Children Damaged by Materialism

[snaw]

I am not advocating that only the rich should have kids, However I can't understand deliberately having kids when you know you will struggle to adequately provide for them, i.e. having kids for selfish reasons.

The argument of 'look how many people have kids' in third world countries is also flawed considering the volumes of kids in child labour, living below the poverty line etc. Just because it's your right doesn't mean you should exercise it imo.

You-re contradicting yourself there. You're saying not only the rich should have kids, but people who can't provide shouldn't have them. So who's that leave then?

How many success stories are there of children born into poverty who've gone onto make a major mark in the world (Or not, just grow up a little better off and bring their better off kids into the world). People might not be able to give their kids all the best things in life, but they'll sacrifice and do their best with what limited resources they have, and in the norm they get by.

It's a basic human need, and I'd like to see how you rationalise that with a woman who's getting clucky and her biological clock is running out.

[snaw]

Fair enough - it's your right to have children.

However, when did welfare switch from being a privilege to a right?

I'm all up for my taxes supporting abandoned/poor children, no innocent child should have to go without.

I'm not, however, happy about it being a cash cow for irresponsible 'parents'. Removing the incentive could sort that one out. Exactly how that could be implemented I've no idea.

Don't think I said welfare should be a right, and I'm definitely not suggesting the welfare system should be geared towards encouraging people to be 'rewarded' for having children. Equally I'd rather see it spent towards that than many other things our tax money is spent on.

[realityhack]

People might not be able to give their kids all the best things in life, but they'll sacrifice and do their best with what limited resources they have, and in the norm they get by.

It's a basic human need, and I'd like to see how you rationalise that with a woman who's getting clucky and her biological clock is running out.

Sadly, a great many irresponsible parents-that-shouldn't-have-been don't share your ethos, your work ethic or your noble ideas of sacrifice. They don't bear their own responsibilities, they expect others to bear it for them. And so the kids see this and mirror this - by example - and so we have an entire generation who think this way.

Good point re the biological clock.

[oracleslave]

You-re contradicting yourself there. You're saying not only the rich should have kids, but people who can't provide shouldn't have them. So who's that leave then?

How many success stories are there of children born into poverty who've gone onto make a major mark in the world (Or not, just grow up a little better off and bring their better off kids into the world). People might not be able to give their kids all the best things in life, but they'll sacrifice and do their best with what limited resources they have, and in the norm they get by.

It's a basic human need, and I'd like to see how you rationalise that with a woman who's getting clucky and her biological clock is running out.

Point taken. I guess I can only speak from my own perspective which is that if I knew I was unable to provide for my kid(s) then I would take a conscious decision not to have one until I could. I would feel guilty making a conscious choice to have a child knowing I couldn't offer it more that just the bare necessities to survive.

The fact is the number of initially poverty stricken children that make a success of themselves is miniscule in comparison with the millions that end up suffering. As a poor parent I personally wouldn't gamble that everything might turn out ok.

[oracleslave]

Good point re the biological clock.

My missus is a year older than me so I got thumped with the proverbial biological clock too.

[Lucy]

Clock or no clock, the fact remains that if people cannot afford to look after children ie either they are time or money poor they shouldn't have them.

[SueEllen]

Clock or no clock, the fact remains that if people cannot afford to look after children ie either they are time or money poor they shouldn't have them.

It has and probably never will stop people.

And some parents are neither time or money poor but just carp parents.They are too lazy or stubborn to workout or learn how to be a good one.

[snaw]

Clock or no clock, the fact remains that if people cannot afford to look after children ie either they are time or money poor they shouldn't have them.

You shouldn't pretend to be a women. Each to their own ;-)

[SueEllen]

You shouldn't pretend to be a women. Each to their own ;-)

People are different.

Biological clocks start ticking loudly at different times.

Also I've know women who have been single teenage mothers and the fact that it's been difficult to provide for their kid makes them pull their finger out. I've also met the other kind which is why you can't make the rule you should only have children if you can afford it.

[SandyDown]

Clock or no clock, the fact remains that if people cannot afford to look after children ie either they are time or money poor they shouldn't have them.

Lucy, open your heart mate, what goes round, comes round, Kismet / karma and all that!! Must you see everything so black and white? Must you be so judgemental? Excuse me saying this, but are you sure you are suited for this counselling/social course you are going for?