The poor breeding

d87heaven

Why do people think they have a 'right' to have children. If I din't have any money or couldn't afford to support a child I wouldn't have one. Why should i have one then expect benefits to pay for us to live? I don't think people realise the levels people sink to in this world. People REALLY do put thier children in care to go on holiday without them, responsible parenting doesn't even register.

rjsterry

snailracer wrote:

Has anyone been to an antenatal class recently? The attendees seem to be made up entirely of teenagers and old "last chance" women, almost nobody I would consider of proper, healthy childbearing age at all.

Perhaps this comes about because it is actually very difficult to coordinate finances and childrearing? In which case, I don't blame women for taking the chance to squeeze one out while they have the financial opportunity, be that from state benefits or having earned enough money by deferring childbearing until early middle-age.

Bingo! Very few of us earn enough in our early twenties (arguably the biological 'right time') to be able to buy any property at all, let alone something with a enough space to house a family, and have enough left over to provide for that family. Do we just limit 'breeding' to top rate taxpayers?

davmaggs

snailracer wrote:

Has anyone been to an antenatal class recently? The attendees seem to be made up entirely of teenagers and old "last chance" women, almost nobody I would consider of proper, healthy childbearing age at all.

Perhaps this comes about because it is actually very difficult to coordinate finances and childrearing? In which case, I don't blame women for taking the chance to squeeze one out while they have the financial opportunity, be that from state benefits or having earned enough money by deferring childbearing until early middle-age.

Try an NHS anenatal class in South London if you want to see this in action. Also an insight into how different segments of society behave and their attitude towards child rearing.

wgwarburton

rjsterry wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Has anyone been to an antenatal class recently? The attendees seem to be made up entirely of teenagers and old "last chance" women, almost nobody I would consider of proper, healthy childbearing age at all.

Perhaps this comes about because it is actually very difficult to coordinate finances and childrearing? In which case, I don't blame women for taking the chance to squeeze one out while they have the financial opportunity, be that from state benefits or having earned enough money by deferring childbearing until early middle-age.

Bingo! Very few of us earn enough in our early twenties (arguably the biological 'right time') to be able to buy any property at all, let alone something with a enough space to house a family, and have enough left over to provide for that family. Do we just limit 'breeding' to top rate taxpayers?

Bear in mind that a woman with a decent job may choose to skip antenatal classes due to pressure of work.

Cheers,
W.

W1

Sc00bs wrote:

The more I read on this site re: politics and opinion, the more I despair.

W1 you are truly an odious, jumped-up, whiny little boll0cks. You'd start an argument in an empty room. Your neo-con shitty attitudes to just about everything sicken me.

Perhaps you'd like to see the return of the workhouse? How about a good old fashioned dose of eugenics - after all it's only the feckless who pop out these awful unwanted children who exist only to prop up the feckless underclasses?

Any potential parent who is 'serious and responsible' about having kids can always reason they could be better prepared to take on this responsibility; bigger house, closer to good schools, mater & pater's inheritance received etc - life isn't like this for most people and it has a funny way of throwing surprises at you. Get a grip.

Mods plz ban (me or him - not fussed which)

Sorry, who are you? Perhaps you'd like to contribute something other than some bizarre ranty ball-cocks based on what appears to be enormous stupidity?

Sounds like you're the one who needs to get a grip. And watch out for that blood pressure.

ETA - presumably you are one of the aforementioned feckless - in which case no wonder you're so jumpy about it.

Or are you just a mug who likes working so that others can abuse a system which is now far from a safety net and more and more a lifestyle?

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

In response to the 'getting to 35-40' thing, I personally still wouldn't unless I could afford it, any more than I'd buy, I dunno, a horse that I couldn't afford to keep.

And I do hold a british passport, yes.

The people I know are locals who I know from when I used to work in the pub. I know the girl of the couple, she seems to have fallen in with the ideas of he bloke's family and they're now on child #4, which she freely admits is so they'll get a bigger council house.

She also happily rattles on about how her washing machine broke and the council bought her a brand new one, and how she's planning to break her microwave so she can get a new one of those too. Galling.

I said I wouldn't tell you what I'd do, and I still think it's a bad idea to.

The irnoic thing is that if you already earn enough not to be entitled to child benefits then you could afford to have a child or three...

Maybe not provide a particular lifestyle, but a very good one I suspect. Just saying.

I know you have a dual passport, silly.

I am taken aback that you actually know people like that. Go you, getting all ghetto.

I'm making the conversation lighthearted now... The natives are getting restless.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if you're approaching 35 -40 and still aren't in the position where you're convinced you have enough cash or secure accomodation to support a family and you're broody?

I would say tough. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone being broody? And more to the point what sort of upbringing does that indicate for the child?

If I hit mid life crisis and want an orange Lambo I wouldn't expect the state to pay for it either....

I think if you are equating an urge to buy a stupidly expensive toy with a need to start a family, you might not 'get' what that need is like. I doubt you'd put yourself through several years of IVF, an experience that is stressful enough to destroy plenty of marriages/relationships and lead to clinical depression, for a car. Having children isn't equivalent to deciding to build an extension on the back of the house or buy a nice new motorbike. Having said this, I'd concede that some people do think of starting a family ion this way with disastrous results.

If you ignore what is obviously an absurd comment and evidently therefore not serious, what about the first part of what I said?

dhope

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if you're approaching 35 -40 and still aren't in the position where you're convinced you have enough cash or secure accomodation to support a family and you're broody?

I would say tough. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone being broody? And more to the point what sort of upbringing does that indicate for the child?

If I hit mid life crisis and want an orange Lambo I wouldn't expect the state to pay for it either....

I think if you are equating an urge to buy a stupidly expensive toy with a need to start a family, you might not 'get' what that need is like. I doubt you'd put yourself through several years of IVF, an experience that is stressful enough to destroy plenty of marriages/relationships and lead to clinical depression, for a car. Having children isn't equivalent to deciding to build an extension on the back of the house or buy a nice new motorbike. Having said this, I'd concede that some people do think of starting a family ion this way with disastrous results.

If you ignore what is obviously an absurd comment and evidently therefore not serious, what about the first part of what I said?

About the colour? Lambos look better in yellow.

DonDaddyD

WGWarburton wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Has anyone been to an antenatal class recently? The attendees seem to be made up entirely of teenagers and old "last chance" women, almost nobody I would consider of proper, healthy childbearing age at all.

Perhaps this comes about because it is actually very difficult to coordinate finances and childrearing? In which case, I don't blame women for taking the chance to squeeze one out while they have the financial opportunity, be that from state benefits or having earned enough money by deferring childbearing until early middle-age.

Bingo! Very few of us earn enough in our early twenties (arguably the biological 'right time') to be able to buy any property at all, let alone something with a enough space to house a family, and have enough left over to provide for that family. Do we just limit 'breeding' to top rate taxpayers?

Bear in mind that a woman with a decent job may choose to skip antenatal classes due to pressure of work.

Cheers,
W.

Not only that, but they only offer antenatal classes to those who are having their first baby.

Snailracers post was just presumptuous bollocks to be honest. He cannot possibly know the ages of the women in those classes, their circumstances and a whole bunch of other things before he posted his assumptions.

Anyway...

W1

gtvlusso wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

There is another angle to this......

Wimmin' have a "time limit" on kids.....I would guess that there is also a case for people who are of my generation, 35 to 40, who are not financially independant, but still want to have children before it is too late.

This financial predicamant may be no fault of their own - i.e. they are not so bright and career/job choice is very limited.

Should we deny these people the same rights that we who can afford kids already have?

if you get my drift....

Quoting myself again for @W1....

Sorry, didn't realise this was directed at me.

Again I would ask - why should the state pick up the tab? And it's not like those with a limited career choice only ever have children paid for by the state, is ti?

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

In response to the 'getting to 35-40' thing, I personally still wouldn't unless I could afford it, any more than I'd buy, I dunno, a horse that I couldn't afford to keep.

And I do hold a british passport, yes.

The people I know are locals who I know from when I used to work in the pub. I know the girl of the couple, she seems to have fallen in with the ideas of he bloke's family and they're now on child #4, which she freely admits is so they'll get a bigger council house.

She also happily rattles on about how her washing machine broke and the council bought her a brand new one, and how she's planning to break her microwave so she can get a new one of those too. Galling.

I said I wouldn't tell you what I'd do, and I still think it's a bad idea to.

The irnoic thing is that if you already earn enough not to be entitled to child benefits then you could afford to have a child or to.

Maybe not provide a particular lifestyle, but a very good one I suspect. Just saying.

I know you have a dual passport, silly.

I am taken aback that you actually know people like that. Go you, getting all ghetto.

I'm making the conversation lighthearted now...

See, DDD, I disagree with your first points. I own a small cottage in Essex, not big enough for a child, me and said child's father. I currently rent a room in a shared house, and the majority of my savings are earmarked for a house. I am doing fairly well, but not well enough to support a child and it's not the right point in my career to have one.

And I really don't think I'm anywhere near as posh as you think I am.

lost_in_thought

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

<snip>
If I have 3 kids (I'd probably only have 2, but you never know) I will have to pay for their expenses out of my own pocket, as I earn too much to be eligible for child benefit. I wouldn't even consider having kids until I was convinced I had enough cash to support them, and secure accomodation for me and my family.

I don't get any support at all from the state due to having worked hard enough to have a decent job.

Why should the family who are bringing in £20k get to have people like me subsidise their 3 kids?

Mostly a rhetorical question, not expecting an answer, just trying to illustrate my angle.

Sounds to me like, "it's not fair: they get a small state contribution to bringing up their family and I wouldn't because I'm too wealthy." Supposing you save up get everything sorted and have your 2 or 3 children, and then you get run over or contract some chronic illness that means you can't work and can't support them. Are you going to save up/insure for that eventuality as well? Would you not see if you could claim some kind of financial support? Alternatively, what if one of the children is born with some chronic health issue or disability that requires extra care.

The point I'm trying to make is that if one waits until absolutely every conceivable eventuality is provided for having children would be restricted to the very wealthy or the very old (which has it's own biological problems).

Sorry, missed that post. That's what health insurance is for, is it not?

And my objection is to people having kids knowing full well they can't afford them, sitting on their laurels and expecting the state to wade in while responsible folk work their @rses off to pay for it.

Hell, if I could claim benefits I would, I've bloody well paid enough tax. :evil:

il_principe

lost_in_thought wrote:

And I really don't think I'm anywhere near as posh as you think I am.

He's made up his mind though eh?

W1

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sorry, missed that post. That's what health insurance is for, is it not?

And my objection is to people having kids knowing full well they can't afford them, sitting on their laurels and expecting the state to wade in while responsible folk work their @rses off to pay for it.

Hell, if I could claim benefits I would, I've bloody well paid enough tax. :evil:

Watch out, some jumpy noob is about to go internet postal on you.....

gtvlusso

W1 wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

There is another angle to this......

Wimmin' have a "time limit" on kids.....I would guess that there is also a case for people who are of my generation, 35 to 40, who are not financially independant, but still want to have children before it is too late.

This financial predicamant may be no fault of their own - i.e. they are not so bright and career/job choice is very limited.

Should we deny these people the same rights that we who can afford kids already have?

if you get my drift....

Quoting myself again for @W1....

Sorry, didn't realise this was directed at me.

Again I would ask - why should the state pick up the tab? And it's not like those with a limited career choice only ever have children paid for by the state, is ti?

Well - why does the NHS offer IVF? I don't know if you have kids, but the best part of my day is going home and having 3 beautiful children charge towards me as I come through the front door. I would not deny anyone their right to have kids and enjoy them. There is an unfortunate element of society that take the wee wee - but I can also imagine there are some people who simply have had "bad luck" and are not financially independant.

I pay into the NHS and I pay into the state - obviously I deplore the behaviour of a few. But for those that will make great parents in unfortunate circumstances - I am happy to pay.

Sc00bs

I'm just a poster on this site W1 - do I need to further introduce myself?

To address one of your oh so erudite points, how about this:

W1: I would say tough. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone being broody? And more to the point what sort of upbringing does that indicate for the child?

How do taxpayers pay for broodiness? The resulting football team of kids maybe, but being broody and 'breeding' are different things - and you call me stupid? How about NHS IVF treatments - begrudge them too do you? Should these be means tested? How about if the resulting IVF treatment is successful results in multiple births? This is not uncommon and the resulting mass brood may be something completely unplanned for - what happens then? Loads of kids, some of whom without trust funds and proper-forward-planning MADE POSSIBLE by the state - oh no!

Your 2nd point: What sort of upbringing are you decrying here ? One where a child is loved by someone who is broody and who therefore desires kids? That'd obviously be a sh1tty upbringing.

I stand by my rant btw - feel free to place the stupidity label on me though.

davmaggs

DonDaddyD wrote:

Not only that, but they only offer antenatal classes to those who are having their first baby.

Snailracers post was just presumptuous bollocks to be honest. He cannot possibly know the ages of the women in those classes, their circumstances and a whole bunch of other things before he posted his assumptions.

Anyway...

A bit harsh, you obviously haven't been to any NHS classes.

It doesn't take a genius to work out the rough ages of the attendees. Views on life and child rearing are shared openly, it's half the point in going. What you will find is that many aspirational people buy their way out and go to the NCT.

I would add that time spent in the baby wing of a London NHS hospital kills off a fair amount of liberal feeling.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if you're approaching 35 -40 and still aren't in the position where you're convinced you have enough cash or secure accomodation to support a family and you're broody?

I would say tough. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone being broody? And more to the point what sort of upbringing does that indicate for the child?

If I hit mid life crisis and want an orange Lambo I wouldn't expect the state to pay for it either....

I think if you are equating an urge to buy a stupidly expensive toy with a need to start a family, you might not 'get' what that need is like. I doubt you'd put yourself through several years of IVF, an experience that is stressful enough to destroy plenty of marriages/relationships and lead to clinical depression, for a car. Having children isn't equivalent to deciding to build an extension on the back of the house or buy a nice new motorbike. Having said this, I'd concede that some people do think of starting a family ion this way with disastrous results.

If you ignore what is obviously an absurd comment and evidently therefore not serious, what about the first part of what I said?

I've already said why I think the taxpayer should support people starting families. It's perfectly possible to bring up a child well with limited means, and having lots of money doesn't give any assurance of a good upbringing. Although in response to your flippant point, my answer still stands: the fact that people are willing to put themselves through years of physically, mentally and financially painful IVF treatment to start a family, almost at any cost, suggests that there is a bit more too it than 'feeling broody'. It doesn't happen to everyone, but I think you are underestimating how powerful an urge it is.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

See, DDD, I disagree with your first points. I own a small cottage in Essex, not big enough for a child, me and said child's father. I currently rent a room in a shared house, and the majority of my savings are earmarked for a house. I am doing fairly well, but not well enough to support a child and it's not the right point in my career to have one.

And I really don't think I'm anywhere near as posh as you think I am.

You have the choice and its not for me to say you could do it now or not. I think you can.

I know people with 25grand get £250,000 3 bed house and raise 2 kids where the joint house hold income is £50,000 - £70,000.

I've known people to do it with a lot less - like half that income and a 1 - 2 bed flat.

Its all doable. Whether the person wants to do it that way is the issue.

A cottage sounds nice.

DonDaddyD

davmaggs wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Not only that, but they only offer antenatal classes to those who are having their first baby.

Snailracers post was just presumptuous bollocks to be honest. He cannot possibly know the ages of the women in those classes, their circumstances and a whole bunch of other things before he posted his assumptions.

Anyway...

A bit harsh, you obviously haven't been to any NHS classes.

Hahahahahaha!

I stand by what I said.

W1

Sc00bs wrote:

I'm just a poster on this site W1 - do I need to further introduce myself?

To address one of your oh so erudite points, how about this:

W1: I would say tough. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone being broody? And more to the point what sort of upbringing does that indicate for the child?

How do taxpayers pay for broodiness? The resulting football team of kids maybe, but being broody and 'breeding' are different things - and you call me stupid? How about NHS IVF treatments - begrudge them too do you? Should these be means tested? How about if the resulting IVF treatment is successful results in multiple births? This is not uncommon and the resulting mass brood may be something completely unplanned for - what happens then? Loads of kids, some of whom without trust funds and proper-forward-planning MADE POSSIBLE by the state - oh no!

Your 2nd point: What sort of upbringing are you decrying here ? One where a child is loved by someone who is broody and who therefore desires kids? That'd obviously be a sh1tty upbringing.

I stand by my rant btw - feel free to place the stupidity label on me though.

What you think and say about me is water off a ducks back - but if you're going to make personal attacks you could at least have the decency to put your cards on the table first.

As to your first point - what are you actually saying? Of course being broody costs the taxpaayer nothing, but having children "on the state" does. I can't see that as anything but obvious?

As to your second point - if someone has children in order to increase their beneift take they strike me as self centered, devious and lazy. Which does not bode well for the welfare of any children.

Actually I have no problem with IVF being paid for on the NHS. None at all.What I do have a problem with is a system which encourages people to have children that they have to take no responsibility for, whilst discourages those who have already shown their ability to work, contribute and be responsible from being able to afford children themmselves.

You seem to have made an awful lot of presumptions about me, so you'll forgive me if I don't hold your comments as a brillant beacon of analysis and intelligence, nor give a sh!t about what you may think.

Don't let the door smack you on the behind as you leave.

rjsterry

davmaggs wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Not only that, but they only offer antenatal classes to those who are having their first baby.

Snailracers post was just presumptuous bollocks to be honest. He cannot possibly know the ages of the women in those classes, their circumstances and a whole bunch of other things before he posted his assumptions.

Anyway...

A bit harsh, you obviously haven't been to any NHS classes.

It doesn't take a genius to work out the rough ages of the attendees. Views on life and child rearing are shared openly, it's half the point in going. What you will find is that many aspirational people buy their way out and go to the NCT.

I would add that time spent in the baby wing of a London NHS hospital kills off a fair amount of liberal feeling.

+1 Don't think you'll have actually been to any of those classes just yet DDD, but hope you do. We did the NHS one and paid for additional private classes on top, though not the very pricey NCT ones. Our GP described us as 'young for Putney' (33) which tells you a lot.

There's something slightly bonkers about us having arranged society so that most of us can't really afford children without some financial help until we are in our mid thirties, by which time, we are well past are prime in terms of ability to conceive.

W1

gtvlusso wrote:

Well - why does the NHS offer IVF? I don't know if you have kids, but the best part of my day is going home and having 3 beautiful children charge towards me as I come through the front door. I would not deny anyone their right to have kids and enjoy them. There is an unfortunate element of society that take the wee wee - but I can also imagine there are some people who simply have had "bad luck" and are not financially independant.

I pay into the NHS and I pay into the state - obviously I deplore the behaviour of a few. But for those that will make great parents in unfortunate circumstances - I am happy to pay.

I don't disagree with anything there. What I can't decide is how to encourage the good parents whilst preventing the wee-wee takers from, well, taking the wee-wee.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Not only that, but they only offer antenatal classes to those who are having their first baby.

Snailracers post was just presumptuous bollocks to be honest. He cannot possibly know the ages of the women in those classes, their circumstances and a whole bunch of other things before he posted his assumptions.

Anyway...

A bit harsh, you obviously haven't been to any NHS classes.

It doesn't take a genius to work out the rough ages of the attendees. Views on life and child rearing are shared openly, it's half the point in going. What you will find is that many aspirational people buy their way out and go to the NCT.

I would add that time spent in the baby wing of a London NHS hospital kills off a fair amount of liberal feeling.

+1 Don't think you'll have actually been to any of those classes just yet DDD, but hope you do. We did the NHS one and paid for additional private classes on top, though not the very pricey NCT ones. Our GP described us as 'young for Putney' (33) which tells you a lot.

There's something slightly bonkers about us having arranged society so that most of us can't really afford children without some financial help until we are in our mid thirties, by which time, we are well past are prime in terms of ability to conceive.

Upon reflection what I wrote was harsh and therefore I apologise.

I'm aware of such classes yes.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Snailracers post was just presumptuous bollocks to be honest. He cannot possibly know the ages of the women in those classes, their circumstances and a whole bunch of other things before he posted his assumptions.

Anyway...

DonDaddyD wrote:

You have the choice and its not for me to say you could do it now or not. I think you can.

He's off again.

Sc00bs

Presumptions w1? Your posting history leaves little to presume. Your consistently right wing, pro-tory postulations are not ambiguous. Risible, perhaps.

What cards ought I have you inspect?

Your assumption that 'people have kids to earn more benefits' is typical of the guff I've accused you of spouting. I'm not doubting this does happen, how frequently and wtf you'd know about it I do doubt however.

You failed to address my point of the sometimes unexpected outcomes of IVF. You want one kid and can end up with 8 - what's the deal in this instance? Is this fecklessness too? Should the state support this family? Now the wee mites are here what should we do with them?

See, you stike me as a typical tory - know everything, understand nothing. Do carry on with your no-nonsense, let's sort out the scumbag lower/under classes posturing though - it's a hoot.

DonDaddyD

Il Principe wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And I really don't think I'm anywhere near as posh as you think I am.

He's made up his mind though eh?

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Snailracers post was just presumptuous bollocks to be honest. He cannot possibly know the ages of the women in those classes, their circumstances and a whole bunch of other things before he posted his assumptions.

Anyway...

DonDaddyD wrote:

You have the choice and its not for me to say you could do it now or not. I think you can.

He's off again.

It would seem you've made up your mind about me.

In anycase that would be some superb baiting. If it wasn't for the fact that:

1). I already apologised to snailracer and admitted my mistake.

2). You took what I wrote to LiT out of context to feed the accusation.

Now in regards to LiT, who earns by herself over the child benefit limit, I said that I think she could raise a child on said income because I have friends who have done so on less. Seems pretty reasonable I would have thought. Of course should LiT decide to have children she then wouldn't be able to work and depend on her salary.

This begs the question, would she then be eligible for child benefit?

Open question to all.

(I love it when people misjudge me).

W1

Sc00bs wrote:

Presumptions w1? Your posting history leaves little to presume. Your consistently right wing, pro-tory postulations are not ambiguous. Risible, perhaps.

What cards ought I have you inspect?

Your assumption that 'people have kids to earn more benefits' is typical of the guff I've accused you of spouting. I'm not doubting this does happen, how frequently and wtf you'd know about it I do doubt however.

You failed to address my point of the sometimes unexpected outcomes of IVF. You want one kid and can end up with 8 - what's the deal in this instance? Is this fecklessness too? Should the state support this family? Now the wee mites are here what should we do with them?

See, you stike me as a typical tory - know everything, understand nothing. Do carry on with your no-nonsense, let's sort out the scumbag lower/under classes posturing though - it's a hoot.

Rather than criticising others' views, why don't you say what you think?

Interesting contradiction - it's "guff" but "it does happen".

And yes, presumptions, because regardlless of what you think you know, you actually know very little about me. What was that you said about "know everything, understand nothing"? Anyway, I thought you were leaving....

rick_chasey

W1 - you are a neo-con...

Paulie W

I dont think there's anything 'neo' about W1's 'conservatism' - it's very 1980s in my view.