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?

I think we're all mostly in agreement here, though I can only speak for myself. I have no wish to remove support from children of feckless wasters. If they have the right to have as many kids as they want without even room for a bed for them though, I certainly have the right to judge my arse off at them.

I'd love to stay and chat but DS will be up at 6 so I have to get some sleep.

Of course expat, because in the olden days, people only had as many children as they could afford...

Workhouse anyone?

"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[sic] anathema to the supreme self, with the perception that even that mere suggestion is an attempt to de-humanise a person entirely."

If any part of this were true, we would have anarchy. We don't.

The implications for society are exactly what worries me about allowing the state to decide who can and can't reproduce.

tethersend '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.'

If she avails herself of the free contraception thenthee wouldn't be a third, fourth, fifth etc.

The best contraceptive available to me and my friends as teenagers in the early 80's was the lack of free housing and benefits!

Having sex is a choice and there's free contraception. Why should the taxpayer have to pick up the tab. I'm probably farting in the wind here too.....

runnybottom, I am most certainly not in agreement with you here. Far from it.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was.

Do you not honestly think that if there was a cut off, people would think twice about having the next child?

Maybe I am totally wrong and that others really don't think rationally about how they will feed and look after their children.

Oh of course you do! Freedom of speech and all that. It's the people arguing to remove public assistance from children of large families that's worrying me.

And I'm sorry, expat, but this is nonsense:

"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".

Does that apply to you? You don't believe in anything except your personal desires? Clearly not, otherwise you wouldn't be making this argument. It doesn't apply to me, either, or to anyone (over the age of 5) that I know. Sure, some people make choices that are weighted differently from you. Some people make horrendously selfish choices in many areas of their lives (I think I will drink this bottle of wine even though I'll lose my job, I think I will hit my girlfriend to make me feel better, I think I will steal this watch because it is shiny). But this idea that it's a) universal or b) on the increase, is just total nonsense.

NO ONE is saying don't procreate.

What some are saying is for state resources to support children should be a safety net and discussing the possibility of limiting such resources.

But there can never be a discussion of that at all without others coming and accusing such posters of wanting to bring back workhouses and sterilise the poor.

So again, farting in the wind, in an era in which, unlike the times of the workhouse, there is plentiful and free contraception, women don't have to remain with partners they find untenable and the legal age to work is 16.

I'm off to bed.

"If she avails herself of the free contraception thenthee wouldn't be a third, fourth, fifth etc."

And if she doesn't? What then?

YOU think it's nonsense, tethers.

Others don't.

I happen to take it very seriously.

Night night.

runnybottom - i'm interested to know - what eaactly are the endless rights being facilitated that you mention?

Yes and who would be deemed responsible parents- i,e high flying bankers who achieved great earnings by assisting in the operation of sub-prime mortgages causing others to become homeless or at least suffer financially?

I think Bhudda was also a fan of the
outdoor life - might be considered homeless too???

I'm also struggling with how you could support children yet at the same time saying "fuck" their parents??

If the primary purpose of society is not to ensure that all citizens are able to reproduce themselves and raise those children with at least some minimum level of dignity, then I actually don't understand why we even bother to have a society.

Who accused you of wanting to bring back workhouses? I used the workhouse as an example of what happened to the children of families who could not afford them.

I want to know what happens to those third and fourth children whose parents fecklessly had them knowing they would receive no state support. Do they starve?

I said nonsense, not tethers.

Some state resources are already limited. You have to demonstrate need, to be rehoused, and there's a huge waiting list, right?

The ones that aren't limited, and I sound like a broken record, are the ones that us nice middle class people access as well. Wouldn't it make more sense, if we're trying to lower the deficit, to restrict state schooling to people under a certain income? Or maternity leave? After all, if you CAN afford private schools or private health insurance or whatnot, shouldn't you pay for it? Responsibility comes with rights, and all.

err... expat, I never said anything was nonsense

I think you meant that for tortoise.

"I actually don't understand why we even bother to have a society."

Shall we abolish it?

Perhaps we should take a vote...

Why do the bankers get in here?

These things can never be retrospective. I would not even suggest such a thing. My suggestion much earlier was, fair enough everyone has the right to a family, so the minimum that everyone should have is housing and resources to adequately keep the "average" family - notionally 2 dcs. If you want to go beyond that, that is down to you.

Gah.

Am off to bed.

Enjoyable debate though... shall return tomorrow, by which time the thread will have moved on beyond all recognition

Am dying to know what happens to those surplus children though...

I bet bankers and Ickle Baby Jesus were never in the same thread before

I'm not sure you have any idea what my opinion is, but if you're quite sure we have no agreement, so be it.

I'm rather astounded that you have such a problem with the original thrust of this thread, which was the fact that people who have additional children without any space for them and then demand someone rehouse them are possibly not the world most responsible citizens.

Can people have as many children as they like and let someone else pick up the pieces? Yes. Can people rely on the welfare state to be a safety net for bad choices? Yes. No disagreement here, the children need looking after either way.
Do we all have to be complete happy about it and say well done, aren't you marvellous? Nope.

People don't have a right to a family & those that choose to breed should take responsibility for their actions. If you cant feed them dont breed them. Simples.

if only it was that Simples..

Zippy I din't mean to get nasty, so I will re-phrase that, one woman in Doncaster had a choice she chose th have 5 kids an she the set about neglecting and abusing them, her choice tough luck on her kids and their victims I guess

running with portofino's sugestion of financial limitation to 2 children.

we are back to personal responsability wheny ou ask what becomes of the 'surplus' children.

if you know that you would not get financial support from the government and you couldn't afford it - then don't have the children.

i don't see why this equation is so hard to understand.

you assess where you are at financially, emotionally, support wise. you make a decision as to whether its a good idea to bring a human being onto the face of the planet - and then assess whether you are fit enough in these areas to look after said child.

its not hard, even poor people do it.