Thrad about a thread and happy todeclare it: 'everyone knows being welfare dependent is morally wrong'. No it'snot, only if you choose that. Otherwise it is luck dependent and

[BethNoireNewNameForPeachy]

luck can't make you morally wrong. It just is.

If your employer goes under, you are not morally wronng.

If your pension plan colapses three years before you retire, you are not morally wrong.

If you are sick,or a carer, or any of a lot of other things- you are not morally wrong.

Passing random judgements in a way that can hurt people is, however, IMO morally wromng.

Please someone tell me why people don't just get that?

And no I don'tcare I broke MN tradition by starting a thread about a thread, first I remember breaking in nigh on a decade and am angry. Arrrrghhhhhhh.

If this gets deleted, so be it.

its all morals innit Mumcentreplus

Well I have to say I could only afford one, and would not have a second as I could not afford to support it. So there is an argument that you don't have the "right" to complete your family when you know full well the only way you can do so is with benefits. This is not what the system was set up for.

There is a difference to me to finding yourself in a position, say after death or redundancy where you need help - hell you shoud get lots of help - to saying, well I'm home so I might as well have another baby, the taxpayer will cough up after all....That IS morally wrong to me.

Porto - that makes sense, I wouldn't usually go ahead and have a baby while on benefits/when I couldn't afford it. However, I personally an pro-life (well I'm pro-choice actually - but for myself there's no choice - if you end up pregnant you're pregnant end of), when the MAP failed there was no going back for me.

however - what if someone "can't afford" even one child - should they be then denied the right to become a parent?

oooo it's a tricky one

Parenthood isn't a right.

But again - have to add, I don't have any beef with anyone living within the rules. If the govt says you can claim, then fair enough. As an individual I totally understand why you want to do this.

no it's not a right - but even before the welfare state poor people still had children, not giving people money doesn't stop them having children. It's a "natural" thing to do.

I contradict myself. Parenthood is a right! I was having a brain fart and posted before I'd finished my thinking...

Btw: I am a firm believer in the welfare state. It is the mark of a civilised society, imo, and it ought - in many cases - to be more generous. I would pay more tax for that (and before anyone jumps in, I am a mid-rate taxpayer, so yes, I do pay tax).

I dislike intensely the "dog in a manger" attitude which many have towards it.

penth. I'm not sure it is a right per se - but I do think it's a natural thing that people do, and even if tomorrow you said "if you're on benefits or a low income and have a child the state will not give you any extra money to support them".........people would still have children - ie deliberately or "accidentally"

"either" not ie

It IS a tricky one! The Daily Mail part of my inner being might be convinced that you only have dcs if you can afford to bring them up, but I know full well that real life throws up a multitude of complications.

But as Penthesileia say, parenthood is NOT a right. Maybe it's just because it is easy these days. Used to be consequences for getting PG out of wedlock. So people were more careful. Wasn't so easy to partner hop, so maybe you were a bit more choosy about who you shacked up with.

And I know you can't legislate for all the bastards out there. But surely women's lib and all the new opportunties should statistically even things up a bit? These days, why should we have MORE women bringing up children on the breadline.

Any rage I have, I save for the super-rich tax dodgers and corporations which avoid tax. I seriously don't understand why people who rage on about being a taxpayer and funding scroungers on the benefits system (and how much that pisses them off and so on ad nauseam) don't stop and ask themselves why they don't feel more aggrieved that they - the middle earners, the hard-working people of Britain (blah blah blah) - possibly pay more tax than any number of rich people who find ways of avoiding it. Now that pisses me off.

"Used to be consequences for getting PG out of wedlock. So people were more careful. Wasn't so easy to partner hop, so maybe you were a bit more choosy about who you shacked up with."

hmmm not sure about all of that. Plenty still got pregnant, they either had what we would now deem as "back street" abortions, or were forced to give up their babies, people stayed in psychically, emotionally and financially abusive relationships because domestic violence and other abusive behaviour was considered something to "put up" with etc etc.

And poor people who got it "right" (ie got married to genuinely nice bloke and had baby within the marriage) still had babies even though they had no money.

Of course the poorer have always paid "more tax" as a proportion of their income.

You ARE right Pen, but just because the rich buggers get away with stuff, that doesn't give everyone carte blanche to do what they want.

At the end of the day, the behaviour of the superrich just affects the amount of tax in the pot. If the people at the other end just carry on on a cycle of benefits, that has big knock on effects on society - health, crime levels, education etc etc. It is right in mho that attention is also paid to this.

Please note, I changed my stance (almost immediately! ).

Parenthood is a right - see here.

What we're debating, I suppose, is what constitutes a viable family if you're in need of support. Without meaning to be provocative, I do wonder about people having children whilst on benefits (I mean more whilst on benefits, iyswim) - it just seems so hard, such a struggle. And hard for the kids too, at times, I should think, though I know - from what I read on MN - how much people strive to make sure that their kids have what they need, even if they, the parents, go without.

Portofino - see, I actually see it the other way round, if you like. The "knock on effects" as you say, are not the consequence of the welfare state - but the consequence of growing inequality between rich and poor. A huge gap between the top and the bottom is what's "bad" for society.

I DO agree Toccata. I don't advocate back street abortion and domestic violence, but there were higher moral standards once. How do you get the balance? I have no clue really.

I think what it boils down to WRT having kids while on benefits is, if you are willing to make sacrifices for your kids then that's fine. If you aren't then it's not.

But then that's the same for all levels of earnings, you can be earning loads and still not looking after your kids.

Porto I don't think it's higher moral standards, just different.

Pen, I don't agree with you. There have ALWAYS been rich people. The inequality lies now between the middle class and the poor. How many threads do you see on here about school catchments...?

were their moral standards higher - or does our nostalgia get in the way.

It's bit like the nostalgic way people (often older people) remember the "golden age" of their childhood.

When in fact in their "golden age" of childhood children had no rights, corporal punishment still existed in schools, forced emigration of children, pressure on umarried mothers to give up their children, enforced isolation of hospitalized children, and of course the fact that people's experience of their childhood/life when they were younger are different depending on their social and parental backgrouds.

Hmm, not sure about the moral standards. Society may have been more conservative, and compelled its members to follow suit, which may have appeared more moral. But, for instance, people forced into loveless marriages in order to have sex? (cf. my PIL ). No thanks.

Sorry, Portofino - I don't quite follow you. Could you expand, please? My point, to repeat myself boringly, was that there is plenty of evidence that societies with large gaps between top and bottom are not healthy ones. This is not the fault, imo, of the welfare state.