Child Limits

[joxville]

See-ing the thread about the man with 20 kids reminds me of two families in my home town. Family no.1 had 21 kids, family no.2 had 17 kids. None of the parents worked, they all claimed state benefits, the local joke was their family allowance was delivered by Securicor. Family no.1 had two council house knocked into one large house.The two families married into each other twice-and they have gone onto produce large families, all claiming state benefits.

Why the hell should I and other hard-working tax payer's have to pay for those sponger's? There should be a limit on the amount of kids we have-a maximum of two. Any more than that and you don't get benefits for them. Why should I pay for other people's night of fun?

Just in case you think I'm being a hypocrite because I have a child and therefore get child beneift,(well, my ex-wife does), I don't agree that people like myself and ex should get it. It was our choice to start a family and we have always been in full time employment so don't need the benefit.

[changilass]

Move to China, they are only allowed to have one child, then there is an earthquake and it wipes out all their kids but its tough cos they are only allowed one.

Folks can have more than 2 kids and still pay their way, its hardly fair making the majority suffer for the minority.

I really wouldn't want to live in a country that dictates how many kids you can have.

[justine]

why should anyone be allowed to decide who has how many kids...What a ridiculous question.
Maybe we should decide how many cars you own, or how many holidays you take, how much pollution you put into the air with two three cars per family..

[silverfox57]

as have worked forty odd years had three children, only child benefit was some book oh got paid once a week ,which was a fews pounds.it relay gets me mad to see men in wick that have never worked in there life, got all mod cons.new cars,took sick my self ,asked about Early retirement,was told would get 50pounde aweek,to live on.so to you need a dregee how to get all this benefits,and how are fit men not made to work, I know some are sick but have seen men on walking stick at front of house,and digging garden at back of garden rant over

[justine]

agree with you silverfox. I see plenty saton the buts, driving around in cars and having a high time on others expenses, yes before some hypocritical, i have only had help in four years since moving up here...But yes funny when you see them doing the sick bit then fighting on a sat night...

[Angela]

No - most people who have more than two children can care for and provide for them perfectly well. I have three, now grown up to be useful members of society contributing to the economy. The only 'benefit' we ever got for them was Child Benefit.

Of course it's the exceptions that get into the news, as always. Nobody seems too interested in reading or watching programmes about folk who're managing fine! :roll:

In Scotland we need to increase, or at least maintain, our population.

[_Ju_]

The problem is not choosing to have many children. The problem is the benefit system that allows people to use reproduction as a form of income.
Make indiscriminate parents contribute to their childrens upbringing. It would be better for the families and a better example for the children.

[mccaugm]

I think that you should live within your means and if you cannot afford children or are not working (with a few exceptions) you should put off having children until your circumstances change.

I do not currently work but have been in education for the past two years in order to secure a better job to support my children. Also my husband works full time and we can afford the children we have.

It annoys me that people can milk the system so well, if they knew as much about the world of work as they do the about getting benefits the UK might be in a better state. There should be further limitations and sanctions to make "milking the system" much more complex. How about being forced to do some form of work to "earn" the money the rest of the country is paying out in taxes etc. This might be a better form of contraception in the long run.

[Oddquine]

Don't think we should limit them......just stop calculating benefits around the numbers..and stop giving child benefits over say 10.

Nobody gets paid according to how many kids they have......why should they get benefits for them?

[Anne x]

I have only 1 child and had a hard slog to achieve that Im sure that if things had been different I would of loved to of had more children
but later in life when circumstances changed it was hard to bring up the child on your own I actually worked and held down 2 jobs to pay for college etc the only benefit I received was child benefit which was extended in age terms until 6th year at school was finished which I had applied to do

OQ 10 is to young to stop Child Benefit as that is when everything becomes more expensive teenage years

I would also hate the China syndrome my heart was broken for all the people who lost there only child in the earthquake

[percy toboggan]

At a time when the birth rate is rising fastest amongst recent immigrant communites I'd vote yes.

However, all those women leaving school literate, and having demonstrated a modicum of intelligence should be encouraged, when in a settled relationship with a partner - preferably a husband -to have several children in their twenties. Self sufficient finances preferred but there should be incentives to furnish this society with the essential raw material of aspirational youth.

Thick people - or more accurately those who never read, slob around in shell suits or pyjamas all day and think the world owes 'em a living needn't really bother, in my opinion.

[danc1ngwitch]

an let us remove peoples free will while we are at it:roll: All the money and material things in this old world cannot provide happiness for a child. So who in the hell do we think we all are? Na, all of us would never own up to being of less intelligence ( god forbid if i spell the word wrong ). I mean most cannot fit more than 3 kids ( children for a politer word ) in the car.

[percy toboggan]

Na, all of us would never own up to being of less intelligence ( god forbid if i spell the word wrong ).

Piffle. I am happy to announce that their are many people in this society , and most others, who are more intelligent than myself. I'm sure some have noticed already.

Of course, I'd guesstimate that I occupy a place in the upper middle tier of intelligence but have no problem in accepting there are almost as many above me as there are below.

[Oddquine]

I have only 1 child and had a hard slog to achieve that Im sure that if things had been different I would of loved to of had more children
but later in life when circumstances changed it was hard to bring up the child on your own I actually worked and held down 2 jobs to pay for college etc the only benefit I received was child benefit which was extended in age terms until 6th year at school was finished which I had applied to do

OQ 10 is to young to stop Child Benefit as that is when everything becomes more expensive teenage years

I would also hate the China syndrome my heart was broken for all the people who lost there only child in the earthquake
sorry..didn't mean 10 in age....meant 10 in numbers.

[badger]

I wouldn't want to limit the number of kids people have by law but do believe no-one should have more than they can afford (or have pets they can't afford either). So maybe benefits should stop after the second child. Large families are lovely but children are a responsibility, not a right. Have as many as you want but don't expect the rest of us to pay for them.

The one child policy in China was introduced as the only way they knew to limit the population when something had to be done. I think two would have been more humane even in their desperate circumstances and the culture of wanting boys only is terrible. The time may soon be coming when all countries have to limit the size of families if people won't do it voluntarily as there just won't be enough food to go round.

Either that or they'll have to stop finding ways of prolonging life for those of us who are older as we're certainly not helping the situation.

[NLP]

I voted no.......If we had to stop at two what about 2nd marriges when one has a family and the other does, OH has children with ex so does that mean I would have to go without a child because he already has?

[DeHaviLand]

Us women will be able to have a limit on the amount of kids we have when guys like you start carrying condoms.

And what good will carrying them do? Thats hardly going to prevent pregnancy.:roll:

[Oddquine]

Its the woman's responsibility as much as the man. What woman in their right mind in this day and age should need to, or could, rely on a man for contraception? Who is saying here that this poll is only the opinion of men when it comes to the amount of kids people should have?

What woman in their right mind in this day and age should need to, or could, rely on a man for anything at all? :confused

[Bill Fernie]

A number of unsuitable comments and remarks have been removed from this thread following an unprecendented number of reports from users of the forum and one ban has been issued.

Caithness.org is not an adult web site and inappropriate language will result in bans being issued.

The thread was closed while the posts were being reviewed and removed.

Thread is now opened again.

[Tighsonas4]

THE AGE WE LIVE IN
having had a quick look through this post set me pondering.
i am one of a family of seven and we lost our mother in her 40s father brought us all up with the help of our eldest sister at one stage the wages if you can call it that was paid twice a year in farm service
allowances were never heard of. all worked as soon as they were able
maybe the fact that he was one of a family of twelve helped
hard life but no one starved regards tony

[_Ju_]

THE AGE WE LIVE IN
having had a quick look through this post set me pondering.
i am one of a family of seven and we lost our mother in her 40s father brought us all up with the help of our eldest sister at one stage the wages if you can call it that was paid twice a year in farm service
allowances were never heard of. all worked as soon as they were able
maybe the fact that he was one of a family of twelve helped
hard life but no one starved regards tony

Historically big families were very important. The wealth of the working family was measured in the number of children it had.Those children grew up to the same work as their parents and minimal school was the norm. What was satisfied was the need Times have changed: our wants have become our needs. We want our children to do better and have more and that is very expensive. My lil'guy is 6 but I worry about being able to educate him to the level he needs and provide him with the best begining so that he fufills his potencial. That is my want become a need. Making sure that your children are fed and clean is no longer enough.

[crashbandicoot1979]

I've said yes, but then I also think if you can afford to keep 20 children then go ahead and have them. I object to paying taxes to subsidise large families in which the parents have never done a days work, especially when one of my reasons for not starting a family yet is because I want to make sure I can afford it. I know girls I went to school with who have 5 bairns and (taking into account their rent, council tax etc is paid)make more in a month in benefits than we do in earnings, and we both work full time!

[armanisgirl]

Peeked at this earlier, and tried to reply but thread was locked at the time - and for good reason. thank you for cleaning it up!

In answer to the question - no, we shouldn't be restricted. think of those who have lost a child or children; would it be fair to them? No. Children die, through illness, murder or tragic accidents all the time. Why should the now childless parent/s have to live their lives with no children if they don't have to? That would be taking their rights away. then there are thosse who have IVF, and have multiple births - are would they be forced to 'abort' one or more fetus just because a law says they can only have 1 or 2 kids? Again, this takes away the basic human right to procreate. Apart from anything else, the country would end up like China; babies being abandoned in gutters because they are child number 2 or they are not the required son. Being in a position like this would cost the taxpayer a lot more than a family with 10+ kids; think of the orphanages that would have to be created, the staff to run them, the adoption campaigns etc to find homes for abandoned children.

Yes, years ago there was no such thing as benefits, but then there were close knit families that helped each other out with babysitting etc, we grew our own fruit and veg etc etc. There were no designer labels that our offspring 'has to have' to be accepted.

In today's society, there is nothing stopping at least one parent (in a two parent family) from working. Even the disabled are able to find employment (and I'm not being discriminatory, I have a disabling illness myself), so there's nothing to stop most people getting work. There are so many incentives, government funded, to help you get back to work; childcare expenses, tax credits etc. And the reality is, everyone on a low income is financially better off as a result, even taking into consideration paying rent etc. You still get NHS things free, subsidised this and that. The main problem with this country is that people don't want to work a lot of the time, but are quite happy to have a pop at the foreigner stacking the shelves in Tesco, accusing them of stealing 'our' jobs. They do 'our' jobs because we refuse to do low-paid and physical work. Why???? The foreigners show that they often are 'better than us' simply because they are prepared to do those low-end jobs for lower wages, helping keep our economy aflost (yes we aren't doing so great at the moment, but it could have been a lot worse a lot sooner!) but they get harrassed for it. The ones who should be harrased are those not paying tax etc, not the ones prepared to work and put back into this society.

As long as we at least try to guide our children, so that they do get an education and then go to work, it shouldn't matter how many children each of us have. If we, as parents, have 20 kids, but set an example by going to work, then we are putting something back into society, and that's what matters.

So no, we shouldn't be prevented from having lots of children, unless there is a real medical resons saying we shouldn't, or we have been proved to be unfit parents already. Whether you have one child or 20, it's how you raise them that counts; as they often follow by examples set by their elders. Just drum into them to take responsibility for what happens in their lives.