Benefits...following on from unfit parents thread...

[anais]

Well, who wants to start?

Boe, no the father of my dd isn't around either - he also doesn't know about his child - but that's another debate, right?

My parents didn't not care (sorry, double negative) what I got up to. My parents were very loving parents who took an interest in what I was doing. I, on the other hand, was a rebellious teenager who felt that she deserved more freedom. I went off on my own and did things that I wanted, I went on a/r demos, got into cars with strangers - moved in with a bloke I'd known 5 minutes who lived hundreds of miles away. I wasn't stupid, I knew my own mind and trusted myself. I took risks, sure, but doesn't everyone at that age? I made choices, I was over 16 and that was my right, what could my parents have done?

I don't understand why you think that having a baby at a young age is such a disaster. You live and learn, people make decisions, some of them good decisions, some of them bad, but that's life. I for one wouldn't change the decisions I've made. What's that saying? SOmething about it not being the situation that's important, but what you make of it.

hmb, firstly thank you about the wonderful things you said about me. Not sure if they are deserved, but certainly appreciated.

However, I have to disagree about your comments re: 13/14 yr olds. I don't think that kids that age have a mental age of 10. You see this is why I think kids are forced to grow up too fast. We push them and pushe them to grow up and be mature and when they do we suddenly can't handle it. Kids are exposed to sex so young - it's an accepted part of life these days. Is it any wonder they want to try it out? When it's flaunted all over the media (sorry, this is going way ot, but I do think it;s linked). I was 15 when I had my first bf - he was 26. I felt that I was mature enough to have an adult relationship - it was him that said no to sex. In the end I didn't lose my virginity until I was a couple of months short of 17 (to a 28 yr old) sorry, I've completely forgotten what point I was trying to make....erm, oh yeah, it was about the media thing. I don't think we can have a society which sees sex the way we do and then throw up our hands and wonder why kids are getting pregnant. Sex - however subtly - is used in a huge proportion of tv ads; most of the songs in the charts are about sex; most of the girl groups - supposedly role models - have a sexual image; magazines aimed at pre-teens talk about sex - how can we expect that not to have an effect?

Sambo, lovely post, and a really nice sentiment.

Jude I'm concerned that you are prepared to make such rash decisions with peoples lives. I've said this before, and I'll say it again...money (and education, for that matter) isn't a measure of parenting skills.

I'm not making rash decisions, merely putting forward a possible solution. However, Oakmaiden reminded me that the solution isn't workable on a practical level. I would have thought bringing a child into the world when you haven't the money to support it was very rash and with potentially disastrous consequences. (also moving in with a bloke you've known 5 minutes who lives 100 miles away - this is not a criticism; you are an impulsive person methinks and much braver than I could ever be).

Agree with you 100% about the media.

Of course, money is not a measure of parenting skill but why should a child be brought up in poverty? Education has an enormous effect. So does the background (emotional etc., not social) of the parents.

Children don't have to be brought up in poverty - aren't that what benefits are for?

My God this thread is getting long!

Jude, I wish I was impulsive, I was 16 at the time - we all do things like that when we're 16, don't we? There was more of a story behind it anyway, but it's kind of beside the point. The point was that despite my parents' concern about what I was doing they couldn't do much to stop me.

Final post on this subject ... tonight. I am extremely happy to pay taxes so that benefits can be provided for those that need them, for whatever reason. However, expensive luxuries like foreign holidays, flashy cars, designer clothes, etc. are not necessary. Having children (especially lots of them) is an expensive luxury. I agree with early posters who complained that they couldn't afford to have more children and yet were subsidising those on benefits to have more.

I'm afraid I didn't, I was much too well behaved at the time, sadly . Did sort of make up for it later but it went disastrously wrong.

The govt. has some sort of statistic for poverty (living below the breadline). Household less than x% of average household income, or something like that. I would have thought that anyone on benefits would come into the "living below the breadline" category?

No more posting tonight, honest .. will go and peruse the lighter threads ...

But children don't have to be aware of the financial situation of their parents. My children don't go without. I am very careful with money - I don't drink, don't smoke, rarely go out, I watch every penny and therefore my children don't suffer. They have everything they need - material things aren't everything.

Education does have an effect, obviously, but that doesn't mean that if you don't have a good education that you won't be a good parents.

Few people on benefits can afford holidays, flashy clothes or designer clothes.

Children need a lovely hug, lots of kisses, and a happy parent

Anais, you seem to have taken my post personally, and I didn't post with that intention.

I don't know you or your circumstances, apart from what you have revealed here. And people here who obviously know you personally have stated that you are a terrific mother. You say that you are getting a job and trying to get off benefits this is good I'm all for that.

I was merely stating that I personally don't think it's fair that there are girls/women out there who buck the system by just going out and getting pregnant on purpose because they know that they will get everything paid for them in the long run and "make no attempt" whatsoever to get themselves off the benefit and try to make a better life for themselves and their children.

I also have friends who have had their children very young. And people have looked at them and thought they were young single mothers living on benefit but they weren't, they were either married or in long term stable relationships with support from a partner. I don't look at all young girls and think that they are single mothers living on benefits , but I do know a choice few that have done just that. Yes, they are in the minority but whats starts out as a minority could,in theory, become a majority.

I have no problem with women having children very young, I couldn't personally have done it myself but I know that there are plenty of them out there whether by accident or deliberate choices and most of them are probably doing a commendable job of bringing up their child/children.

What I personally don't agree with and this is by no way getting at you since I don't actually know you personally, but to find yourself pregnant once and live on benefits, to me, is acceptable to a certain degree since due to circumstances there could might be no other way to survive at the time. But to go ahead and have another child or even more while still living on benefits to me is wrong. If you can't afford to support your children you either shouldn't have any at all or not have more than one, depending on the circumstances.

I would hate to see children suffer by there being no benefits system in place since the children are the innocent parties in this. Therefore I am happy that my taxes go towards these children that will grow up to be our future. I just think that some people should be more responsible towards bringing children into the world.

I hope that if one day in the future I ever need the benefits system it will be there for me until such a time I'm able to get back on my feet.

the benefit system is there as a safety net for those who need it. it benefits society as a whole for this safety net to be in place. living on benefits is poverty not luxury.

some people abuse the system - sfw? that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a system in place - we just have to live with it, it's the price we pay for a civilised society (to paraphrase oliver wendell holmes).

as the comments on this thread show, there is no civilised way of legislating how those on benefits should reproduce (or not). tough. we have to accept that there are those who will take the system for a ride.

some of the alternatives suggested here (forced adoption, sterilisation) are reminiscent of nazi germany and frankly i would much rather live with the situation we have now (even if some of its manifestations are irksome to me personally) than adopt some of the outrageous measures i see here.

there but for the grace of god go i...

Freyah, no I haven't taken your post personally, this is a debate and we are all entitled to our opinions, I rarely get upset by what other people say on here and I would never intend for anyone to take offence at what I say. No bad feelings, hey

Incidently I don't know anyone on here personally, so I have been particularly touched by the kind things that people have said - as I said before, I'm not sure if I deserve them.

I do think that it's all too easy to make assumptions about people (I should know, I do it all the time ) It's the tiny minority of people who abuse the system, and I think it's unlikely ever to be a significant number, I just think it's very unfair that everyone gets judged according to the lowest denominator.

Every single one of us goes through shit, without exception (all spelt wrong) We should hug more, and be honest!

Wouldn't the world be a nicer place, ff, here's a virtual (((hug))) just for you

Wow- I haven't had a proper good look at Mumsnet for ages and now I do I find that I'm on the verge of spontaneous combustion. What shedloads of shite on here- I never dreamed mumsnet was quite such a haven of the far right. There really are some extremely unpalatable views on this thread and on the asylum seekers and disability threads. Very upsetting and depressing, IMO. Thank goodness for the eloquence of Pie, WWW, Winnie, Cam, Tinker, anais and others.

Personally I think it's far preferable for children to be brought up by nice people on benefits than by self-financing fascistic eugenicists and I would administer a child redistribution (adoption) policy accordingly, were I an advocate of such a system. I'm not because I believe that people can change and develop and that, while it is undoubtedly very damaging and tragic for children to grow up steeped with parental messages of such nonsense bordering on evil, there is at least a small chance that they may grow up to have different values from their parents if wider society works hard to give them an alternative more compassionate and socially aware message.

Anais, thank you for saying nice things about my saying nice things

The girls I am talking about just don't seem to have the maturity at the age of 13-16 to have children. They may be physically ready, they may be sexually precocious, but they have zero ability to understand cause and effect or that their action will have consequences. Many of them seem unable to tell truth from fiction and I think that lots of them live in a media driven fantasy land where they will become the new spice girls (or who ever) the minute they leave school.

Now you could argue that the reality of life folllowing early preganany will bring them down to earth with a bump and help them to mature. And for some you will be 100% correct. But lots of others don't cope.

The other major problem that these girls have is that many of them go on to have multiple partners very quickly. I have no problem with that, of itself, but because they lack insight and maturity they fail to take safe sex precautions so the rates of STDs are rocketing. Many young women, now in their 20s are infertile because of untreated chlamydia.And that is before we go into HIV and AIDs. I have a friend who is a midwife and they are getting children of 14 admitted for the treatment of genital warts, some of these girls have had 10 or more partners.

So in the end Anais we will have to agree to differ. I know that you were ready, but most of the girls I see are emotionally and psychologically children having sex to show everyone how grown up they are. I'm not one who thinks their benefit should be cut, far from it, but I think that we should all do what we can to stop this sort of thing happening. And some of the parents don't give a damn about their daughters wellbeing.

Scummymummy, love it

Well said, scummymummy. I must be so naive: I am genuinely shocked to find that there are people who hold views like this (forced adoption and so on) in this day and age. It's a frame of mind I associate with aged ex-colonels, not intelligent young(ish) females.

Jude, you wrote: "Incidentally, newborn babies do not end up in care for life - adoptive parents are very quickly
found for them - often on the same day."

As of 2001 210 children under the age of 1 were place for adoption, this is out of a total 1,700 under 1s who were free for adoption. The average age of an adopted child is actually 4.2 with a child in care spending an average of 970 days in care before adoption. The average time between adoption decision and match for a child under 1 month old is 4 months (not a day). Once the match has been made it is then an average of 4 weeks before the actual placement happens.

Also, as of 2000 out of ALL adopted children, obvioulsy including babies, 90% were white, 7% of mixed parentage, 2% were black and 1% were asian.

There are plenty more babies staying in care for a significant period of their lives then getting adopted on the day they are given up/taken away. And there are significantly more white able bodied babies being adopted then ethnic minorites.

So newborn babies will take an average of 20 weeks to get placed with a family and the white babies will have a better chance then then non-white.

You would have a whole class of non-white, possibly disabled, children who don't get adopted. Oh we already do.

haven't read the recent stuff in detail, but pleeeeaaassse tell me people aren't really advocating forced adoption.

Leading on from pies post. Teenage single mum has a disabled baby. She wants to care for her child, but policy says that she's a scrounger and her baby has to be adopted so she can work. Anyway if she cares for a disabled baby it'll be almost impossible for her to work and she'd be far too much of a burden on society. Trouble is no-one want to adopt said baby- all the nice deserving couples want "perfect" babies not disabled ones.

No-one can serioulsy be advocating forced adoption surely?

jimjams, judetheobscure has been the advocate of forcible adoption if you want to skim through the posts.

Phew thank goodness you've posted on here scummymummy - I was getting worried that there had been no sign of you on here or on the asylum seekers thread

Sadly, I'm not sure if my views (i.e. benefits as safety net with the fact that some will abuse the system as a small price to pay for living in a civilised society) are that of the majority on this thread