Don't have kids you can't afford!

[user793847984375948]

Hi all, this is meant to be an interesting discussion.

I keep seeing people say, “Don’t have kids if you can’t afford them.”

But in the UK, if someone works full-time on minimum wage, the state ends up paying thousands for childcare so that parent can work.
If that same parent stayed home, they would receive less support overall, yet they would be raising their own child hands-on. A single mum can work part-time and get rent and living costs for kids, around 500 a month in support if she works.

Nursery is about 1K a month usually. Then there's the wraparound care before and after school that could also be funded by UC.

So why is one scenario seen as responsible and the other as “sponging”?

Further, do people who say “don’t have kids you can’t afford” actually think only those earning £60k or more should have children, since that is roughly what it takes to cover childcare or a single income? That eradicates the above two scenarios and it's just those with independent wealth

If so, what would that mean for society long-term, both economically and socially? There would be fewer poor people over all and I think this would have an impact on our monetary system and menial jobs getting done.

And if you believe that only the wealthy should reproduce, you are effectively asking rich, white, powerful men to police women’s reproduction.
That is exactly what is happening in parts of America right now.

Genuinely curious how people justify this way of thinking.

So why can you not give an answer that at all takes into account their circumstances? You gave a vague answer about targeted help aimed at those who continue with pregnancies conceived on contraception or unconsensually to avoid "another mistake" without saying what that means at all. Let's not forget you started with the assertion it's basically impossible to fall pregnant accidentally, then dropped that when asked about technicalities
Then we absolutely can't afford to pay benefits to support children but you don't know the ins and outs of why. You wanna repeat an old eugenic dog whistle without understanding what you're even advocating or saying.

Do you support, in theory, any legal routes to preventing the poor from having children?

Or do you more just think they're spongers but hey ho, you wouldn't try to legally prevent it?

If it's the former then I don't think what I said is a non-sequitur, but I did assume that it would be the former for most people.

But you thought it was so wrong when I said we could afford it if we prioritised paying for it over other things? 🤔

And now we're back to you assuming any pregnancy a woman experiences is totally selfish
Not ANY but TOO MANY.

The number of pregnancies that occur despite following a very secure method of contraception adapted to the individual is quite low. The number of those that happen to women who are absurdly determinedly against abortion are even lower.

The numbers are too low to make a generalisation of their case. The nu.ber who get pregnant because they were either negligent with contraception, who want another child but don't admit to it openly because they know its nit the right thing to do, so refer to them as accidents, and who really have nothing against abortion but claim they could never consider it, are the higher numbers that are the problem to society.

The worst age to ruin psychological attachment.

nobody has said anything about forced contraception or sterilisation or forced abortion.

it’s about people stepping up and taking personal responsibility.

can you really not see that by choosing NOT to take every precaution possible, an individual is accepting they may have a child they cannot afford, who may end up living in poverty along with any other existing children?

That’s an INCREDIBLY selfish stance.

Why should a shiftless, ill-prepared person be able to “choose” to procreate and stay home for years on the backs of fellow citizens who ARE going out to work? That’s absolutely insane.

I don’t really care what she chooses or wants. We don’t need the offspring of people like that.

Yeah I'm talking about working parents too. I'm talking mainly about those on minimum wage.

So you think anyone on minimum wage should not have kids? So this means people choose either a minimum wage job OR kids.

If having children shouldn't only be for the rich how do you square this?

Without our welfare state it would completely prelude anyone on min wage from ever having a kid.

Can't get my head around your mindset really but that's why I made the post, for insight.

Have any?

So it puts the income requirement up to around 60K a year then.

Yeah so implying it's a moral failure if they don't, judging and dehumanising them if they don't, advocating that the state shouldn't support their children if they don't, is all advocating forced sterilisation or abortion. Coercion isn't consent.

I think the person, like yourself, shrugging their shoulders at a child living in poverty and basically saying it's their parents fault - sorry you have no dinner Timmy Mummy should have been more responsible and I don't want my taxes going there- is INCREDIBLY selfish.

"We don’t need the offspring of people like that" 🤢

I'm glad you're here in a way - I notice those denying any whiff of eugenics on here aren't exactly arguing you being so blatant about it.

Hopefully people progress off min wage at some point as they better themselves. Let them exercise self-discipline in the meantime.

Because our public sector is shoddily run - waste beyond comprehension.

We absolutely have money - we just don’t spend it wisely!

I did?

you even quoted me in a reply 🤣

Do you support, in theory, any legal routes to preventing the poor from having children?
It's not about being poor, it's about making choices that allow you to offer your child a financially secure upbringing.

An unplanned child born to two parents working FT, even on NMW, who continue to work and educate themselves will be OK and have much more to offer the child growing up. When they have increased their income and better their lifestyle, they can think of having a second one.

Ah but you didn't give them the answer they wanted so they will claim you haven't answered

If you exploit cheap labour, these countries are effectively colonies, wherever in the world they are.

The Poles are not so keen to wipe English asses anymore btw so you won't have much choice of colours.

You are repeatedly misusing the term “eugenics.” Unless you’re arguing that the choice to produce offspring one cannot afford is driven by biological genetics.

Either of which makes you sound ill-informed and unable to conduct a rational discussion.

When you said using a condom presumably means you've consented to an abortion if a pregnancy still occurs?

The worst age to ruin psychological attachment what a convenient argument....with of course no scientific evidence to support...

Yet there is plenty of evidence of poor outcome for children brought up in poor environment.

No I'm not actually given exactly what posters are advocating here (but don't want to say explicitly) HAS been enacted on poor and disabled and native or migrants populations in various eugenics programmes over the decades. It didn't happen at your school so you may not have heard about it.

We haven't said it because we don't mean it 🤯🫣

Assuming two working parents, that’s not unreasonable.

Or, couples on lower wage can save for a few years before TTC, like my parents did.

Nope just not given an answer on what you or PP mean by personal responsibility once a pregnancy has already occured.

OP, you are asking whether posters think poor people should never have children.

Do you think that parents reliant solely on benefits, with little to no prospect to better their income should have the moral rights to have as many as they wish, knowing they will be supported, albeit minimally, by tax payers?