aibu in thinking that the couples on the news

[TheUsefulSuspect]

shouldn't have had a first child, let alone a second if they think there 1 Bedroom flat is insufficient.

Why do they think they deserve to be rehoused?

"Does everyone, in every situation, have the right to have children?"

Yes, runnybottom, they do- even if my view is that they should never have a child. Some other people have a view that those with learning disabilities should never have a child. Some believe that gay people should never be able to have a child. Individual views are no basis for state policy on something which infringes on human rights.

You know as well as I do that if the state 'drew the line', the only way they could do that is through forced sterilisation and/or terminations. Would you want to live in a society which did this to any of its citizens? I wouldn't.

wow - i'm just reflecting on baby jesus now - was he poor or homeless - intially he was born poor but did not stay that way?? his parents got richer after he was born because they were bestowed with gifts, or so the story goes. Would you have drawn the line with baby jesus?

runnybottom - the comment about bedsits was that sometimes the size of a bedsit in the UK would be considered a generously sized home in other cities - that's all.

Don't worry mumcentreplus, I'm off to bed in a minute

IVF is definitely relevant. It's hugely expensive. It's paid for because the government recognises the importance of children to society/the happiness of people/as a human right. Of course it's fucking relevant!

As for maternity leave. We don't have paid goverment mat leave in Australia. And every time it's brought up, do you know what the argument against it is?

"Oh, having children is a personal choice. If you can't afford it, use a condom. I'm sick of people expecting the government to fund their lifestyle choices. I didn't have a child till I could afford to support it myself."

It's the same argument! Just because you lot are used to maternity leave being provided doesn't mean it's a totally different matter. Maternity leave, like social housing, welfare benefits, public health and the rest, are paid for by tax payers money that goes into the pot and is redistributed according to the perceived social good.

"Oh, but everyone can get maternity leave/NHS services/etc so it's different". Well, no. People WITH CHILDREN can get maternity leave. If having a child is a choice and personal responsibility, why should the childless taxpayer have to fund it?

Because we as a society think it is in the public good to ensure that children are educated, fed, have their health taken care of, etc. We as a society are willing to redistribute wealth to ensure that happens.

Well, as a single-child-having, fulltime working, taxpaying, personal-sacrifice-to-ensure-a-certain-lifestyle-making poster, I'm also perfectly happy to fund the adequate housing of otherwise overcrowded and miserable children. Because I don't feel the need to punish tiny children for the perceived misdeeds of their parents.

Blimey, first time on MN I have seen Baby Jesus drawn into the argument !

Seriously, these "rights" we are talking about, shouldn't they be the "rights" of a child to have a decent life? To have responsible parents who have the wherewithal to look after him/her properly?

I agree there are circumstances in which having a child is not sensible Yes...when having more children is not sensible Yes...but at what point will you say to a woman she cannot give birth to her child?..who would make this decision?..when and where is the cut-off point?..how would you force these people to not get pregnant!?...because it's a friggin fact that money or the lack of does not end or cause human procreation..are we talking some kind of stange utopian world where everyone has enough money and space?

me too tethersend...[winks]

Mumcentreplus, I never argued that we should dictate how many children someone should have, just that there should be a limit to how many the taxpayer should support.

There is contraception. There is no longer a valid reason for a woman to find herself endlessly pregnant. If you have a couple of dcs alreadly, a 2 bed house and no money, why would you WANT to put yourself in that position?

Porto, I hear what you are saying, and I agree with you completely, but I have a feeling you are farting in the wind here.

You're probably right expat, but it's nearly bedtime. I like the debate!

Portofino, why have you put rights in inverted commas?

Children have a right to a decent life.

Adults have the right to procreate.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

"responsible parents who have the wherewithal to look after him/her properly?"

As mumcentreplus says, who would decide which parents were responsible- before they were even parents?

And is 'wherewithall' the same as 'money'?

Because there's this strange idea, tether, that rights go hand in hand with responsibilities - to oneself, to one's family, to one's community and to one's society.

But there seems to be to some posters that there are more than a few who believe there is only the one, rights, and not the other.

And when this happens a society can develop some rather serious problems.

"there should be a limit to how many [children] the taxpayer should support."

So, say the limit is two.

What about the third and fourth child's right to a decent life?

Or do they starve in order to teach their mother a lesson because she didn't have a 'valid reason' to find herself endlessly pregnant?

Isn't it pretty contradictory, Portofino, to say a) that there exists rights of a child to have a decent life AND b) there should be a limit to how many the taxpayer should support?

If my next door neighbour, for the most frivolous reason you care to invent (um, as a bizarre form of gambling?), has ten children he can't support, those children have just as much right to a decent life as my single, conceived after several years of saving and training for a career and paying down the mortgage, daughter does.

All of them, not just the first two. How you can condemn those children to poverty for the sins of their fathers is beyond me.

I don't either tethersend, as I said earlier,I'm talking about attitude. I don't think there should be any state policy for preventing people from having children, but neither do I think the state should facilitate endless rights for those who don;t take responsibility.

expat, this "responsibilities go with rights" thing is empty rhetoric.

How would you remove the right of someone to have children because s/he took no responsibility for their actions?

Expat, I don't think anyone's saying that there are no such things as responsibilities. I bet all of us arguing against population control are ourselves pretty responsible providers.

I see it as my responsibility to help provide for those in more need than I. I accept that this isn't Utopia, and there will always be some people whose needs outstrip their means. Luckily mine don't, so I'll share.

Most people dont Porto but for those who do...I'm more than willing to pay for those children to have a decent life, should they suffer?..because untimately that is who this money is for fuck the parents!...as I have said before why are we legislating or contemplating such for the few?....if only everyone could do the right thing...hahaha

Great minds think alike, tortoise

"[...] but neither do I think the state should facilitate endless rights for those who don;t take responsibility."

How do you remove those rights then?

'expat, this "responsibilities go with rights" thing is empty rhetoric.'

And that is precisely what is going so awry in so many ways with this society.

There is no longer a belief in anyone's else's anything except their own personal desires. Personal desire becomes tantamount, and any suggestion of entertaining responsibility, even to oneself let alone society, becames unconscionable; an anathema to the supreme self, with the perception that even that mere suggestion is an attempt to de-humanise a person entirely.

Porto said it herself: this was not a discussion on removing someone's rights to procreate but on limiting the supply of public funds to do so.

No, wherewithal is not the same as money. I said earlier in the thread that my gps brought up 7 children in a small house, on a postman's wages and still managed to send some of their dcs to Grammar School, with all the expense that must have entailed. My DH's family was much the same. They obviously had much more "wherewithal" than I could muster in a crisis!

Thing was, they did it themselves. It must have been bloody hard work, but they never expected to be rehoused by the council. Or to get benefits from the Govt. Nowadays, we expect this as a "right". Inverted commas.

I honestly think that when you think about procreating, you have to think about the life that you will provide for that child. Things go wrong, I know, but that should be when and where help is needed. Not at the start.

Or rather, limiting the supply of public funding to support one's desire to procreate as one wishes.