Irresponsible to have children on benefits?

[4magpies]

is then fair that Maria will get no brothers or sisters because of her dad's health?

Some people don't even have the chance to have one baby, so count yourself very lucky...

If I ever have a child the likelyhood is that they will never get sibling, and to be honest, that doesn't bother me.



x

 

[Natsku]

is then fair that Maria will get no brothers or sisters because of her dad's health?

Some people don't even have the chance to have one baby, so count yourself very lucky...

If I ever have a child the likelyhood is that they will never get sibling, and to be honest, that doesn't bother me.



x

I hope you get a baby soon

I hope I don't sound ungrateful, I know I'm blessed to have Maria as there are people who can't have children, but I just don't think its right that an inability to work should stop people from following one of the basest human instintcs - to continue their genetic code. My OH didn't choose to have his problems.

 

[KittyVentura]

Honestly? I think it is extremely irresponsible to PLAN to bring a child into the world (as in actively TTC or simply not using contracteption) that you cannot afford to care for yourselves.

It adds an unnecessary burden onto society and I honestly think that benefits should NOT be provided for ANY children convieved intentionally while on benefits (I assume there's a way of linking with GPs/MW to find out if the parents were using contraception - I concieved Fin on the pill and this was noted on my notes under medication taken while pregnant as I'd taken the pill until I found out I was expecting).

I hate it when it is thrown around that having children is a basic human right. In my opinion it is not. If you cannot put yourself in a better position yourself, then you forfeit that right in my eyes. I understand that the job market etc is tough right now but honestly everyone can find work and better their position if they REALLY commit to it. People are just too fussy when it comes to taking a job and/or the wages are low and so it is "easier" to stay on benefits and get almost as much money for not doing anything.

Harsh but that is truly how I see it.

I have to add however that this opinion is ONLY of those that do PLAN to have a child while relying on benefits to live. There is a vast difference between this, which is ultimately abuse of the benefit system in my eyes, and having to rely on benefits once already pregnant or having a baby. The same as it is different to plan for a baby than it is to have the pill/coil/implant/condom and to find yourself pregnant unexpectedly. Benefits should be provided for those that need it unexpectedly... not for those that PLAN to use them xx

 

[stardust599]

Honestly? I think it is extremely irresponsible to PLAN to bring a child into the world (as in actively TTC or simply not using contracteption) that you cannot afford to care for yourselves.

It adds an unnecessary burden onto society and I honestly think that benefits should NOT be provided for ANY children convieved intentionally while on benefits (I assume there's a way of linking with GPs/MW to find out if the parents were using contraception - I concieved Fin on the pill and this was noted on my notes under medication taken while pregnant as I'd taken the pill until I found out I was expecting).

I hate it when it is thrown around that having children is a basic human right. In my opinion it is not. If you cannot put yourself in a better position yourself, then you forfeit that right in my eyes. I understand that the job market etc is tough right now but honestly everyone can find work and better their position if they REALLY commit to it. People are just too fussy when it comes to taking a job and/or the wages are low and so it is "easier" to stay on benefits and get almost as much money for not doing anything.

Harsh but that is truly how I see it.

I have to add however that this opinion is ONLY of those that do PLAN to have a child while relying on benefits to live. There is a vast difference between this, which is ultimately abuse of the benefit system in my eyes, and having to rely on benefits once already pregnant or having a baby. The same as it is different to plan for a baby than it is to have the pill/coil/implant/condom and to find yourself pregnant unexpectedly. Benefits should be provided for those that need it unexpectedly... not for those that PLAN to use them xx

Okay, so I agree with the most part of this.

But what if someone is ill or disabled and on long-term benefits - i.e. will never work but through no fault of their own.

Take my sister and her OH.

Her OH has schizophrenia, generally he lives a normal life but he has been told that he will never be well enough to work. It puts too much strain on him and causes a relapse. When he has a relapse he needs to go into hospital and it takes a good few months to a year to recover. They rely entirely on benefits

They have 2 LOs. More than likely they will have another at some point.

They both do voluntary work and teach their children the value of working. When her LOs are old enough she will likely go back to full-time work (she did before her eldest came along) but she can't just now as her OH cannot cope with the children alone.

Should they be denied the chance to have children ever in their whole lifes because of a life-limiting illness? The children are cared for and will become hard-working, valuable members of society.

 

[4magpies]

I really don't understand why they need another child? They have already been blessed with 2?

Don't want to sound ignorant or offensive, just asking the questions?

x

 

[KittyVentura]

That's a tough one.

Generally I would exclude disability benefits from my opinion above. It is not one's choice to be disabled or have an illness that means they cannot work.

However it does raise the question over whether someone who cannot work because of a sickness or disability would be able to truly fulfill the role of a parent. I cannot say that for sure because I do not know. However children are hard work. If someone had an illness or disability that meant they could not fully parent or needed support with parenting... then I personally would feel that havign a child wouldn't be the right path to go down. But it is a very tough subject and impossible to give a generic response because every illness and disability is different and every person's abilities as a result is different. What one person with XXX is capable of is likely to be different to what another person with XXX is capable of.

My sister has Schizophrenia so this is the only thing that I can give an honest opinion of based of personal involvement and experience. She is a harmless Schizophrenic, when she goes into psychosis she thinks she is tinkerbell or lady gaga and she has conversations with people who are not there etc. She's been sectioned twice in 2 years. However even when not having an "episode" she is rather slow and needs a fair amount of social support. She is recieving DLA and will never be able to work.

Honestly, even though I love her to bits. I would be extremely alarmed and worried for her and the child if she fell pregnant. I do not feel that for her and her illness she would be fit to parent... and that's taking the benefits part of it out of equation.

So yeah, tough one. Overall I would support someone on DLA or similar TTC so long as they were fit to parent xx

 

[moomin_troll]

That's a tough one.

Generally I would exclude disability benefits from my opinion above. It is not one's choice to be disabled or have an illness that means they cannot work.

However it does raise the question over whether someone who cannot work because of a sickness or disability would be able to truly fulfill the role of a parent. I cannot say that for sure because I do not know. However children are hard work. If someone had an illness or disability that meant they could not fully parent or needed support with parenting... then I personally would feel that havign a child wouldn't be the right path to go down. But it is a very tough subject and impossible to give a generic response because every illness and disability is different and every person's abilities as a result is different. What one person with XXX is capable of is likely to be different to what another person with XXX is capable of.

My sister has Schizophrenia so this is the only thing that I can give an honest opinion of based of personal involvement and experience. She is a harmless Schizophrenic, when she goes into psychosis she thinks she is tinkerbell or lady gaga and she has conversations with people who are not there etc. She's been sectioned twice in 2 years. However even when not having an "episode" she is rather slow and needs a fair amount of social support. She is recieving DLA and will never be able to work.

Honestly, even though I love her to bits. I would be extremely alarmed and worried for her and the child if she fell pregnant. I do not feel that for her and her illness she would be fit to parent... and that's taking the benefits part of it out of equation.

So yeah, tough one. Overall I would support someone on DLA or similar TTC so long as they were fit to parent xx

i agree with everything uve said.
it does depend on the disability and if their partner is working or has to be a full time carer.
my brother will never be able to get a job and i would not trust him to have a child

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

That's a tough one.

Generally I would exclude disability benefits from my opinion above. It is not one's choice to be disabled or have an illness that means they cannot work.

However it does raise the question over whether someone who cannot work because of a sickness or disability would be able to truly fulfill the role of a parent. I cannot say that for sure because I do not know. However children are hard work. If someone had an illness or disability that meant they could not fully parent or needed support with parenting... then I personally would feel that havign a child wouldn't be the right path to go down. But it is a very tough subject and impossible to give a generic response because every illness and disability is different and every person's abilities as a result is different. What one person with XXX is capable of is likely to be different to what another person with XXX is capable of.

My sister has Schizophrenia so this is the only thing that I can give an honest opinion of based of personal involvement and experience. She is a harmless Schizophrenic, when she goes into psychosis she thinks she is tinkerbell or lady gaga and she has conversations with people who are not there etc. She's been sectioned twice in 2 years. However even when not having an "episode" she is rather slow and needs a fair amount of social support. She is recieving DLA and will never be able to work.

Honestly, even though I love her to bits. I would be extremely alarmed and worried for her and the child if she fell pregnant. I do not feel that for her and her illness she would be fit to parent... and that's taking the benefits part of it out of equation.

So yeah, tough one. Overall I would support someone on DLA or similar TTC so long as they were fit to parent xx

i agree with everything uve said.
it does depend on the disability and if their partner is working or has to be a full time carer.
my brother will never be able to get a job and i would not trust him to have a child

I think I will always be M's full time carer tbh. I dont know I think there is a huge difference in CHOOSING not to work and NOT BEING ABLE TO. In some ways I dont think its fair to say how many people some one can/cant have. I know its bad but who are we to say?

 

[stardust599]

That's a tough one.

Generally I would exclude disability benefits from my opinion above. It is not one's choice to be disabled or have an illness that means they cannot work.

However it does raise the question over whether someone who cannot work because of a sickness or disability would be able to truly fulfill the role of a parent. I cannot say that for sure because I do not know. However children are hard work. If someone had an illness or disability that meant they could not fully parent or needed support with parenting... then I personally would feel that havign a child wouldn't be the right path to go down. But it is a very tough subject and impossible to give a generic response because every illness and disability is different and every person's abilities as a result is different. What one person with XXX is capable of is likely to be different to what another person with XXX is capable of.

My sister has Schizophrenia so this is the only thing that I can give an honest opinion of based of personal involvement and experience. She is a harmless Schizophrenic, when she goes into psychosis she thinks she is tinkerbell or lady gaga and she has conversations with people who are not there etc. She's been sectioned twice in 2 years. However even when not having an "episode" she is rather slow and needs a fair amount of social support. She is recieving DLA and will never be able to work.

Honestly, even though I love her to bits. I would be extremely alarmed and worried for her and the child if she fell pregnant. I do not feel that for her and her illness she would be fit to parent... and that's taking the benefits part of it out of equation.

So yeah, tough one. Overall I would support someone on DLA or similar TTC so long as they were fit to parent xx

I think it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. My brother is currently being assessed for schizophrenia too and I would be very upset if he was to father a child, he's nowhere near emotionally or mentally stable enough to be a parent and I'd be worried for both him and the baby.

My sister's OH on the other hand is very stable, he hasn't been hospitalized for 6years, only 1 minor relapse in that time, he does need support but he doesn't need major or ongoing daily support. He won't ever work - doing so would put him under far too much strain and would likely cause a major relapse putting him back in hospital. He wants to work and does voluntary work. The fact that he can't work kills him. If my sister wasn't around he wouldn't be able to look after the kids on his own - it would make him ill again - and me or my Mum would take over.

xx

 

[stardust599]

I really don't understand why they need another child? They have already been blessed with 2?

Don't want to sound ignorant or offensive, just asking the questions?

x

Firstly, I hope you get your baby soon and I don't want any of my post to come across as offensive.

Well why does anyone need another child when they have already been blessed with 1 or 2 (or more)?

In my sister's case it's because they have raised two happy healthy independent clever loving young boys who in future will be valuable, hard-working, strong adults who contribute to the economy in a positive way. And they have enough love to do it all over again. When the children are school age my sister will return to her full-time work and they will no longer be on benefits. If she waited until the 2 were at school and then decided to have another she'd have to give up work all over again for another 6 years. Unfortunately it's a long-term thing for them.

I don't see why they should be denied the chance to have anymore children because of an illness or disability that's not their fault?? As long as it's not life-limiting or affects their ability to be a parent then I say why not? Who's to say a healthy/fit person is a better parent than a disabled person?

 

[4magpies]

I know it's not their fault, but they are still having these children at the cost of the government.

I can understand having one or 2 children, but the need for 3 is beyond me. I feel it's a bit greedy TBH.

But it does affect their/his ability to parent, you said yourself he could not look after the children on his own, what would happen if god forbid something happened to your sister?

I hope I am coming across right!

x

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I know it's not their fault, but they are still having these children at the cost of the government.

I can understand having one or 2 children, but the need for 3 is beyond me. I feel it's a bit greedy TBH.

But it does affect their/his ability to parent, you said yourself he could not look after the children on his own, what would happen if god forbid something happened to your sister?

I hope I am coming across right!

x

Yes I know what you mean. I know someone who is a terrible parent and has 6 kids and on benefits. It makes me mad, but where do the government draw the line? It will never be "fair" for anyone.

 

[4magpies]

I know it's not their fault, but they are still having these children at the cost of the government.

I can understand having one or 2 children, but the need for 3 is beyond me. I feel it's a bit greedy TBH.

But it does affect their/his ability to parent, you said yourself he could not look after the children on his own, what would happen if god forbid something happened to your sister?

I hope I am coming across right!

x

Yes I know what you mean. I know someone who is a terrible parent and has 6 kids and on benefits. It makes me mad, but where do the government draw the line? It will never be "fair" for anyone.

I'm glad you understand what I mean.

And unfortunately life is unfair... the old cliche. And I know that fact all too well.

xx

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

sometimes I just want to take the kids of this woman and give them to my friend who is infertile. Life is not fair, your right. Some people just take the piss!

 

[KittyVentura]

I think I will always be M's full time carer tbh. I dont know I think there is a huge difference in CHOOSING not to work and NOT BEING ABLE TO. In some ways I dont think its fair to say how many people some one can/cant have. I know its bad but who are we to say?

Actually. I do kinda agree.

It is not anyone's place to say who can and cannot have children really. However I think it is down to governements to say how many children they will be happy to support financially.

I think ultimately when saying everyone has the right to have children you have to strip things back to their most basic level. Imagine that there are no benefit schemes in place etc.

Yes, I could go out and get pregnant every year and have 25 babies in my lifetime. However with no way of supporting them, and no benefits etc, those children would likely starve and die.

If I was to go out and have lots of children knowing they would not be fed at all and were at risk of dieing... would you still support the right to have as many children as I liked?

I don't see why having a benefits system in place changes that. Ultimately people are still intentionally having children that they know that they cannot support... but it is ok because we live in a rich country with good benefits where the goverment would not allow a child to starve?

We all have a social responsibility and we should not be having children we cannot afford to have... just because we know that in this day and age we'll be supported no matter what. The choice to have a child without being able to earn money yourself to provide food for is just as reckless a choice with or without benefits. You're just relying on someone else (the government) to give a handout and keep that child fed and alive. That's pretty irresponsible.

Once again I add that this is aimed only at those that could work, choose not to and plan (or do not prevent) a baby whilst already living on and relying on benefits to survive. See previous posts for full disclaimer lol xxxx

 

[Loverman]

I think if your on benifits then you should not plan to have a child. why should I and other tax payers pay for you to have a child? no one paid for me to have my child. Go get a job, save some money if need be, then consider having a child.

 

[KittyVentura]

Woah... what the flip! A man!!! I heard they were only fabled in these parts lol

 

[ShanandBoc]

Kitty

 

[Loverman]

Haha, thought id join in seeing as OH is always on here anyway and the car forums and what not that i go on tends to be full of not such nice people and i always end up getting pee'd off lol

 

[Eternal]

Im just joining this debate. Bit scared really lol, usually stay away from controversal topics but always read them

Anyway, I agree with the majority that people shouldnt plan a child while on benefits.

It is a difficult one though, but for the most part i beleive the benefits system should be and was set up to help people out of a mess, it not meant as a permenant thing, its meant to help people out in the short term. The problem with the system is that it seems people seem to be better off on benefits than working in a low paid job which is often all people can get. What a terrible system and how sad that some people are stuck from no fault of there own.

But from that I still cant understand why people would plan a baby when neither is in work.

Im a SAHM, but my OH works full term and the only thing we claim is child benefit, nothing else. We are not entitled to anything else as my husband earns too much.

Yet shockingly I have seen people on here say how much they get in benefits which is sometimes more than my husband earns in a month! That does seem wrong to me, that we are classed as a high earning family yet someone on benefits can earn as much??? That seems like a wonderful way to ensure they never get a job, at no fault of their own.

My mum is disabled so gets disabilty living allowance, but would she have more kids? No ... I mean now she couldnt as she is in her late 50's but she became disabled in her 30's so she could of, but she wouldnt of, if she isnt well enough to work she wouldnt be well enough to bring another child into the world.

Disabilities a hard one too, as some people are classed as diabled and use that as an excuse and others still go to work. I know people who dont work, and fair enough they have a good reason for it, but then I can find others in much worse "condition" if you will, who do work.

As for it not being anyones business, of course it is, My husband and I have always worked (i havent since my son was born, had full maternity so offically been no working for about 9 months) and paid full tax and NI, and a huge amount of that went to the people we are discussing. Saying just because you pay VAT makes it ok, really doenst, you were given that money from the tax payer in the first place, you arnt contributing. when someone is working then pay tax and NI and then pay all that other stuff too, as well as higher levels of tax 40% for some of us and 50% for those high earners. We also pay tax on our pensions, we pay for dental care and other such things, those of us that buy houses pay stamp duty and inheritance tax (well when someone dies).

So comparing paying VAT on a few things to paying tax is really not the case, esp when that money came from benefits in the first place.

However, I dont have anything against those who are claiming, flip if my husband lost his job tomorrow then we would have to clam, if my husbands wages went down we would have to claim, if he died (after the insurance money ran out) i would have to claim.

There are lots of reasons people need benefits and there is nothing wrong with it at all, that is what they are there for, disability, those who loose their jobs, those who become single for whatever reason, those who have a reduction in wages, there are loads of reasons why people need benefits and I see nothing wrong with people claiming benefits.

I do think there needs to be more help to help those who want to work, esp with childcare.