Do people have the right to have children they cannot support

Cyclone · 05-08-2008, 16:00

This is an assertion that's been made on another thread, goes as follows;

"Some people will support the right of others to have children, despite the fact that they cannot support them and they will expect the state to help".

I don't think that anyone will come out and support that.

I'm not looking for solutions, I don't want to talk about compulsory sterilisation or eugenics, just whether or not you support the right of people to have children no matter what there personal circumstances happen to be.

willman · 05-08-2008, 16:04

Can you classify support?

Some people rely on the state to maintain their lives without child.

Kthebean · 05-08-2008, 16:04

By 'the right to have children' are you referring to IVF?

Heyesey · 05-08-2008, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by willman

Some people rely on the state to maintain their lives without child.

Me, for instance; the only income my partner and I have coming in, is state benefits. Well, we can argue we get them because of the NI we paid in, but still, they're state benefits.

If we decided we wanted four children, the amount of benefits we get would go through the roof.

epiphany · 05-08-2008, 16:07

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if the PARENTS are seen to have that right, because at the end of the day, a new individual will be entering the system and we must treat it/help it equally to all others. Unfortunately this must be done through the parents or "informants".

I just wish people would stop having so many damn kids. We need to over-ride those hormones and inhabitions.

tulip · 05-08-2008, 16:22

I don't think it's fair to have kids if you know that you can't support them. I suppose there are extenuating circumstances though. Some women desparately want children, I think it would be cruel to make judgements in that situation.

willman · 05-08-2008, 16:24

So only people with money can have kids then?

How about petitioning the Government to stop the family allowance then, or school dinners if people can't suppor them then those ticking the No box should be all in favour.

Then perhaps we can stop giving reduced entry to parks and cinemas for all those who can "afford " children.

Tess · 05-08-2008, 16:25

In a perfect world, everybody would be able to support their own familys without any help. Im afraid in this world, there are always going to be people who need state help, and IMO parents should not be told they can't have children because they haven't got a job.

YES I do think if they are just lazy they should enforce this, but if somethings holding them back, eg a disability preventing them from work, it doesn't seem fair to deny them of a family in my book.

theripsaw · 05-08-2008, 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heyesey

Me, for instance; the only income my partner and I have coming in, is state benefits. Well, we can argue we get them because of the NI we paid in, but still, they're state benefits.

If we decided we wanted four children, the amount of benefits we get would go through the roof.

How much do you reckon you could legitimately claim if for example you had 4 kids, and would it be financially beneficial for you to do this- ie- would each extra child increase the amount of surplus cash you have after all the extra outgoings associated with it are taken into account?

Cyclone · 05-08-2008, 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by willman

Can you classify support?

Some people rely on the state to maintain their lives without child.

By support I think the implication was that they simply cannot afford to care for the child and will only be able to do so with continuous handouts from the government.

Right did not refer to IVF in any way, it just meant that assuming they already have the ability, the natural process taking place.

If it helps, the comment was made with regards to the family 'living in a car' who can't afford a house, but have a 3rd child on the way.

willman · 05-08-2008, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by theripsaw

How much do you reckon you could legitimately claim if for example you had 4 kids, and would it be financially beneficial for you to do this- ie- would each extra child increase the amount of surplus cash you have after all the extra outgoings associated with it are taken into account?

Does it matter?

Society would fail if the only underpinning was the fact that the wealthy can have kids and the less well off can't.
The moral compass of society is wrong not the number of children.

tulip · 05-08-2008, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by willman

So only people with money can have kids then?

How about petitioning the Government to stop the family allowance then, or school dinners if people can't suppor them then those ticking the No box should be all in favour.

Then perhaps we can stop giving reduced entry to parks and cinemas for all those who can "afford " children.

I'm sure most people don't feel that way. Once the kids are already here, it's a different matter. I'd hate to see the kids go hungry or be wandering the streets as the do in countries like Brazil.

Cyclone can correct me if I'm wrong but I took the poll to mean making the decision to have kids knowing that you can't support them.

Cyclone · 05-08-2008, 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tess

In a perfect world, everybody would be able to support their own familys without any help. Im afraid in this world, there are always going to be people who need state help, and IMO parents should not be told they can't have children because they haven't got a job.

That's not really the question/point. I wasn't suggesting that anyone should 'stop' them having children, but it is some sort of god given right that they have children and assume that the state will sort it all out for them?

Quote:

YES I do think if they are just lazy they should enforce this, but if somethings holding them back, eg a disability preventing them from work, it doesn't seem fair to deny them of a family in my book.

Disability is probably one we should set aside for now. As is loosing your job after having the children or other circumstances like that.

The statement was about a couple who got pregnant when already struggling financially and providing for 2 current children.

Do they have a right to have more and expect the state to support them?

willman · 05-08-2008, 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclone

If it helps, the comment was made with regards to the family 'living in a car' who can't afford a house, but have a 3rd child on the way.

But when they had the first two children they weren't in car. So what do they do have the other 2 taken away 'cos they can't afford those two either without state help.

(Don't get me wrong - i don't support this family and have my own opinions but children isn't one of them.)

Cyclone · 05-08-2008, 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by tulip

I'm sure most people don't feel that way. Once the kids are already here, it's a different matter. I'd hate to see the kids go hungry or be wandering the streets as the do in countries like Brazil.

Cyclone can correct me if I'm wrong but I took the poll to mean making the decision to have kids knowing that you can't support them.

Exactly what I meant

Cyclone · 05-08-2008, 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by willman

But when they had the first two children they weren't in car. So what do they do have the other 2 taken away 'cos they can't afford those two either without state help.

(Don't get me wrong - i don't support this family and have my own opinions but children isn't one of them.)

I wasn't looking for solutions (again), but in this case, no, it's about having children when you clearly can't cope, not having them and then falling on bad times.

cressida · 05-08-2008, 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by willman

So only people with money can have kids then?

How about petitioning the Government to stop the family allowance then, or school dinners if people can't suppor them then those ticking the No box should be all in favour.

Then perhaps we can stop giving reduced entry to parks and cinemas for all those who can "afford " children.

I'm worried that only the richer people would be able to have children too, there would have to be means tests and we know how popular these are, this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Cyclone · 05-08-2008, 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by willman

Does it matter?

Society would fail if the only underpinning was the fact that the wealthy can have kids and the less well off can't.
The moral compass of society is wrong not the number of children.

It never failed before. And we've only had the welfare state for 60 years in it's current form, 100 years in any form.
How did poor families manage for thousands of years before? How do they manage in countries with no welfare system?

Cyclone · 05-08-2008, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by tulip

I don't think it's fair to have kids if you know that you can't support them. I suppose there are extenuating circumstances though. Some women desparately want children, I think it would be cruel to make judgements in that situation.

I desperately want a ferrari, can the government sort me out please?

Heyesey · 05-08-2008, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by willman

Does it matter?

Well, if it turns out that the amount of spare income, after paying the costs of raising the child, is higher - maybe I should go to Brazil, or China, and adopt ten thousand of the things? I think that you'd then find it would matter very much indeed.