POFUsers.com - Plenty of Fish Users Forum

It's not a question of allowing someone to have a baby it's a question of where possible teaching our society that having children while 100% reliant on state support should not be a lifestyle choice but a last resort and to be as temporary as possible or borne out of unfortunate circumstances over which you had no control. For too many people state dependancy is a lifestyle choice and if we don't do something about it pretty soon there will simply be no money left in the pot.

The proportion of people in this country who are economically inactive has shot up to over 20% of the working population, some of those are students or people who for one reason or another don't need an income and neither do they claim benefits but it's still money lost to the revenue and UK PLC on a massive scale. The public sector had ballooned in recent years and while they are all paying tax and contributing they were paid by the government anyway so it's a net loss. The people left are the private sector, people not paid by the state nor dependant on it so are a net gain in terms of revenue, it's this group that's shrinking alarmingly.

shabbawanks wrote:It's not a question of allowing someone to have a baby it's a question of where possible teaching our society that having children while 100% reliant on state support should not be a lifestyle choice but a last resort and to be as temporary as possible or borne out of unfortunate circumstances over which you had no control. For too many people state dependancy is a lifestyle choice and if we don't do something about it pretty soon there will simply be no money left in the pot.

.

Yes I do understand where you're coming from. However there are also circumstances where teenagers are on the pill etc and still get pregnant, and they shouldn't be expected to abort because people presume that they can't go to college, study and become a useful member of society, because with parental support and some personal drive there's no reason why they should be any less use than they would've been without a child. Sadly as usual there are some who make a bad name for others who get tarred with the same brush.

Personally I think that far too much emphasis is put on peoples rights these days when we really should be more focused on their capabilities.

Strictly speaking I've got the right to be a Premiership footballer. But, simply bleating about the fact that Man City haven't yet given me a call won't get me very far.

Is there a universal right for all women / all couples (gay or straight) to have children?

An interesting question Belinda,
And if I'm dogmatic to my beliefs and philosophies of life, I would have to answer yes, and I'll try to simplify my rational:
If you work on the scientific principles that life is evolving continually, and the fact that every one of our ancestors endured, despite the obstacles that their particular lives were burdened with.

That they were the survivors, the winners, every one of us is here because each of our particular antecedents survived long enough to reach breeding age, and then managed to keep that child alive until he/she did, and so on. Then you may arrive at my conclusion, that our primary purpose is the passing of the genes. We are "baton" carriers, so in that sense, it's not a right, it's almost an obligation!

But as Shabba and others have said, this should be done responsibly. In the past, people often had large families because of the high infant-mortality rates. but that's no longer necessary in the 'developed' world. I think there should be an upper limit, regardless of income, simply to prevent the population growth reaching unsustainable levels, in general. The earth can only supply 'so much' food.

As far as the rights of same sex couple to to bear "Donor babies" or adopt etc, I once got into trouble with this before, as my views were thought to be homophobic, but I thought the best environment was the 'natural' one. There may be times when there are mitigating circumstances though, but it's a difficult area to relate to if not directly involved. So now I'd say "prefer not to say".

I'd like to say before I comment that these are only my thoughts and opinion, so not meant to be taken as a judgement on anyone else's thoughts etc.

Children are not a right, they are a blessing.

My romantic view is that if you truly love someone then the greatest gift you can give them (and them you) is to create a life between you.

However, even though I have loved deeply and with an all consuming passion in my past, I have never had any desire to have children. I don't dislike them, I've just never wanted them. And I don't think I am "parent" material.

Health problems in my mid 30's put paid to any chance of me having kids and I can't say it upset me, in fact just the opposite.

I do think some women as they age pay too much mind to the whole biological/it's my right as a woman thing. Some of us just weren't meant to be parents and if we were more prepared to accept that (when we haven't had them) and look to what we DO have rather than focus on what we DON'T have then there would be a lot of people more satisfied with their lot.

I do have to counter that with the fact that my brother and sister who do have kids have always included me in their upbringing (both my nieces lived with me from the age of 17 until their early 20's) and this has meant we are very close.

I don't feel I have missed out by not having children (maybe because of my close relationship with my nieces and nephew), and I can appreciate what a joy (and a trial) they can be, but I know I made the right decision in not becoming a mother.

Whilst the the majority are capable of having children I do wonder about their rights to parent. In over-populated countries like China where you are limited to only having one child, it doesn't seem like a bad idea to adopt something similar over here.

It's interesting that when you adopt you have to go through lots of tests to prove you are worthy of being a decent parent. They judge you on things like physical health, diet, whether you drink or smoke, income, mental health issues, family background, etc. Perhaps they should do that for everyone, not just for people who are desperate to adopt. They could limit parents to having one child until they have proved they are capable of looking after that one (say, 2 years)?

shabbawanks wrote:

Guest7 wrote:

shabbawanks wrote:Men have no rights on this question, in a lot of cases we just have responsibilities after women have made choices or as is becoming more commonplace the state has responsibilities after the woman has made choices.

All men have rights on this one. They are aware of how babies are conceived, the function of a penis and what sperm does. If you don't want children stick a bag on it! (Complaining you don't like how it feels carries very little weight.) That is the control you have over the situation and if you choose to hand that control over to someone else, that is also your decision.

That's the bog standard stock answer in this kind of debate and while it carries a lot of weight it's not a be all and end all lof the situation, what about a LTR where the woman is on the BCP? regularly rubbering up everytime inferes a sense of mistrust of her, what about when a couple plan to have children and the woman changes her mind after she's conceived?...what rights does the man have in that situation? it's far too complex to simply spout "stick a bag on it" unless of course it's just a one off when you should anyway for reasons of sexual health.

Condoms can be used as contraception during a LTR, but it has become common practise to think that all women who are sexually active are taking the BCP. Would a woman really be offended if a man said that he wished to be responsible for contraception? Isn't your original statement about mistrust in the first place? That a man can get stuck with responsibilities after a woman has made her choice.

If a couple have planned to have children and a woman changes her mind after she has conceived, she has right to end that pregnancy as it is her body. As hard as that may seem, it is her body that has to go through with a pregnancy and labour whilst a man is physically unaffected by it. This would not alter a man's right to have children; he just would not be having children with that particular woman.

Restless said:
Personally I think that far too much emphasis is put on peoples rights these days when we really should be more focused on their capabilities.

Strictly speaking I've got the right to be a Premiership footballer. But, simply bleating about the fact that Man City haven't yet given me a call won't get me very far.

Nailed it. The feeling of "rights' has been bastardized into "entitlements" and this has created the ultimate in "I want".
Just because our countries have rights that our veterans have fought for DOES NOT MEAN that you are entitled to everything you want.

No, we don't have the right to have children...however and whenever we please. We should bring them forth when the nest for them is supplied with plenty of love, security and a desire on both parents to have a family unit.
Some people feel they are "entitled" to have children. That is why Child's Rights has become a huge force in our legislature. To deal with these "entitled" feeling parents who cater to their selfish wants.
I have a good friend who's daughter is a prime example of this.
She started bringing children into the world when she was 16. With all different fathers, she has brought in 4 little boys into this world by the age of 25 and doesn't have any of them with her now. Why? She has this urge to create a baby when she falls in love with a man. When the relationship tanks, the kid goes, too. Then she is onto another man....and another baby.
Apparently, she is not alone in this.

Going back to our beginnings, in times of stress and famine, our females did not ovulate until life started to be better and more plentiful. Nature had a way of regulating when it was appropriate to have children.
Our strongest drive is to ensure the continuation of the species. Mother Nature doesn't really care who and what the humans are as long as the human species is strong and healthy. Survival of the fittest. Which means brains and brawn.

My recommendation is education. Teaching.
Factual education, moral education, philosophical education and life choices education.
We are the elders and we need to teach our children. That is what Nature has always intended. Children do need guidance and boundaries and we are failing at that because we are a confused lot, too. The Baby Boomers of the Free Love/ No Rules generation. Destruction of the family unit through divorce and demanding careers. Our children are the fall-out. Now... they are trying to raise their own children with haphazard parenting skills learned from our generation.

Ours was not the perfect generation with the perfect answers. We were a mess.
What wisdom have we gained now that we are middle-aged?
What can we teach our children now that we are the "elders'??

In a free society, could there be a way to tell people not to have children? It would be nice if people really thought about it, really believed that every sexual encounter could result in a pregnancy regardless of vigilance with birth control. People should think about the financial responsibilities as well as the physical and emotional responsibilities of a parent but many do not.

My stepson's wife probably never intended to do anything but bleed the system. They have seven children and paid for not one pregnancy or delivery and have constantly used people, churches and whatever they could get out of the government. My father was very right when he said they should have sterilized him after the first kid. But there are poor people that aren't trying to bleed the system that will likely be on and off assistance, should they be denied the joys of having a family if they have tried to improve their circumstances? I don't think most of us really have a tiny clue about real poverty, the kind that is pervasive not because of a victim mentality but without the resources to ever seem to make positive change.

I think it is screwed up that insurance companies deny life-saving treatment but pay for IVF for people that want families. I figure if you cannot have a baby, you should consider giving a good home to a child that needs one, particularly an older child that is less likely than an infant to be adopted out.

I think life skills courses should be mandatory freshman year of high school so that maybe some of these kids will not think it is romantic to have a baby when you are still a child. I also think when people have a child, whether it was planned or wanted, they should either put the child up for adoption or suck it up and be a good parent. Some people will make the argument that there are people that just don't want to or know how to be a parent but there were many things I wasn't remotely jazzed about doing when my kids were younger, that I probably didn't like at all but my kids didn't know it. I think kids are hurt much more when the emotional aspect of parenting is off than when finances are a problem.

some sensible comments so far...some good analysis aswell...some the ususal...

Some may not be aware, or wearing rosy spectacles, but in China unwanted/extra babys are regularly left to die in the gutter...No sense in adding the reasons, I think we would or should all know why...

If we in the West where to adopt that policy, or a policy of deciding who could or could not have children (obvisously only for white Anglo Saxons), then who would police the criteria?...Do you think some geek straight out of college like we have in our current SS?

Didn't the Nazi's have some kind of breeding programme?

I am no leftie tree hugger, but I am pretty uncomfortable with this...