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

[malificent7]

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.

It is a freeing fact and statement. It helped me enormously when I couldn't reproduce. It helped me move past the pain of not bearing off spring, it was a reality check that allowed me to move on and see that there is a rewarding life to live beyond infertility. It is ridiculous to say that reproduction is a human right!

I am of the opinion that rights are as much a social construct as gender.

Not believing in some kind of higher power, rights seem like a foolish concept, that we have to go into a lot of effort into contriving to achieve, against the laws of nature.

We're the only species that has attempted this. Other species have familial patterns like ours, matriarchies, patriachies, acts of kindness, acts of sadism (looking at you, dolphins). None other has the capacity or the will to establish a system that looks upon itself as having rights.

I'm not saying they're a good idea or not, but to me, rights don't really exist unless they can't be taken away. If they're not truly inalienable, then do they really exist at all?

Floopily the CF are CF whether they have children or not. I had a married colleague (average sounding marriage, average sounding joint parenting - she was an overshater - not single parent) who had one 5 year old child in my previous team at work. She automatically assumed first consideration/ dibs on all school holidays (including the time she let slip her child was staying with her mother and she was having "some much needed alone time" during her DH's work hours) despite not being the only mother / parent of a young child or multiple young children on the team. Equally on my current team there's a single parent who had necessary adjustments when her child was young but hangs on to them now her child's 16 to the cost of the rest of the team! Who can blame her in one way, and we don't say anything atm because she is a good colleague when there, but it rankles sometimes when working the third straight weekend that she doesn't have to do weekends despite often talking about how independent her 16 year old is, how she sleeps til midday and then cycles to town or two her friends...

I've had two single colleagues with grown up children tell me they book August holiday just to prove a point too, because why shouldn't they... Yes why shouldn't they, it's not against the law, but if you don't actually want it it's faily unpleasant to block anyone else from booking it just to spite them, especially because the two who did this weren't child free but mothers of adults!

I do find CF with kids tend to be the worst CF. I think having kids emboldens people with these tendencies to go all out for it.

I don’t personally believe deliberately having children into a situation in which you cannot meet THEIR needs should be a right tbh. I interpret the idea of ‘should having children be a right?’ as more relevant to people having children they can’t provide for than to people dealing with infertility, though I see the argument for the latter (and again, it’s a separate consideration whether that would mean endless, low success rate rounds of IVF should be offered on the NHS versus whether couples should be able to access as much private IVF as they can afford to pay for).

I see having kids more as a privilege than a right and dependent on your own ability to do a good job of it. There’s no way I’d have considered myself to have the right to get pregnant and have a baby when I was on minimum wage struggling financially in a house share with no career to speak of or secure relationship. It was pretty obvious to me that it’d have been phenomenally selfish had I gotten pregnant and decided to carry to term as I couldn’t offer a baby anything but love and love is not enough to raise a child despite the popular phrases and soundbites people come out with.

If I’d never managed to get out of that environment into a better situation I wouldn’t have had kids or felt I had the right to. It’s more about the rights of the potential child and whether you’re in a position to meet them. Becoming a parent requires a degree of selflessness and the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and consider what’s best for them, not you, so anyone choosing to have kids when they can’t provide for them is only proving they really shouldn’t be procreating at that time tbh.

And I’m talking about whether I consider myself to have the right or not because rights aren’t a natural thing that exist independently, they’re legal entities bestowed upon you and meaningless otherwise. I realise nobody has the right to prevent me from getting pregnant and having a baby in a shitty situation. Doesn’t mean I think that entitles me therefore to go ahead with it.

I do find CF with kids tend to be the worst CF. I think having kids emboldens people with these tendencies to go all out for it

jennymara Perhaps you need to get outa bit more and see what CF on MN means, i.e. those who take outrageous advantage of others.

Which has fuck all to do with this thread.

I can’t think of any situation in which it would be a constructive thing to say to anyone - I’ve only seen it levelled at gay couples (in the wider world) and people struggling financially (on MN), in the latter case it’s not poor, living on the breadline families but people who are worried about nursery fees or something. So it’s never been said in a nice or helpful way.

I mean why would you say it - oh I’m sad cos we can’t afford a third child - Oh well you don’t know you don’t have a right to children? - err yeah I just feel a bit upset we can’t... - yes well just remember you DONT HAVE THE RIGHT

But in respect to whether couples should be entitled to unlimited IVF on the NHS, or IVF with a statistically low chance of success, of course not. The NHS provides treatment that’s cost effective and has to make decisions every day about the likelihood of a positive outcome versus the cost of delivering the treatment (which takes money away from delivering other treatments more likely to be effective).

An NHS mental health service won’t offer drugs or therapy that have very little chance of being effective, you don’t have the right to demand a treatment that’s not going to be helpful in light of the evidence. Same with IVF. So someone who’s too old or obese who has factors that make IVF unlikely to work isn’t entitled to have a go anyway.

We struggled with infertility for years on my husband's side. We now have one child because of one round of IVF. I acknowkedge how lucky we are and have nothing but gratitude towards the nhs. I never considered it a right. I find it ignorant when people who didn't struggle to have children suggest adoption ( why didn't you consider it yourself then ?). Also as unpopular as it may be I've paid national insurance as has my husband so why shouldn't his medical inability to have children be covered by the nhs. Touch wood so far neither of us have needed the nhs in other ways!

I agree op someone responded to a thread recently along the lines that it shouldn’t be available on the nHS and said having children wasn’t a right, my thoughts exactly were they it was written by someone happily child free or ignorantly fertile

The Human Rights Act guarantees right to a family life.

Nice to know some people think I don't have a family because I don't have kids. This is the argument used every Christmas by people with children who think they are entitled to the time off. They don't seem to realise that my parents, grandparents, sister, nephews etc are actually family.

It can be a mean statement and possibly not appropriate to use in some conversations about infertility or the best first knee-jerk response to those struggling. I typically see it in wider conversations on, as already mentioned, surrogacy and similar.

On the other hand, reality is mean and, while we can discuss ways to make it nicer and the pros and cons of different proposed solutions, I don't think framing it as a right that others are somehow withholding is going to to do anyway any good. Sometimes I've needed a reality check when I've been dwelling on how so many others have something I want but physically cannot have or do.

Like joystir59, I've found it freeing and helped me move past a lot of emotional pain to consider that - while it really sucks - that just because it feels like most other people have it and it's natural to want something and so on, those wants - even deeply, painfully felt - are not a right and life can be pretty good even without, even though it's hard at times. I might have the right to pursue happiness, but I don't have the right to have it or to live without pain.

"Having children is not a right" is quite often said on here in the context of not having the right to have children you can't afford to support, rather than referring to infertility treatment.

I agree that nobody has the right to have children if they expect the state to support them; people should exercise personal responsibility.

I think it's reasonable for the NHS to offer IVF.

The Human Rights Act guarantees right to a family life

That is open to interpretation, surely? I don't read that as I have an absolute right to have a baby. Isn't it the right to be with the family you already have? For parents to be able to parent their existing children?

I'm not against the provision of IVF, but I don't think being able to have children is a right. It's not a right to be able to have sex or to have a partner.

These things, along with just about everything else, fall under the banner of 'sometimes, life isn't fair'. Just because you want something passionately, obsessively, heart-achingly, it doesn't mean you are entitled to have it.

I am childfree by choice (and the poster upthread who said childfree by choice women who say children are not a right are probably not happy with their decisions can have a . )

"Having children is not a right" is quite often said on here in the context of not having the right to have children you can't afford to support, rather than referring to infertility treatment

I saw it on a thread about a step mother suffering with infertility just the other week because her and her husband wanted to go abroad to do IVF (paid for by themselves).

I wonder sometimes whether people who don't agree that any IVF should be funded on the NHS at all would feel the same if their children grew up and found they need it to conceive? It strikes me as one of those 'I'm alright Jack' opinions. Would you be telling your own daughter 'sorry dear but I don't agree you should accept that round of IVF because the NHS is already under pressure and you don't have a right to have a baby'.

People dont have a right to live forever either. No i do not think we should spend all the money maintaining elderly people.
Would elderly be happy to 'choose' no GC so they can live longer?

Although Shatner's situation makes no financial sense seemingly it could be that it isnt cut and dried that it would prevent future worse condition. And i would prefer that a number of people pay minimal amounts for extras they want than others have no dc. One is extremely depressing to 2 people possibly leading to suicide. For 1.5k each. For relatively young people who will both get 20+ years out of this.

Fundamentally we all need to live healthier and campaign for better health. And for ttc younger.
Let's learn from this situation of many people reducing their fertility by waiting too long. Ivf often doesnt work and cant be relied on.

It isn't a right, just as it isn't a right to keep children you do have in your care just because you birthed them.

I agree that for some it's biological urge but that doesn't make it a right.

Helix Unfortunately, without it, I am going to have all sorts of problems which will fall back on the NHS and some days I feel very unwell indeed. It is almost certain I will have dementia because of how long I went undiagnosed. I started having memory issues three years ago at the age of 42 and it was that that finally made the put 2+2 together.

As for this And i would prefer that a number of people pay minimal amounts for extras they want than others have no dc I don't WANT to have these injections I NEED to have them. Someone without children may WANT them but they don't NEED them to ensure they have an acceptable standard of daily life. I'm as prone to suicide, I suspect, than someone who can't have children.

It SHOULDN'T be an either or. It should be both. But if we can't have both, the priority should be existing medical conditions of people who already exist, rather than creating new people.

Nice to know some people think I don't have a family because I don't have kids. This is the argument used every Christmas by people with children who think they are entitled to the time off. They don't seem to realise that my parents, grandparents, sister, nephews etc are actually family

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that parents should always get first dibs on Christmas, I think you have to give and take a bit, and besides that there are people with other caring responsibilities who also need to have their needs considered. But none of those people is a small child who is going to miss spending Christmas morning with their primary carer if you have to work. It's not done for the parents' sake, it's done for the sake of their kids. And I know you have nephews but unless you have an uncommonly close relationship with them I'd guess it's not going to make or break their day.

I think it only makes or breaks their day if you let it.

My dad was a police officer and had to work Christmas some years, it's just the way it is. I've not been permanently scarred by that.

If you are so concerned about your children missing out on things like having every single Christmas with you, then you need to find a job that's closed over those periods. You can't work as say a nurse, police officer etc... And expect to get every holiday off because you have kids and your colleague doesn't. It's par for the course with those sorts of jobs.

Yeah I'm not arguing that parents have an absolute right to Christmas off. But I think it's ridiculous to claim that you have the same sort of, let's say moral right? - to time off as a childfree adult based on your relationships with your own family, assuming they're all hale and hearty. Childless adults are perfectly entitled to their Christmases off. But I think it's a bit off to try and argue that missing seeing their mum at Christmas will be as disappointing for them as it would be for their colleagues' small children.

Shatners you cant need them otherwise you would be getting them. Mainly unfunded things are because of a doubt of the benefit or cost etc. So it is one of those but not the cost.. Many things can give preventative benefits , vit D, metformin, thyroxine. And yes im certain that many times gps dont prescribe becaude of the cost. For many of these conditions when it becomes a need.
It may well be that you feel suicidal wiyhout those meds but logically you know it would cost 'pennies' and your issue is fixed. For ivf it is thousands with maybe 50/50 chance of results each time. Many people are just not gamblers.
Does NICE say you should be getting it but arent?

Cost wise it is very disgusting resenting a couple getting 0-3 rounds of ivf for 3-9k or so, whilst having 0-9+ dc.
So eg per dc
2k maternity/birth
14*4k school
£201852 child benefit

So actually because people with ivf likely have fewer dc then even with ivf they are likely still taking less overall from the pot. (with some ending up with 0 dc anyway).
The 9k is a drop compared to families with lots of kids education, people choosing to continue a DS or other disabiled child pg.
Choices may have to be made but the wastage is not on ivf.

Childless adults are perfectly entitled to their Christmases off. But I think it's a bit off to try and argue that missing seeing their mum at Christmas will be as disappointing for them as it would be for their colleagues' small children

I'm not trying to argue this. It's simply not my problem if a colleague's child is disappointed; I chose not to have children and not having to factor in my own children into planning is one of the big advantages, why would I factor in other people's?!

Nice colleague who asks if I would swap shifts so she can be at home Christmas with her toddler; depending on my plans I might agree to be kind. Colleague who demands I swap because she should take priority; not a chance.

There's no 'moral right' about it.