Jeremy Hunt: "Don't expect us to pay for your children"

[LadyBlaBlah]

I know lots of people agree with this in principle (especially going by the Daily Mail comments)

If you can't afford a child, don't have one. Simple.

But it really is not that simple-like all these things that make judgements on those on benefits

Where does this policy end up - eugenics and enforced sterilisation?

Based on what criteria?

Starving children?

And this is all in the context that Nick Clegg was bleating on increasing international aid to lift children out of poverty in his conference last week - "look at me and how good I am to the little starving children in Africa". The hypocrisy staggers me. By the same rules, Africans should stop having children too. That should be policy rather than giving them aid - right?

Desmond Tutu said "My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together." I love that quote. It is simply a reflection on us how we chose to treat other human being.

This poor bashing is really really depressing me. It is daily It is worse than I imagined it could be.

Agree totally santi. Especially with your last paragraph (I think, couldn't understand all of it )

I don't quite get it

On one hand we have loads of old people that will need care

On the other we have (according to the media) an apparently fat and dying adult and child population that it would seem will all be dead before they are forty

So that leads one to assume that children are very valuable indeed, no?

In reality a thousand threads afore haven't found an answer becuase world population does have to be balanced against keeping teh whole aging society thing going.

Energies used to polarise people here though would be best used promotinig education and contraception when women actually want it, around the entire world, and chasing the aim of choice for all rather than neglecting the choice of those women then imposing choices on others as well that limit their famillies.

I think it translates as 'people end up in poverty for lots of different reasons but poverty harms kids and all our futures; think what you might of the adults but don't let it motivate you to harm the children'

Riven :(

bb99, I was nodding in agreement to your post. I guess the point is that we all have to try and plan our families responsibly if it's in our power to do so. Of course shit happens, and that is what the welfare state is for.

Only some Riv; plenty lost their pensions too remember.

I have plenty of sympathy for them.

Yup, my sister will be waving too

Although she said Mum and Dad can stay with them.... aslong as they are able to keep house and garden!

I'm surprised you still allow your wealthy in-laws to visit your home Riven. They complain about the cold and watch you wait in vain for a hoist for their disabled grandchild and still they don't contribute a penny?

bb99, re education, it's only worth what we're prepared to invest in it. Saw Chris Mullin give a talk last night and he said when he became an MP (Sunderland) under Thatcher, only 10 per cent of children in the local secondary got 5 grades A-C in GCSE. After big investment by Labour and the appointment of an inspirational head that was turned round to 70 per cent. Think what a difference that makes to their choices, and their motivation

Agree totally Sancti, never mind what mistakes the parents have made, still have to ensure the children don't suffer, otherwise what kind of society are we?

Crackfox. I understand your point about Porrit and his chums, but why do you say "white rich older men" surely men of all colours have lectured women, the yellow in China, the brown in Iran, the black in Africa. It is not because a man is white that women are subjagated or lectured. It is because the subjagators are men. Would you dare say that black men lecture or subjagate women in Africa? I don't think you would., but it happens. What gets to me is that you use the word "white" as if slagging of white men is acceptable. There are bad eggs in all countries, men and women. I think their colour does not come into it.

Riven I hate to point this out, but somebody may be wiping your arse one day, so don't knock older people, who get their bottoms wiped, you may be in need of a little andrex one day!

It's not just "bum wiping". Older people with dementia tend to spread it everywhere and eat it as well.

"By the same rules, Africans should stop having children too. That should be policy rather than giving them aid - right?"

Huh?

Not really. First, I'm guessing no African family ever thought "It's ok, I can afford another child because my aid payments will go up". Whereas there are some in the UK who will decide that they can afford to have another child based on the resulting benefit increase.

Second, promoting birth control and family planning in Africa is already policy. Many families in developing nations would choose not to have more children - precisely because they can't afford them - if only they had access to free contraception and they could be reasonably sure their existing children would survive to adulthood. Both of which, luckily, we have in the UK.

some families have children regardless of available contraception and the knowledge that there's no benefits to support them. Several in exH's family that did it, and I knew others out there too.

Whispers...aren't people born into low economic status more likely to end up there?

well these days with jobs loss, and probably interest rate rises I think we can safely assume that anyone can end up there quite easily.

Fair enough if you wind up on hard times with a large family, it happens.

But honestly, quite a few folk here have a lot and whilst on benefits.

By a lot, I mean 8, 6, that sort of thing.

Granted, several don't have them as they've been taken off them.

But still.

I don't disagree with not paying out more benefit if you have children whilst not working and claiming.

And I completely thing much much more needs to be done to compel non-resident parents to contribute to the support of their children.

It's not a right to have children, it's a privilege.

the right to start a family is a human right according to the UN. (but I know what you're getting it)

yes, to start a family, but not to procreate as much as you want.

Actually, the first and most important and effective way to stop people having more children than is sustainable is to empower women and free them from bloody religion. Most women, given the chance and the choice, would rather not wreck their bodies by having baby after baby in the full awareness that they can't really afford to feed and care for them all, but in places where man-made superstitions both prohibit contraception and insist on men's right to fuck women whenver they want, women often have to have far more children than they would like.
Oh and sod off with that nonsense about large families in the olden days being 'poor but 'appy', the reality was mainly malnutrition, eviction, domestic violence,early death, backstreet abortions, overcrowding and all the related health issues...
(Yes, all the shit that's coming back now. Hopefully with the exception of the backstreet abortions unless the new Government follows the example of the last lot and gives the myth-peddlers priority...)

I doubt many of the ones that have baby after baby have ever been anywhere near a church.

Personally my religion had sod all to do with the fact that I had children. DS3 was whisky and wine and a failed MAP (which after the initial shock I was bloody delighted about as exH said he didn't want anymore - but I did), irrc DS2 was just wine and a failed pill.

"the first and most important and effective way to stop people having more children than is sustainable"

I don't think any government official should decide what is "sustainable" and should try to stop any woman having as many children as she wants. I believe in freedom, and I think it is nothing to do with bureaucrats. I've only got one child, but I support mothers who want large families. I think we should support these families, whether they are on the dole or not. The UK's birth rate is now 1.94 which is below sustainability, which is why we need immigration. We need a higher birth rate.

"that nonsense about large families in the olden days being 'poor but 'appy', the reality was mainly malnutrition, eviction, domestic violence,early death, backstreet abortions, overcrowding and all the related health issues"

maybe that was the experience of your family, but it's not the experience of mine. My mum was one of five sisters and her mum was one of 6 children. They weren't as well off as we are today, but they didn't suffer what you mentioned.

So exactly how many children are people "allowed" to have before they become scroungers? I work and receive CTC for 2 children - am I a scrounger? Some people appear to advocate having no children at all until you can support them without recourse to any tax credits whatsoever (I've seen it said on here). Where does it end?