Parents who don't know what children are for

[emkana]

\link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2168664,00.html\I must say I agree with her}

I wanted a baby (late, on account of being clearly unable to beguile me into impregnating me), not a career change. So shoot me now.

Beguile anyone into impregnating me

then finally you beguiled yourself into impregnating yourself .. wow MI you really are talented ...

I'm a woman, I can multitask, you know

zubin I don't understand why you say lone mothers have the choice to stay at home if they want to. So do you. The choice is between poverty or work in the cash economy - exactly the same.

Lone parents who stay at home with their children instead of working in the cash economy, are paid £57 a week income support, plus child tax credit plus child benefit. Are you seriously saying that lone parents are financially advantaged compared to married couples where one partner works in the cash economy but the other stays at home? Because I think that in most cases, the figures are against you.

It's not true that there was a time when everyone was offered a council house

There was a time when most people could get on to the waiting list though.

That changed in the seventies when they started to do it on basis of need.

Which has always struck me as odd, becuase everyone needs a home.

I thought the article had both good and bad points to make, i've seent o status symbol kids at both ends of the economic spectrum and the parents whho plant their kids in front tof thr TV every day when they could be doing something with them, because they're not sure what. I think it's far more complex though... when I had DS1 I realised I didn't know any other babies. I had to ask my Mum, what should I be doing with him? I just didn't know. People grow up in small famillies, have to work, have limite access to the childcare they want... it makes for tired parents caught in a guilt trap.

I do think access to a council home would make such a difference to a lot of people. My Dh earns £18k a year, full time. I get £a student loan plus £2k in grants. £600 a month goes on our rent before anything else. We have three kids one with SN (which is why I can fit in a Uni course when he's in school but couldn't utilise childcare, get a job and improve our finances atm). Paying less for rent would open so many more possibilities to the kids, like for example the music lessons they beg for, but although we're mnot starving it's just not an option . Neither is all the things their friends consider normal- like foreign travel. There are two students kids at school, DS1 and his friend, and you can tell because their uniforms are just a bit older, their shoes just a bit more scratched. But I have no option because DS1 has been 'banned' from childcare by the Social Services; had I a choice I would (and did, I worked for charities before ds3) feel compelled to work. Indeed, the grant / loan pays for our food and clothes.

So, what would be the right reasons for having a child, then?
People like Minette Marrin, on this thread, and India Knight write plenty about people having babies for the 'wrong' reasons: 'status symbol kids', selfishness (not sure how that works, given that it's also apparently 'selfish' not to have them if you're having too much fun earning money), 'trophy babies' (I have one of those according to the Daily Mail), etc, etc. What do all these labels mean, anyway?

Yes I always wonder that matonic. What is the right reason? And is there just one?

I expect the right reason is so that you can write articles about them in sunday newspapers and make a living from it.

oh dear and some people dont even plan to have children what a selfish act sex is