To think that people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them?

[ideamummy]

I ask this as I'm dealing with a case at the moment of a woman who for various reasons is being charged for her health treatment. She is 21 and on her third pregnancy, she has no employment, no means of supporting these children and yet seemingly does not use contraception. It makes me so mad. We've waited three and a half years to have a second child because before that we just couldn't afford it. Why do some people think it's okay to have kids with no means to support them?

Trouble is QoQ, we live rurally so dh and I both need a car to work. We both work F/T so need F/T childcare because we have no family nearby. There is no way on this earth we can afford to double our nursery bill

When dd is older, maybe, but we are still in a postition where we need before/afterschool care for dd and then F/T care for dc2

(also there are twins on both sides of the family )

"Has this woman been named? or identified in some way?

If not, then she still does have her privacy"

I think I might pop down to your doctor's surgery and take a look through your case notes and those of your family and see if I can dredge up any juicy gossip about you. Then I'll post it here for people to read and comment on. Of course I won't use your name so you'll still have your privacy so that'll be all right won't it?

Bectheneck

I'm sorry I don't understand your post.

We can't afford another. One of us would have to give up work because of child care costs for two being more than either of us earn individually. We would soon be in massive debt.

That's why we don't.

QoQ - unless I am very much mistaken, though, you and your DH have been working and working v hard to make ends meet and are not subsisting on benefits?

I think there is a big difference between the welfare state picking up people who have fallen on hard times - which is exactly what it is for: people with however many children who lose a job, become incapacitated, become single etc etc. Unfortunately so many people have inadequate hope or belief in their ability to ever take constructive control of thier lives, that having children with no hope of supporting them financially becomes a way of life - and a self-fulfilling prophesy.

This needs other interventions - not witholding of benefits, though. Not unless we wish to see Angela's Ashes live on our streets.

The woman's privacy is intact - there is nothing in the OP which would enable anyone to identify her. She could be anyone.

Everyone who is discussed in any thread is somebody - do you think people should not be allowed to discuss their friends or family members too?

We are anonymous here - people could have started many threads about me for all I know!

I think that it is sensible, logical, that people shouldn't deliberatly bring children into the world when they know they cannot provide for them.

I also know how powerful the drive to reproduce is. When I married, we couldn't really afford a child, although we were both working, we didn't earn much and had no savings. Didn't stop me wanting a child so badly I cried every time I saw one.

And then of course, there is the question of what IS 'affording' a child?

Diggerent people think they can manage on different amounts, so standing outside a situation and saying someone can't afford a child because they don't have the amount of money you feel you would have to have before you could have a child....well, it's daft really.

Also, you might be able to afford them at first, but anyone can have a change in circumstances. Lose their partner, lose their job, become ill.....what was once affordable, becomes a struggle.

We have access to contraception in this country, so are not in the same situation as people in abject poverty in the third world, who bring children into the world that they TRULY cannot afford. We do have real choice and control over our reproduction (accidents notwithstanding!)

I think that to repeatedly get pregnant because you feel you have a right to have many children and have the state support you for ever is downright disgusting. But I feel that this attitude, while existing, really is only in a minority of people. I think most people have children because they want them (even need them) and that they really think they'll be ok.

You really dont understand the concept of professionalism do you? It is unprofessional to discuss someone who you come across because of your job on a talkboard in order to get other people to judge them. We go to professionals - doctors, lawyers, benefit officers - and tell them private things about us on the understanding that it won't be used as gossip and entertainment in other circles.

The answers that the OP gets here will reinforce her negative judgemental attitude to people she deals with when she should be trying to keep professional objectivity.

Elizabeth, since nonone on MN will know who you areposting about, I still would have my privacy.

Otherwise MN will be all about us diiscussing our dreams, and interactions with ourselves! We can't even talk about our kids....they have a right to privacy!

OozingSlashesFromTigerFeet, it seems that on the one hand you seem to be envious of those who have more children and exist on benefits and yet on the other you view it as being the worst thing that could happen to your family.

I'm not saying it isn't frustrating to see others seemingly 'getting away with it' though. But I wouldn't say it's an enviable existence.

You can logically argue that the woman shouldn't be judged.

But her privacy is intact. We don't know who she is.

I do see your point here Elizabethh, but it sounds like the OP's judgement of this woman is already established.

If she gets support for her views it makes no difference, but if someone manages to change her POV then it's been worthwhile discussing it.

It's human nature to talk - most people taken work home and talked to family or friends about it. It's only innappropriate to give away details which compromise privacy.

I think what worries me most is people's attitudes more than their circumstances tbh. Attitudes of people who feel that the state owes them something and that they will be supported and are not willing to take any responsibility for their actions. And whilst I am sure these people are a minority, it feels like they are a pretty sizable minority in my town.

How are their kids ever going to learn any different? What are they teaching them about responsiblity. And I am not talking about people who have genuintely fallen on hard times and need some help and are doing their best to be contributing members of our society, by the way. I am talking about the feckless.

You can't argue logically that she should be judged. What on earth is the logical argument in defence of this?

Are you really telling me you wouldn't care if I did that to you martianbishop? I'd be furious if it was me, as I'd be furious if the benefits officer I was dealing with (if that's what the OP is) was busy using my real-life case to make a point on Mumsnet.

but how can anyone be certain, they day that they decide to have a baby, that they will ALWAYS be able to provide for that child? Does it mean that I was wrong to have 4 children, DH get sick and have to give up work, then find another job only to get made redundant, end up having to go bankrupt and rely on the benefits system just to manage? If I could have forseen all that happening then i probably wouldnt have had the children, but the fact is, I did. Even though at times money is tight, the bills are always paid and the children are clothed and fed, all be it with tax credit money (benefits in the past) I knew when I got pg with dd2 that our situation wasn't great, financially etc, but then I thought that a hell of a lot can happen in 9 months til the day that baby is born. I live in a council house. I have 4 kids. I don't work. We claim tax credits. and i would still have another baby tomorrow.

Maybe if the interest rates rise to 15% TheQueenOfQuotes, you will struggle. The best laid plans of mice and men heh?

Oops, sorry misread. If you agree that she shouldn't be judged then what on earth is everybody doing here?

I agree that people shouldn't PLAN to be on benefits and bring children into the world thinking they will be supported by someone else.

I was a little wary of the title as I have seen this said before (by the childfree), who usually mean "people should not have children if it takes two of you working to support them." Relieved to see that is not what is meant here.

sorry where did I say we don't struggle???

But - even if they did rise to 15% we'd be ok for the next 3yrs - as we're on a fixed rate until then, and by then more of our other debts will have gone - so the "spare" money could be put towards the mortgage rise.

Anangelwithin, I think you contradict yourself. Firstly you say if you could have forseen everything that happened to you, you wouldn't have had another child. Then you say, despite your current difficult circumstances you would have another baby tomorrow.

I'm not quite sure what your point is?

Elizabeth if you read what I posted you will see that what I said is that you can logically argue that she shouldn't be judged

and I really wouldn't care what you posted, as long as there was no way of anyone knowing that you were posting about me

I wouldd be a statistic, nothing more.

It would be quite different if you identified me

This notion of waiting till you can afford it. Very modern. I remember such a row on here about the Life Swap Lizzie Bardsley and how she shouldn't have any more cos she couldn't afford it. Granted complicated by issue of benefits.

Its bollocks tho, sorry. The only logical conclusion is only the rich can have as many kids as they want. Bolleaux. Sorry.

Apparently in economic terms we need more children, to stop the balance between pensioners and workers getting too out of kilter. So I suppose we should be glad people still have children no matter what.

I think abig part of the problem is that normalpeople with normal jobs can't afford to get by in today's economy. Owning a house is so far out of reach for so many that they just give up, chuck it all in, and live on benefits. Why? Because there is little incentive not to.

Housing is too unaffordable. Something needs to be done.

Oh, Gordon, are you listening?!?!?!

But edam, that only works if the kids become "workers". What happens to the balance if the kids just live off the state?

I think it's very easy to be all high and mighty. The truth is, anything could happen. Maybe you could afford children when you had them but it all went wrong.

Really, it's none of your business.