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.

What if someone has a child at 16 when they’re too young and ignorant to realise the dole comes from other people’s taxes but they raise their child well and is an otherwise normal law abiding person? Would you still dislike someone like this?

It sounds like you're unhappy with your lifestyle and are suggesting that others should be as unhappy. You're just as welcome to have more children and claim benefits if you needed to. You sound quite angry that you've "chosen" to limit your family size but you don't really feel it's a choice, hence you're talking quite glibly about taking choice off of others. Society absolutely can afford to ensure every child is fed and clothed and educated, it's about whether we value spending our money on that.

True, but you should probably be able to budget for one of these things happening.

And tbh, you see some complaints coming from parents of 4+ kids about being stretched too thin with time and money and think, wtf did you expect?

We can luxuriously afford 2. Reasonably afford 3. I'd consider it a risk and a detrimental effect on any others to have 4.

Yes.

So what should they do? Use your words and actually may it out. Bully for you you never had an accidental pregnancy but some women are very fertile, so what are you proposing they do?

I do think individuals, both male and female can take more responsibility for contraception than they do if they are in circumstances where a baby/another baby would be catastrophic for them.

I would never say enforced termination but I do think if you use two forms of contraception together eg hormonal and condoms it is very unlikely to have an unwanted pregnancy. This is what we have done except for when actually trying for baby as I'm so paranoid about unwanted pregnancy.

If a baby would be such a hardship for a family, then I think just accepting that your choice of one type of contraception has worked (none of which are 100% accurate) , until you show symptoms of pregnancy is a bit irresponsible.

As I said above, I'd never suggest people be forced to terminate but I think many people can do more to actually prevent the unwanted pregnancy

I think that woman needs targeted support to help her earn enough to pay for the unwanted child and educating on contraception to ensure further mistakes don't happen.

I don't believe that it's the responsibility of the taxpayer to keep paying for mistakes. That's why the 2 child cap shouldn't be lifted.

I would personally terminate if it was me yes, I wouldn't ever want to force other women to so stop trying to trap me in the narrative you want me in.

Let me ask you niw: do you think as a society we can keep paying for people who aren't contributers to keep having DC paid for by people who are contributers? That working parents are paying to bring up DC of non-working parents? How long do you think we can afford to keep doing that?

Another one of those threads that just shouldn’t be controversial. If you cannot afford the basics a child needs- food, shelter, clothes etc, then no you should not have one. No child deserves to be raised to struggle like that and no decent parent should want to bring a child into the world to watch them struggle- very different if circumstances change once those kids are here, I am specifically talking about those who choose to have a child knowing this is the position they are in.

I am a parent and I can’t imagine many things worse than having to watch my children go hungry, force their feet into shoes that don’t fit or bodies into clothes that don’t really fit, have to say no every time they ask for anything etc. That really shouldn’t be controversial.

Nothing else to add OP?

Seemingly it is

Fair enough but what is the problem with living like that other than it being a waste of other people’s tax money which I understand the frustration but if someone was too young and ignorant to realise that then can you really hold it against them? Especially if they’re a normal law abiding person other than that?

Well, many of os DO NOT.

I’d rather my taxes go to solving climate change, protecting wildlife and the oceans or other causes than indulging the personal “wants” of non-contributing human moochers.

We aren’t unhappy with our lifestyles, we are unhappy with the lifestyles of selfish people who can’t control themselves any better than a stray cat.

Sex Ed starts very young in schools now. Again, very few excuses.

If they work to pay for that child then no issues at all. As has been said multiple times, it's the parents whose DC are already going without food/clothes/heat etc yet continue to have more DC which are the issue.

I'm gonna edit your question to the people you don't realise you're talking about and see how it sounds:

Let me ask you niw: do you think as a society we can keep paying for disabled people who aren't contributers to keep having DC paid for by people who are contributers? That working parents are paying to bring up DC of non-working disabled parents? How long do you think we can afford to keep doing that?

And my answer is Yes, which I've already stated. You keep skirting around stating that you want women (and men?) to take medication or have medical procedure they don't want, and not have children they want to have, so that the state can choose to spend it's money elsewhere.

I also think you calling living human children mistake sis pretty vile tbh. Thats the unhappiness coming through again.

It doesn't matter much how you call them. On a CoL thread two working parents in full employment with jobs requiring postgraduate degrees were struggling with two kids - no heating all year round and parents going without food. Should have they alined their expectations accordingly? And accordingly to what exactly? Next year will be worse than today, and no one really knows how much worse. So how exactly do you plan in a crashing economy? I'm really interested to know.

I don't understand your question. You have stated that if contraception fails the MAP is "easily available" to prevent unintended pregnancies.
It looks like you've realised that's a poor argument, but if not please explain how someone who has ovulated would know to get the MAP?

In my experience the people who say this are usually privileged and lack empathy and perspective.

I think this is fair.

Also re 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.

There's a big difference between saying that something isn't a good idea and actively policing it with the law. There are loads of things I think people should not do, that I still think should be legal. And in the case of kids you can't support, the state should definitely step up.

Please define a non contributing human moocher in a way that isn't totally discriminatory against disabled people.

Sex ed does yes but I was never told about taxes and how benefits come from other peoples taxes so can you really hate someone for having one child when they were too young and dumb to realise it bothered anyone else?

I get it if it’s a grown woman with 4+ kids by different men btw

So just to clarify, because I work and my children went to nursery from a year old, I don't know how to parent? What an odd view to have.

Bollocks, you are projecting.

I have a great life thanks.

Society absolutely CAN'T afford it, are you even aware of the national debt + cost of UC etc?? We aren't a wealthy country any more.

PPs said it well "We aren’t unhappy with our lifestyles, we are unhappy with the lifestyles of selfish people who can’t control themselves any better than a stray cat".

"If you cannot afford the basics a child needs- food, shelter, clothes etc, then no you should not have one. No child deserves to be raised to struggle like that and no decent parent should want to bring a child into the world to watch them struggle"

Sorry, who said a word about 'ditching benefits'?

What should they do? It’s not brain surgery. This is how many of us avoided becoming burdens to society:

Use (properly) two methods of contraception EVERY time. Be aware of their most fertile days and avoid penetrative sex on those days.Use the MAP if the condom slips. And plan to terminate if they “fall” pregnant.

oh, and maybe not fuck every feckless loser who gives them five minutes of attention.

Exactly. Life costs money and unless you are born with £1 million in the bank for your own personal use there's no guarantee you will be able to afford all parts of it. Most people just do what they can and ride the ups and downs as they come.