Children Damaged by Materialism

[TheFaQQer]

There's lots of flaws with that I agree - but there's a vein of commonsensical truth there too. Seriously - what rational minded couple would even consider a planned pregnancy without sufficient resources to support themselves and their offspring? It doesn't make any sense to me - and I suspect that's Lucy's point.

With you, but my wife's best friend had a baby last year that they can ill-afford. And she wants another one.

I'd be focussing on fixing the windows and heating first, myself.

[oracleslave]

With you, but my wife's best friend had a baby last year that they can ill-afford. And she wants another one.

I'd be focussing on fixing the windows and heating first, myself.

Absolutely. The thought of deliberately bringing a child into the world when through your own circumstances you are unlikely to be able to provide for it in the best manner possible is a concept I can't get my head around.

[roadster198]

I read somewhere that it cost an average of £65K to have a child until school leaving age..... I'm sorry but thats a Porsche 911 to me and I know what one I'd rather have

I'm convinced educated People have children because they are bored and the Chav's have them because they know it'll pay there way.

I seriously DO NOT!!! see the attraction in having/bringing up a child. I've had friends/neighbours tell me the experience changes your outlook on life.... Aye along with your bank balance and any free time you once had!! GTF!!!

[oracleslave]

I read somewhere that it cost an average of £65K to have a child until school leaving age..... I'm sorry but thats a Porsche 911 to me and I know what one I'd rather have

I'm convinced educated People have children because they are bored and the Chav's have them because they know it'll pay there way.

I seriously DO NOT!!! see the attraction in having/bringing up a child. I've had friends/neighbours tell me the experience changes your outlook on life.... Aye along with your bank balance and any free time you once had!! GTF!!!

£180 000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006...drelationships

their

[roadster198]

£180 000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006...drelationships

their

£180K!!!! thats just getting silly!!!! how on earth can anyone in there right mind know about this and still have kids!!!!

However £180K??? thats me upgraded to a new 911 Turbo and change

[oracleslave]

£180K!!!! thats just getting silly!!!! how on earth can anyone in there right mind know about this and still have kids!!!!

However £180K??? thats me upgraded to a new 911 Turbo and change

Unfortunately you are coming from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't have kids and are therefore unable to see how ridiculous the argument of comparing kids and cars is. That might change with age and you could end up marvelling at what a self-serving prat you used to be prior to having a family. I know that's what happened to me.

[Bod]

However £180K??? thats me upgraded to a new 911 Turbo and change

Even better, you could just about buy a mint '73 RS 2.7

[snaw]

There's a few large holes in this argument, the biggest one being that circumstances change - divorces happen, people lose jobs, parents die or catch serious illnesses etc.

To say that the only people who should have children are the ones who can 'afford' them is to deny people one of the most basic and fundamental rights any human being has. People have had kids throughout out time whether or not they can afford them, in fact the less they can afford them the more they seem to have (Go to any third world country, with no state support system btw and check for yourself). Sometimes it may be for selfish reasons, sometimes it's religious, sometimes people just get a bit carried away and don't think about the long term consequences.

Fair enough people resent 'paying' for them, but I resent paying for a hell of a lot of things the government pays for, and I'd put kids way before pretty much most things in life, even the ones that come from poor people who can't afford them ...

[oracleslave]

There's a few large holes in this argument, the biggest one being that circumstances change - divorces happen, people lose jobs, parents die or catch serious illnesses etc.

To say that the only people who should have children are the ones who can 'afford' them is to deny people one of the most basic and fundamental rights any human being has. People have had kids throughout out time whether or not they can afford them, in fact the less they can afford them the more they seem to have (Go to any third world country, with no state support system btw and check for yourself). Sometimes it may be for selfish reasons, sometimes it's religious, sometimes people just get a bit carried away and don't think about the long term consequences.

Fair enough people resent 'paying' for them, but I resent paying for a hell of a lot of things the government pays for, and I'd put kids way before pretty much most things in life, even the ones that come from poor people who can't afford them ...

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.

[realityhack]

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.