to ask why it's seen as rude, unreasonable or seen as taboo to point out certain things

[pillow56]

Example I have seen many threads on mn saying how expensive it is to have kids and how people can't afford them/more kids which is fair enough.

Yet when people both in real life and on mn say that struggling parents who had alot of kids shouldn't have had so many kids if they couldn't afford them then it's an unreasonable thing to say and they get criticised for pointing it out?

Like it's different if the parents had good jobs before the kids came along but they lost them or some unforeseen thing happened that hit the finances but I'm talking about parents who never had cash or a great career before the kids came along. It is perfectly their right to have kids but surely they know that kids equate to expense before they have them so are they surprised?

I'd love to have kids myself but I can't afford them but I wouldn't find it offensive somebody pointing out the financial realities of kids if I suddenly planned to have kids tomorrow. So why do people get offended by this?

Like I said it's a lifestyle choice, you have chosen to live rurally, the need for a car is something I had to factor in when we moved rurally. I live in the rural south west of Scotland, but this was a choice. Just like you have chosen that. I haven't said anywhere that having kids is essential, infact if you read my previous posts correctly you would see that I have admitted that having a large family was my choice and not essential. I have chosen a large family over holidays, a nice car, luxuries.

You said it was a work colleague, not someone who doesn't work so your the one talking bollocks.

And I have said in my post that my kids have had swimming lessons. They also have music lessons that they love, I was pointing out that these things are a choice and not essential. What's your point?

This! We make it work with the budget that we have.

@HarrysNeighbourhood whats your point ? Op is talking about people like you anyway , she is talking about those who have more and can't put food on the table that sort of thing
Your choice doesn't make yours better than mine , yet you seem to think it does
Why didn't you have 10 children or more , presumably at one point you decided you had what you could manage
Op wasn't getting at people like you , yet it seems to hit a nerbe

@pillow56 it might not be a bad idea to develop a personal filter and realise that not all your opinions and judgements need to be vocalised, either in rl or online. Other people's choices are in general nothing to do with you.

@HarrysNeighbourhood how have I chosen to live rurally ?
Ffs are you that deluded , I said I live in a council house so I had no choice where I took it, also if you have grown up in a said area etc
Your just being silly and taking it personally
Op was talking about someone complaining they can't have xyz yet they have 6 children so im sure you have had to go without some things like anyone with kids and the more you have , you have said yourself the more you have to give up but your not complaining
For us we couldn't afford to rent privately or get a mortgage and lived in a small council house
Plenty of people choose to have less children than they may like due to childcare and financial reasons
You don't have those financial restrictions , for one you have an iphone or computer etc to post

@ilovesooty other peoples choices oftem do cost the taxpayer though so therefore do affect everyone
Every choice we make affects someone potentially thats how the world revolves

@ilovesooty my choice to have kids full stop has potentially cost the tax payer money , I'm not silly enough to think none of my choices affect anyone else
If people who don't work at all for no reason other than they keep having children then yes that affects the-taxpayer , what if everyone done that ? It wouldn't be sustainable

I have 11 children so .......
Anyways I'm out, I wasn't the one that turned the thread onto large families. Everyone is taking everything personally not just myself, it seems that healthy debate has become sour.

@HarrysNeighbourhood well thats your choice isn't it and your the one who brought up your families side , you quoted me first remember criticising my choice not the other way around

I actually agree with the premise of what you're saying.

If you don't have financial security and are struggling financially you don't plan to have more children and then even more.

There absolutely are people who had kids and then circumstances change. I know that - I just have the 1 DS but experienced this.

There are people who do have genuine contraceptive failures (again me!) and even have coil failure and pregnancy.

Abortion isn't everyone's choice.

Some people are assaulted even within marriage.

But I'd love to know the statistics of hat percentage of larger families who are financially struggling from the moment number 4/5/6 etc were born come from these categories.

And what percentage of those have made that active choice to continue a family or not protect against pregnancy despite their circumstances.

I think those who could control the circumstances far outweigh those who found themselves unlucky.

I notice OP has spent most of the time replying to semantics about her previous posts, but not addressed the several points raised about eugenics and who gets to decide which parents should or should not have children.

Ultimately we are mammals and driven to a greater or lesser degree by our hormones to reproduce. Obviously life puts other things into our existance which may, or may not, interfere with that drive, and affect whether we decide we want to give them up in exchange for children, and some people are overwhelmed by a unwavering need to have a child, maybe several times over. But everyone who actually has them makes the best of it, whatever their circumstances. Its a legal human right to enjoy a family life, if thats what we choose. And very few people who have their children would decide they would rather give them up for a few more pounds in their pockets. Some have them so that there will be someone to look after them in their old age - in many cultures this is an accepted fact and not the kneee jerk horrified response of us in the west - and you could argue that many many children's contributions to unpaid care for their parents in later life more than compensates for any benefits that may have been paid whilst they were children.

What is sometimes lost in the 'argument' / discussion about having children, is that society as a whole gets to benefit from the families that people sacrifice their time and life to raise and nurture. The children in our schools today are the taxpayers and (hopefully) well educated law abiding citizens of tomorrow who will input their future skills into all sectors of industry and commerce.

That's why it's in the government's best interests to support families who are struggling. Instead they do daft things like pull the plug on childcare support, close down Sure Start centre etc, when they should be prioritising those facilities because that should be the fabric of our society.