To think you and your partner ar unemployed you shouldnt really be trying for another child...

[Nointhemood]

probably be flamed for this. But I know a couple who have two small young children under 3 and are trying for another even though neither have managed to find employment in the last few years. I would love to have another child but even with a dh in a job we couldnt afford it just doesnt seem fair.Im not saying that people on benefits shouldnt have children as each cicircumstance is different etc.But surely with a couple who can both work and aren't exactly childless there should be mor responsible. I feel really angry tbh that we can'y afford to have a child and wouldn't dream of it in their situation

YANBU. It's just wrong for parents to exercise their right to reproduce and expect for the state to pay for it.

Many of us would like more children, but are pragmatic and have to say 'no, we can't afford it...'

Maybe if people on the dole were paid a fixed salary instead of benefits that increase as you have more children then the situation would be addressed....

A sahm is an individual who has willingly made themselves financially dependent on another individual. Any decisions they make are provisional upon that individual's continuing abibilty to provide.

Also, as lemon points out, having children within a marriage is a joint decision, not one that should be made by individuals.

I don't think op is being u at all. Her friends are being complacent about the whole issue and see children as a right rather than a responsibility.

There is a clear case for stopping handouts after a certain number of children. What that number is could be contentious but children have to be brought up primarily by the familys resources. The state needs to be there and funded for emergencies and cases of need rather than being a long term source if income.

Well, I'm going to go against the mumsnet opinion and say that it is not on to have children that you know - when trying for them - you cannot provide for.

If you have children, and find your circumstances change - fair enough. If you are in a bad position and find yourself accidentally pregnant - fair enough, no contraception is 100% effective

But if you cannot provide for your children and you rely on state support (which is a lifeline for people in need -I know!) then is not on to carry on having child after child. It just isn't. It isn't fair on your existing children, it isn't fair on the new child, forget about it not being a fair burden on an already collapsing welfare system!

And people in 3rd world countries have big families when they have no money, yes, but those children are also relied upon to care for the parents in their old age, to feed and look after them! Plus, sad to say, having lots of children is no guarantee that they will survive so it is a totally different thing, different life, and not comparable.

I think that the system should change. However many children you have + 1 (or multiple birth!) should result in a £ increase. After that it should be food stamps and clothing vouchers etc etc.

Because at the end of the day, we are each responsible for our own families. State support is supposed to be a short term lifeline while you get back on your feet, or a lifeline for people who are unable to work. It should not be used for a growing family for their entire lives and it's really sad that there are people who view it thus and they should be helped and supported to see that there can be a different future for them.

I don't think the argument about those in developing countries or Leonardo da Vinci really holds water in this case - we are not comparing like for like, since access to contraception in Britain today is so straightforward compared to, say, African countries or 16th century Italy.

And I do agree very strongly with the rights/responsibilities argument: I think we are all far too fond of bleating on about our human rights and much less fond of accepting our responsibilities to society. It is clear from the news that the welfare state cannot continue as it is and I think we all need to accept that we can't continue to expect to have just what we want when we want it.

Am bemused by the 'why should the SAHM defer HER plans...' argument - er, presumably because she is part of a family unit and might want to make decisions that are the best for the whole family? As someone said, that argument is bizarrely bordering on the sociopathic!

I don't think you should plan to have children if you are already skint. Surprise pregnancies happen, but you shouldn't knowingly TTC if you are already struggling.

I think it's totally irresponsible.

YANBU- the welfare state was founded to be a safety net not a lifestyle choice. Its like turning up to the pub with no money and expecting everyone else to buy your drinks for you.

I'm with hecate too.

Very irresponsible to have a child knowing you can't or won't support it.

I firmly believe no extra benefits should be paid if you choose to be irresponsible. I hope this is addressed in the next round of welfare reforms planned by the Tories - they have already made a start but more is needed.

IMO too many people believe it is their right to procreate. It isn't a right, it's a choice that carries responsibilities, and if you can't fulfill those responsibilities don't have children. Or at the very least don't actively try to have them!

I'm with Hecate too. Also- what example are you setting your children? They will be born into a house where nobody goes to work. That just teaches them its OK for them not to work too.

I'm with hecate too. With bells on. YANBU

YANBU. Continual procreation is not a RIGHT, it is something to be considered. Having children when you expect others to pay for them isn't on.

Agree with OP. Fine to reproduce, but don't rely on the state. Benefits should be structured to ratchet down substantially for each subsequent child.

I'm with hecate. Don't get things you can't afford.
Plus, I'm a HUGE supporter of the no benefits for extra kids while on state support. Which is a completely different scenario for people who are made redundant etc.
But people who have never worked and then see fit to fuck away my taxpayers money providing generations of work for social workers, police and prisons need to be put a stop to.

i think YADBU!!!!

op what makes you think you have the right to decide if someone else can have children???

a few years ago my dp was made redundant. we decided he would take a year out from work and we would have our much longed for 2nd child. i had previously suffered from horrendous depression and needed him home with me to help. after 18months off he is now back in full time work on a vv nice salary and i am starting to think about going back in the near future.

for us things worked really well. i got the support i needed and coped so much better this time. once i felt ok in myself my dp then returned to work and is working all the hours under the sun again.

please dont judge everyone with the same book!! my dp has spent years paying tax and when we were in need, claimed some back.

from everyone else opinions on here they seem to think my beautiful dc2 should not be here .

Agree with OP and hecate, we are each responsible for our own families.

I imagine that if you can't see any way of building a life for yourselves where you're able to afford the finer things, to travel a bit maybe, help your DC out when they go to uni and so on, then in an odd way you may as well have baby after baby. You've got to get your kicks from somewhere, I guess.

I don't think it's disimilar to young girls who have babies because their horizons are so limited or they're lacking love.

I don't think the state can stop it happening, tbh. There will always be freeloaders. But putting up with freeloaders is preferable to the alternatives (workhouses anyone? enforced sterilisation?).

Was going to type an indignant post but Hectate has typed my thoughts much more coherently than I could.

I don't think people should be denied the opportunity for a family because of poverty (tho if you are 19 you could maybe wait a few years and see if things improve) and I do understand that accidents can happen but since when is a 'right' to have a nice big family supported by others?

My other bugbear (whilst I'm in rant mode) are people complaining that their 3 bed council house isn't big enough for them and their 8 children. How many of us have a house big enough for 8?

And yes, this is partly jealousy. I'd love a big family but our ability to house and feed them plays a big part in our decision as to how many children to have. Luckily for society I think most people think in the same way.

what Hecate said. well put! i agree.

If they are unemployed then the tax paying masses are paying for their children. I for one resent supporting people like this. I'd rather have my money back and spend it on my own family.

YADNBU

So if it's OK to have 3 children funded by the state, is it OK to have 13, all funded by the state? If not, why not?

Yes, everyone has rights, and no, having children should not be just the preserve of the rich.

But as so many others have said, with rights come responsibilities.

People who work, pay tax and support themselves have to keep themselves in check and only do what they can afford. Why should it be any different for those living off the state? Seriously - why?

Where else in life would people expect to be able to do as they please, and have someone else pay for it? And ironic that the one time you can do it is over something as important and fundamental as having children...

Thats nice for you haribo, did your DP claim he was looking for work in that time though?

If you need to commit fraud to have another baby perhaps its a bad idea?