitivity of saying anything about rights at all when someone tells you they're struggling with TTC?

For me

  1. It's too early in the day to get my head around.
  2. I think some fertility treatment should be available on the NHS.
  3. Bloody insensitive of them.
stucknoue · 07/08/2019 08:24

I would rephrase it then, assisted conception (whether ivf or surrogacy) is not a right. There are people (like my DD's friend) who have very premature menopause (she was just 19) so it is for medical reasons she needs ivf, whereas my friend from university is moaning about the fact the nhs won't fund her ivf at 45.

unk1nd · 07/08/2019 08:25

How can it be a "right"? There is no universal law that says humans must procreate and the fact that some people can't have children means that obviously nature intended it that way.

In olden days people had children partly as an insurance policy because many would die in infanthood. These days with an overpopulated world, the less people the better. If anything having children should probably be looked on negatively and as a luxury, definitely not a right.

By all means have a child if you can support one yourself but don't expect other people to pay for you to have children anymore than someone expects others to pay for them to have a porsche or anything else that they feel makes their lives complete.

ChardonnaysPrettySister · 07/08/2019 08:30

My point?

If you cannot reproduce then even id someone says you have the right, or you think you do, it’s still not going to happen, is it?
What’s unclear about it?

Boohooyouho · 07/08/2019 08:31

Honestly, it’s not a right, and I say that as someone unable to have biological kids. I’m torn in the issue of nhs IVF so we didn’t have any fertility treatment. I do think it’s an incredibly rude and unnecessary thing to say to someone experiencing fertility issues though.