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.

And yes, there have always been very rich people - e.g. Victorian Britain. That wasn't a very nice place either.

"we took a decision that we were fucked anyway so extending our fuckedness another couple of years wasn't the worst thing to do"

Snap.

Moral dilemma WWYD - you are on benefit for a long term health condition, you are married, DH has just lost his job due to caring responsibility - BUT you can't get carer's allowance because you can't get DLA.

Your contraception fails - you are pregnant.

Tis a very good point Toccata. Life WAS much harder in the past. And the Wars and rationing made things harder too. I guess the difference is people were more stoic and felt less entitled. Awful things happened then, and awful things happen now.

If take my own upbringing, to avoid cliche ; I was brought up on a council estate by my grandparents (mother died young). I don't claim any poshness, but passed 11+ and went to Grammar School. I did alright, but mostly down to my GPs having extreme views on education: if you look thick you won't pull a doctor

That same council estate where I lived til i was 19 is now a sink estate, that needs to be patrolled by armed police! What the feck happened in 20 years?

I have made a choice to be welfare dependant and having made that choice I left a good career in social work to stay at home and be welfare dependant.

Of course I seriously doubt that the two SN children I care for and the other four (two of whom will probably be diagnosed with an ASD in the future) will see my decision as morally wrong but hey ho,what would they know.

The nightly feasts of lobster and other rich foods washed down with expensive wines whilst I watch the latest blueray DVD on my 150" flat screen TV (all paid for with my huge welfare payout of course) help to take away the pain and felings of shame at being at home to look after my children

Trickle - what a difficult situation; but I would have the baby.

thesecondcoming - may I ask you a question, given that you planned your family (ie. not a failure of contraception, etc.): do you think you would've planned to have another child if there was a limit placed on benefits given, say, at 2 children (I don't know how many DC you have, of course). I simply ask, as a critic of the system might suggest that your planning was enabled by the welfare state.

My point is that the very rich have little impact on society. They will always seek off shore status and do whatever the feck they like.

The trouble these days is the ways that schools catchment works. This is to the advantage of the middle class who can move more freely, and spend lot of Sundays in church if need be. (Or find ways to cheat)In areas that still have 11+, it seems you have to tutor, hence maybe excluding children from poorer families who might have done well (like me).

more stoic - but to what end?

It transpired after 65 years of "happy" marriage when my gran died that my granddad was actually pretty unhappy in his marriage. My gran, it turns out, what as actually quite a vicious (verbally) women and very controlling. He was stoic through it all.

My mum agreed to let my dad back (after he'd walked out), "for the children, and because it was the right thing to do" - even though he was emotionally and verbally abusive towards her. She wasn't happy (still isn't - but is stuck there now he's her carer and she can't live independently) and we weren't particularly happy as children when the arguments flared up, and my dads vocal temper came out. But she was stoic and put up with it.

Six children, ILIVE?! You must work very hard to look after them. I can barely cope with one! As Peachy and others point out, you are undoubtedly saving the state money in caring for your SN kids yourself. Best of luck to you.

"I simply ask, as a critic of the system might suggest that your planning was enabled by the welfare state. "

True - but it's one that kind of falls slightly flat really when you look at the global and historical picture. Poor people have ALWAYS (and will continue to do so) had children even if they won't get any extra support towards them.

Ah, ok, Portofino. I do agree with you about the education business. Terrible mess and hard to see how it could be fixed.

But I do disagree about the rich. The rich have an enormous impact on society, not least politically. How could this not affect things?

My granparents weren't happy either. They are still together in their 80s. But the relationship is not abusive.

Ok to really push the boat out! Would you say taxpayers should support an individual because they were not happy with the choice they made, and have changed their mind?

Yes, that's certainly true, Toccata.

But one could argue that - from a global or historical perspective - that was the result of:

• no access to contraception
• the need to have children to support you in your old age, etc.

rather than as a result of what we would call "family planning" - and thesecondcoming was talking about family planning. So I was interested to know if her planning would've been different if less money (and I am under no illusions that the money is that much, btw) were forthcoming under the system, iyswim.

thesecondcoming - I do not think for a moment that you "did it for the cash"!!! It's hardly a money-spinner.

Thanks for answering my question.

I don't know - tax payers are about to help me because I made a choice I am subsequently unhappy with. There is nothing stopping me staying here in this relationship, we're getting along ok (as well as can be expected I suppose). I could (in theory) just put up and shut up with his behaviour/lifestyle. It would save the taxpayer money. But I would be unhappy. I think a happier society is a more productive one - so yes I do - and I'm sure the right to be supported in "choices" must fall under the Human Rights Act somewhere along the line.

I'm certain I will be (a little further along the line) a much better contributor towards soceity "undoing" the choice I made last year than if I stayed here.

I suppose it's easier to look at it about what we'd want for our children.

I wouldn't want any of my lovely DS's to spend their life unhappy because they had no choice, even if that choice means relying on someone else in the short term. (disclaimer - I would NOT be happy if any of them became an intentionally lazy bum)

thesecondcoming - you nearly ruined my monitor (spat tea all over it)

Penthesileia - Thanks for the relpy (actually it's nice to hear) it was a very difficult decision, just waiting for LO to put in an appearance.

Life is so many shades of grey and I have to admit to being more than a little ashamed of having a child while wefare dependant - which makes me overly defensive too gah!. I just couldn't have an abortion, I didn't feel able to make that choice.

We don't even support family in their old age though. We expect the state to do that too! And moan if they dare spend our inheritance.... I am going on recent threads here.....

you could indeed argue that - but when I lived in Zim I knew many people who planned a family because they wanted children, not to support them in old age - indeed many of them said they expected their children to find a way to leave the country when they were old enough - and they certainly had access to contraception.

They made a concious choice to have children because they wanted children.

Thing is, Trickle, IMO, once a baby is on the way, it's not about you being welfare dependent (and clearly, in your situation, you have absolutely nothing to be ashamed about); rather, the state has a duty of care to your LO, as a person. You have to be supported to look after your LO.

That's why - although I was interested to hear more about thesecondcoming's thinking - I fundamentally do not think that there should be a cap on the number of children, etc. Why should the children suffer unduly?

Portofino - I think it would depend on the choice, and position from which that choice was made. A lot of choices - on examination - turn out not to be choices at all.

oooooo there was a thread about "choices" the other day and someone saying that there is always a "choice" and people who say otherwise are lying, or thick, or something such like

Tocatta, sorry you are lovely, and I am not intentionally getting at you. I suppose that I am trying to make the point that all this was set up do one thing ie prevent starvation and provide healthcare free at source, and today people expect it to be the catch all for all situations. But don't want to pay for it either....