Women shouldn't be criticised for wanting to be a mum regardless of circumstances?

[poshsinglemum]

If that's what she wishes or if that's what she is able to do.

I am sick and fed up with reading things that if couples (or singles) can't afford children etc they shouldn't have them. If women are too young or old that's also wrong.Also if you dare to have too many (or indeed too few) children that also set tongues wagging.
People are so hung up on money.

So basically the only women who are entitled to breed are rich women with loving husbands. And then they have to do it age 29.5 and are only allowed 2 children; preferably a boy and a girl! Daddy has to be a doctor or lawyer and of course, doting.

IMO having dd was a deep biological need and nothing to do with logic at all. I think that most women have similar needs but havn't met the right person or something like that. Or they wait until everything is perfect and then it is too late. Us mums need to be celebrated regardless of our circumstances.

Mabe it's a male thing to make sure that only the ''strongest'' give them offspring?

We couldn't have afforded to have a child without tax credits and child benefit. Age wise we were perfect, married, etc. If we waited until we had enough in the bank to cover rent and bills for 8 months we would both have been pushing 40. YANBU, to an extent. The 'magic, perfect' formula for having a child (two parents, money in the bank, careers on track) often doesn't happen and so people should not be panned for having babies anyway.

However - I wouldn't say it's a good idea to have baby after baby if, for eg, you live in a 2 bed flat with no hope of moving, or you are chronically unemployed, or you have had other children removed or you struggle to parent them effectively. I don't feel bad about taking state handouts to have my boy since I'm a professional who will pay plenty into the pot over the years and who will be working for many many more years than she's claiming help.

OP YANBU but many here will think you are.

It is irresponsible to have children unless you can afford to look after them. Once here, however, for the sake of the child we should all chip in to look after it.

It is because we all have to pay taxes to look after children whose parents cannot afford them that it is unacceptable to have children without the resources to feed and clothe them.

I am not criticising anyone who falls on hard times once they have children: clearly the tax payer should foot the bill. And I don't think that there is any need to have money to buy luxuries or holidays. All I would ask is that before having children they can't afford people bear in mind that it is the rest of us who have to pay.

I think that's quite a selfish attitude OP (& you are being a bit silly re: the right criteria), your circumstances may not be good for a child right now. I was desperate for children, but I waited until I was able to bring a child up in a beneficial environment. Some decisions aren't just yours, in fact the way I see it, as soon as you think about getting pregnant, every decision you make belongs to someone else (your child).

Of course a woman has a right to have a baby. But she also has the responsibility to feed, clothe and shelter the said baby.
It's not the responsibility of the state.

Nobody has the right to have a baby. Of course we are biologically programmed to want or even to need to reproduce but that is not the same thing.

Children are a lifestyle choice, there are not a right.

I disagree that all people are hung up on money, its not about being rich its about providing for the children you choose to have. Tax payers should not have to pay for others lifestyle choices.

Age does play a part, young teens should not be having children and neither should 60 year olds.

Waiting until you are in a secure long term relationship and able to provide for your child through working is the adult thing to do.

"I am sick and fed up with reading things that if couples (or singles) can't afford children etc they shouldn't have them."
My first thought reading that was, well who is supposed to pay for the children's needs then? Are you saying that people should just go ahead and have children knowing full well that they can't afford to support them? I know that some people do of course... Isn't there some argument for people taking full responsibility, including financial responsibiity, for their own actions?
I have a lot of sympathy for people who through no fault of their own find themselves in a situation where they need some support from the state for themselves and their families. I'm not sure that I feel the same about people who just go ahead and have babies knowing from the outset that they can't afford to support them.
So, having thought that through, I don't think that people should have children if they can't afford them.

I am steadfastly sitting on the fence on this

posh what about if the woman's circumstances are that her partner objects to having a/another child?

This is a genuine Q btw - my miserable fecking git of a DP is dead against, and I'm struggling with that "deep biological need" (desire might be a better word) to have a second child...

I agree with wannabe and oiteach.

Some people have a biological need to have sex with children, or steal, or kill someone.

We can't just go indulging our every biological need because, well, that's nature.

Sorry, but I think YABU. I do think that anyone who chooses to have children should be able to provide for their basic needs. I don't mean they need to be a 2-car family with a 3-bed semi in surburbia and holidays abroad, but I think they should have a roof over their heads (rented, council house, owned, whatever) and enough money coming in to pay for food, bills and clothes (second hand if necessary).

I think having children before you are in this position is selfish. The welfare state should be there as a safety net in case of illness, redundancy etc. And, yes, the NMW should be higher so that the majority of people can choose to have a child. But I don't believe that everyone has an absolute right to have children, regardless of circumstances.

The most important thing is fulfilling your child's needs and wants and giving them a reasonable life. In every way - not just financially. If you can't do that don't have children. That has to come a long way before any 'deep biological need'.

To the OP:

What if there was no welfare state?

Would you still think people who couldn't afford to support a child should have children in those circumstances?

in other words, should they have children even if that child was going to go hungry/not be properly clothed/etc?

if so, then you're advocating people deliberately having children knowing they will often be hungry etc.

if not, then you are saying that people who can't afford children should have them, and everyone else should pay to support them.

I agree with you to some extent - DP and I lived together when we decided to have DS, in a rented house. We each had a decent wage, and decided that we could manage to have a child, and would manage with me having 9months maternity(as a civil servant 6m of that was full pay, so the last 3 months would have been a bit harder). Turned out ds has severe haemophilia, so I couldn't go back to work at all, so we now have only DP's wage, and have benefits which make up my income. This is how it's likely to be for another 2-3 years. So, when we made the decision, we could more or less afford to have a child and not be a drain on the state; but circumstances changed and it turns out now that we are. If that happens, people shouldn't be shouted down for it.

However, I don't agree with the attitude that, it doesn't matter if I don't have a big enough house/enough money to keep these children because the state will pay. That is just an irresponsible attitude to have wrt having children. I had a friend who had 1 child, and lived in a 2 bed council flat. She had a second, then went on to try for a third. Her attitude was, "well, when i have the baby the council will have to give me a bigger house" which I totally disagree with. She had hardly worked at all so paid very little in, and was expecting the world and his dog to pay for her to have her "ideal family of 5 kids"
I'm not saying this is what you're saying OP, just that it's the reason people make these remarks about "not affording children". You're right, there is more to making the decision to have children than just money, but in most cases it plays a pretty big part.

You are completely and utterly unreasonable.
I don't mind paying taxes so that a family who loses their income stream when children are already born can support their offspring, however, it is totally and utterly irresponsible for people to deliberately get pregnant when they have no visible means of financial support.

Sorry, but it is.

"Deep biological need" my a**e, I have a deep biological need to run around Harrods' naked- do I do it? No, I do not.

YABU. If you want to have a child you need to be able to afford to raise it IMO.......why should I pay for someone else's child to be fed and clothed when I have my own to pay for?!

YABU

there are circumstances where the desire to have children is ultimately selfish and being selfish is criticism worthy.

But I rarely think those circumstances have much to do with money.

Surely it's selfish pretty much all the time? I had always assumed most people had kids because THEY wanted to, not because of some altruistic motive. I mean the world probably doesn't need any more people right now.

I guess the best thing to do when the old deep biological need comes knocking would to be to try and foster or adopt a child which is already there.

Of course we are responding to a need/desire will always be selfish.
If I give money to charity a big part of that is that it will make me feel great but that does not negate entirely the good will part of the gesture.

But to have a child in a situation where the childs security and comfort are likely to be severely affected by the mothers circumastances is selfish enough to be the over riding concern.

Or do we think that an 87 year old alcoholic drug user, living in a box with a violent partner and anger issues herself should be free from any criticism?
Of course that is a silly example and I think broadly that loving capeable people should do what they like. But, in an age where IVF is available almost on demand, to suggest that desire is the only criteria is silly

I'll link to them

ThePixiesMadeMeDoItTiggaxx

Bugger wrong thread - lets blame a heavy Friday shall we.

FirstTimeI'veDoneThatSorryOPTiggazz

There's such a sense of entitlement amongst some people!
I don't think you should bring children into the world when you know you wont be able to support them. Other people have to work long hours to pay the taxes that will pay for those children. In what way is that fair?

It's also not fair on the kids to bring them into the world if you can't give them the opportunities they deserve.

People recieve criticism for this because they're not the only part of the equation. They're the ones who are being unreasonable for putting their urges above the needs of other people in society and most importantly of their children.

For the record I'm not against benefits, but I think recipients need to get over their sense of fucking entitlement. Not supporting yourself (aside from for health reasons, unforseen redundancy etc) is fucking shameful and should be treated as such.

Or, what hopalongdagger said