Do people have a right to have children they patently can not afford?

Dinarius

This tragic story featured on RTE This Week today.

‪ https://www.rte.ie/radio1/this-week/programmes/2018/1125/1013242-this-week-sunday-25-november-2018/?clipid=102985439#102985439‬;

It epitomises much of the social welfare and homelessness problem we have in this country.

While being on the housing list for such a long time is an indictment of our public services, is there a point at which the rights of children who, arguably, should never have been born, supersede the rights of the parent to have them in the first place?

At what point does enforced care/adoption kick in? Or should it ever?

I fully realise that I am dropping a grenade here. I am simply wondering if this is something we should be debating.

D.

Car expert

How can they get a free house unless they fire out a barrel of young lads?

Sandor Clegane

Having too many kids when you can't support them is a genuine career move these days.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

What way are you stopping them from having kids? Sterilisation? Fines? Jail time? Placement on Santa's naughty list?

Cee-Jay-Cee

If you can’t afford to look after your children without handouts then you shouldn’t be having children.

Myself and my wife work, we have two children and couldn’t afford a third. The cost of Child care, clothing, food etc etc makes it impossible on our wages.

Dinarius

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What way are you stopping them from having kids? Sterilisation? Fines? Jail time? Placement on Santa's naughty list?

As my post indicates, I’m suggesting none of the above.

One of the questions I’m raising is, does there come a point where the rights of the child exceed those of the parent(s) who, it might be argued, should not have had them?

If the rights of the child were to exceed those of the parent at a certain point, I have no idea how you would enforce them.

Hence my question.

D.

s7ryf3925pivug

You need a licence for a dog or a tv but you can create as many mini humans as you like.

Responsible people hold off having kids until they are set up to provide for them in multiple dimensions not just financially. This is unlikely to be before they're in their thirties and they have fewer children. Irresponsible people bang out several in their youth. Yes this is a summary of Idiocracy, but it's also accurate.

Trigger Happy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What way are you stopping them from having kids? Sterilisation? Fines? Jail time? Placement on Santa's naughty list?

I’d bet that not paying them extra per sprog would be a great form of contraception.

Fann Linn

Berties_Horse wrote: »

In this country, there is no limit to number of children provided they are on the government tit.

You can't say that. You'll be branded racist and discriminatory by liberals in the media and by Tubs on the LLS.

LirW

This topic has been done to death already.
Should you have children when you can't afford them? No.
What's stopping people to do it anyway? Nothing.
Do we really want to live in a society though where the government only gets to decide who's worthy of having children? Personally I don't because it opens a pretty dangerous door.
Plenty of families can pay their own way yet are just two paychecks away from being broke and defaulting on their mortgage. Once a partner loses their job should we just take their children away?

I understand it's frustrating to see some people making some sort of career from popping kids out. But nothing can realistically stop them.
I wouldn't fancy living in some middle eastern country where the government interferes heavily into family planning depending on the economic situation.

eviltwin

Why stop at finances? Money is no barrier to being a bad parent. I'd rather be raised in poverty with people who love and protect me than have material wealth and an abusive or neglectful parent.

It's all moot anyway, we can't have a system that tells us who can and cannot have children. It's impossible to police.

Guy:Incognito

eviltwin wrote: »

Why stop at finances? Money is no barrier to being a bad parent. I'd rather be raised in poverty with people who love and protect me than have material wealth and an abusive or neglectful parent.

It's all moot anyway, we can't have a system that tells us who can and cannot have children. It's impossible to police.

Well when you develope a test for how loving a set of parents people will make, that can be added to the criteria if you like.

It may be impossible to police how many they have but not encouraging them by paying more for each child puts it in their own court to provide. If, after a couple of generations, certain people are having less kids, then it's proof that giving free money encourages them.

Dinarius

LirW wrote: »

This topic has been done to death already.
Should you have children when you can't afford them? No.
What's stopping people to do it anyway? Nothing.
Do we really want to live in a society though where the government only gets to decide who's worthy of having children? Personally I don't because it opens a pretty dangerous door.
Plenty of families can pay their own way yet are just two paychecks away from being broke and defaulting on their mortgage. Once a partner loses their job should we just take their children away?

I understand it's frustrating to see some people making some sort of career from popping kids out. But nothing can realistically stop them.
I wouldn't fancy living in some middle eastern country where the government interferes heavily into family planning depending on the economic situation.

Points taken.

So, given that we can’t realistically enforce anything, and given that having the rights of a child (or certain children) supersede those of the parent, in certain circumstances, is probably a non-runner; can we dis-incentivise?

E.g. in my opinion; 1. Unlimited (in terms of numbers of children) and non-means-tested children’s alllowance is bonkers. 2. At the very least, it should be taxed. 3. Better still, it should be means-tested. 4. It should be capped after X number of children. (I have no idea how many that should be.)

One last point; we recently held a referendum, which I totally agreed with, on removing the equal status of the unborn. I guess what I’m partly getting at here is enhancing the protection of those unfortunates who, in many cases, should never have been brought into this world.

D.

Try_harder

Cant beat a bit of social cleansing!

How many of us would not have existed if this rule was applied to our parents generation?

Gimme A Pound

An incentive to stop having so many children who can't be taken care of, would be the most ideal approach. Social welfare capping I don't know - as I don't think this would work, and it's too risky for the kid. Maybe a system whereby children would be put into care - ultimately adopted if it comes to it.

Try_harder wrote: »

Cant beat a bit of social cleansing!

How many of us would not have existed if this rule was applied to our parents generation?

This rule doesn't exist... and the OP didn't suggest it. Relax.

dartboardio

I’m a firm believer in ‘don’t have a child if you can’t afford it’ however I realise mistakes happen (though I think that should be dealt with accordingly.. eh em)

Anyways not gonna lie but I work in the public sector and it does sicken me when I see families entire income being social welfare and child benefit, for example a single mother of 3 working 2 days a week but earning €700 a week when all the benefits add up oh and only paying out €70 a week in rent. It does annoy me especially when I came from a single parent family yet my mother worked full time my entire life and paid a mortgage alone.

It’s sad that if you work your arse off you’re worse off in this country

So a mother working 2 days a week but getting €200 in JA A week along with €250 one parent family payment, €150 child benefit and €150 wages. Along with rent allowance. The mind boggles.

Try_harder

Alonzo Yellow Oaf wrote: »

An incentive to stop having so many children who can't be taken care of, would be the most ideal approach. Social welfare capping I don't know - as I don't think this would work, and it's too risky for the kid. Maybe a system whereby children would be put into care - ultimately adopted if it comes to it.

This rule doesn't exist... and the OP didn't suggest it. Relax.

Apologies- taken into care

LirW

Dinarius wrote: »

Points taken.

So, given that we can’t realistically enforce anything, and given that having the rights of a child (or certain children) supersede those of the parent, in certain circumstances, is probably a non-runner; can we dis-incentivise?

E.g. in my opinion; 1. Unlimited (in terms of numbers of children) and non-means-tested children’s alllowance is bonkers. 2. At the very least, it should be taxed. 3. Better still, it should be means-tested. 4. It should be capped after X number of children. (I have no idea how many that should be.)

One last point; we recently held a referendum, which I totally agreed with, on removing the equal status of the unborn. I guess what I’m partly getting at here is enhancing the protection of those unfortunates who, in many cases, should never have been brought into this world.

D.

The children's allowance isn't a make-or-break factor when it comes to the affordability of children. Overall you're not going to raise a child by just 140 a month, they cost an awful lot more. It's nice to have it though because for some working families like mine, it can make a big difference.
The idea behind the children's allowance is that every kid is equal in terms of monetary support it receives from the state. When you means-test it, the people who already have children they can't afford, will still receive it. People that might genuinely need it could fall through.
I think in addition to children's allowance there should be tax credits for childcare because this is really sore money parents pay and in plenty of cases it prevents parents (mainly mothers) going back to work because they could hand their wages straight to the crèche and fill the rest in the car.

I honestly have no opinion on cutting it after X children but generally I think the focus lies too much on a quite miniscule payment in the grand scheme of things, a payment every child is entitled to as it stands.

Personally I have a hard time believing that people have X kids for the money, but many come from a background of carelessness where yet another pregnancy wouldn't put the mother or parents in a predicament because they know the state has their back and supports them on a pretty basic level that might be fine when you don't have any ambition in your life.
It's very much a lifestyle thing, if you want to stand on your own feet, a child costs a lot. If you don't care about a career or your children's career then it might be grand living in a council house with 5 children that are maintained on a very basic level.

I'm more interested though if the general idea just goes against sponges or also people that do work, but in low paid jobs. I live in a council estate and every family with kids has at least one legitimately working parent, factory workers, carers, retail. Some get a support through the working family payment. Would these also be considered too poor?

LirW

dartboardio wrote: »

I’m a firm believer in ‘don’t have a child if you can’t afford it’ however I realise mistakes happen (though I think that should be dealt with accordingly.. eh em)

Anyways not gonna lie but I work in the public sector and it does sicken me when I see families entire income being social welfare and child benefit, for example a single mother of 3 working 2 days a week but earning €700 a week when all the benefits add up oh and only paying out €70 a week in rent. It does annoy me especially when I came from a single parent family yet my mother worked full time my entire life and paid a mortgage alone.

It’s sad that if you work your arse off you’re worse off in this country

So a mother working 2 days a week but getting €200 in JA A week along with €250 one parent family payment, €150 child benefit and €150 wages. Along with rent allowance. The mind boggles.

Yep, it is frustrating, I understand this, we're a working family too that has it tight but prefer to not focus on things like that because it just winds me up.
I know though that compared to someone who compromises on a heavily subsidised lifestyle doesn't have the option others have that work to build a career.
They can't just go off and have big opportunities abroad. They don't have a huge choice on where to move and how to invest their money.
Even when it's tight for us at the moment, I'd rather prefer that than a welfare life because I consider this as a pretty crap way to spend my life.
I know a single mom of 2 and she gets plenty of support monetary but oh god, I don't envy her, she's under-educated, has no perspectives and couldn't change anything about it because she's so dependant on welfare. I would not want to live like that. (I'm jealous though that she pays feck all for her toddler in community crèche while for us it would cost a lot in order to get my back free for a few hours to work from home during the day).

ceadaoin.

Dinarius wrote: »

This tragic story featured on RTE This Week today.

‪ https://www.rte.ie/radio1/this-week/programmes/2018/1125/1013242-this-week-sunday-25-november-2018/?clipid=102985439#102985439‬;

It epitomises much of the social welfare and homelessness problem we have in this country.

While being on the housing list for such a long time is an indictment of our public services, is there a point at which the rights of children who, arguably, should never have been born, supersede the rights of the parent to have them in the first place?

At what point does enforced care/adoption kick in? Or should it ever?

I fully realise that I am dropping a grenade here. I am simply wondering if this is something we should be debating.

D.

Enforced care? Are you joking? The "care" system has been proven over and over again to be extremely detrimental to children. It's rife with predators, and combined with the psychological effects of being removed from your family it leads to extremely poor outcomes. If you really cared about children, you wouldn't want to subject them to that.

If the parents are otherwise loving, taking children away and forcibly adopting them would majorly mess them up and lead to further problems down the line.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dinarius wrote: »

As my post indicates, I’m suggesting none of the above.

One of the questions I’m raising is, does there come a point where the rights of the child exceed those of the parent(s) who, it might be argued, should not have had them?

If the rights of the child were to exceed those of the parent at a certain point, I have no idea how you would enforce them.

Hence my question.

D.

Fair enough, but the rights of the child excedeing the rights of the parent is a slippery slope. You could use that excuse to take a lot of kids from parents.

chrissb8

No. It is your human right to reproduce. Whatever happens to society now or in the future that will never change.

Yeah it's sad and miserable to see kids born into crap situations but no one has the right to tell you what you or you and your partner can do with your body.

Just one of those things we all have to accept because reproduction is a sacred and biological right. I believe anyway.

dartboardio

LirW wrote: »

Yep, it is frustrating, I understand this, we're a working family too that has it tight but prefer to not focus on things like that because it just winds me up.
I know though that compared to someone who compromises on a heavily subsidised lifestyle doesn't have the option others have that work to build a career.
They can't just go off and have big opportunities abroad. They don't have a huge choice on where to move and how to invest their money.
Even when it's tight for us at the moment, I'd rather prefer that than a welfare life because I consider this as a pretty crap way to spend my life.
I know a single mom of 2 and she gets plenty of support monetary but oh god, I don't envy her, she's under-educated, has no perspectives and couldn't change anything about it because she's so dependant on welfare. I would not want to live like that. (I'm jealous though that she pays feck all for her toddler in community crèche while for us it would cost a lot in order to get my back free for a few hours to work from home during the day).

I agree, suppose it’s not all that good. I suppose working people should have more help, it’s very black and white and basically the government treat working people as rich, oh because earning €500 a week in employment rather than social welfare means I can afford €300 a week mortgage!

Yeah when people are coming from families who have been on benefits their lives and have no motivation to better themselves I suppose it’s easy for them to fall into that rut, the mindset of ‘ f paying rent let’s go on the housing list’ it’s sad though too, the amount of 30/40 year old women who actually can’t read or write but have families is shocking (bit random, but something I come across a lot when seeing these families on lots on benefits)

AllForIt

Maybe the question should be - does one have a right to have countless children. I think not. A little bit of social responsibility wouldn't go amiss.

I do think as we come out of the dark ages under the Catholic church who for their own self preservation counted on the majority of their flock being poor as a direct result of parents unable to cope with dozens of children (in come cases 15 and 21 in my local community in the 80's), we must put a spotlight on lower working class families breeding like rabbits.

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

Maybe the question should be - does one have a right to have countless children. I think not. A little bit of social responsibility wouldn't go amiss.

I do think as we come out of the dark ages under the Catholic church who for their own self preservation counted on the majority of their flock being poor as a direct result of parents unable to cope with dozens of children (in come cases 15 and 21 in my local community in the 80's), we must put a spotlight on lower working class families breeding like rabbits.

Sounds like you want to take the place of the Catholic Church there?


Bloody SKKKW’s :pac:

end of the road

Dinarius wrote: »

This tragic story featured on RTE This Week today.

‪ https://www.rte.ie/radio1/this-week/programmes/2018/1125/1013242-this-week-sunday-25-november-2018/?clipid=102985439#102985439‬;;

It epitomises much of the social welfare and homelessness problem we have in this country.

While being on the housing list for such a long time is an indictment of our public services, is there a point at which the rights of children who, arguably, should never have been born, supersede the rights of the parent to have them in the first place?

At what point does enforced care/adoption kick in? Or should it ever?

I fully realise that I am dropping a grenade here. I am simply wondering if this is something we should be debating.

D.

realistically, we cannot stop people from having children. that is perfectly just and right. if we did try to do so, then chances are it would likely end up being a slippery sloap and would likely be open to abuse.
i believe realistically, enforced care should only kick in, and as far as i understand, does only kick in, where there is a serious situation taking place by where the child is in actual danger. enforced adoption on the other hand is for me, an absolute no no unless a child has no living relatives in any form what soever, and then again, there is likely a good argument against it even in that situation perhapse.
i think realistically, we cannot be removing children from their parents simply because we don't like them or their life choices. we can only remove children where there is a genuine danger by where there really is no other option.

Varik

Would prefer a limit on payouts of child benefit to 3 children and then allow working parents to claim the payment in the form of tax relief up to a set value.

Graces7

Have a look at what is happening in Norway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-PzrwliUk4

Slippery slope

padser

At the very least, could we stop giving free accommodation in our capital city to people who have no need to be there?

We have a shortage housing in our capital city for people who (due to the location of their job) must live there.

We have a shortage of economic activity outside of our capital city.

Could we at least try and funnel some of the money we pay to non working single parents to parts of the country that need capital inflows?

BeerWolf

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What way are you stopping them from having kids? Sterilisation? Fines? Jail time? Placement on Santa's naughty list?

All of the above, although I think the last one too extreme.

ChikiChiki

Be harsh and stop incentivising people who cannot afford kids to have kids. Because that's what the state is effectively doing.

erica74

People who can't afford to have children shouldn't be having children but, they do and, I'd say there's more people having children who shouldn't than vis versa. Capping child benefit should be introduced. I don't know how the government could introduce that but, you can guarantee if it was proposed, the people opposing it would be the same people who protested against water charges. These same people, so organised when it comes to protesting against having to pay for something but, not interested in protesting against our healthcare system because they don't have to pay for it.

Dravokivich

I can't afford my kid. What am I meant to do, turn around and tell him I've had a word with the accounts department and it's just not working out?

Cop on.

RocketRaccoon

Dravokivich wrote: »

I can't afford my kid. What am I meant to do, turn around and tell him I've had a word with the accounts department and it's just not working out?

Cop on.

But would you intentionally have another knowing that you wouldn't be able to afford one? That was the point of the OP

Wanderer78

Let's monitise everything, see who wins, be a bit of crack!

blackbox

I wouldn't stop benefits as it is the children that would suffer.
However, the benefits could be paid in food and clothes vouchers so that they couldn't be spent on cigarettes, alcohol, Sky sports, trips to Ibiza etc.
Difficult to police, but it would be a start.

Dravokivich

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

But would you intentionally have another knowing that you wouldn't be able to afford one? That was the point of the OP

I don't think that's the problem. You shouldn't be asking why is someone having kids they can't afford. The issue is why are we in a position now where we've stiffled the ability to raise kids. Along with a whole host of other issues that comes down to money. Stop kicking people when they are down...

Wanderer78

Dravokivich wrote:

I don't think that's the problem. You shouldn't be asking why is someone having kids they can't afford. The issue is why are we in a position now where we've stiffled the ability to raise kids. Along with a whole host of other issues that comes down to money. Stop kicking people when they are down...

Kicking people while they're down is kinna fun though

Mr. teddywinkles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Enforced care? Are you joking? The "care" system has been proven over and over again to be extremely detrimental to children. It's rife with predators, and combined with the psychological effects of being removed from your family it leads to extremely poor outcomes. If you really cared about children, you wouldn't want to subject them to that.

If the parents are otherwise loving, taking children away and forcibly adopting them would majorly mess them up and lead to further problems down the line.

Don't forget cost in care too. Cost probably more.

Dinarius

Dravokivich wrote: »

Stop kicking people when they are down...

A total distortion of my original question.

The point is not to punish those who find themselves in the predicament they are in now, far from it; the point is how do we deal with a problem that is patently there and patently a recurring one?

Maybe it’s not possible to deal with it.

Obviously, preventing people from having children is a non-runner.

But, the welfare system, in the way that it deals with both the rich and the poor (esp. children’s allowance) is way overdue an overhaul.

I agree that any attempt to limit it would be met with water-charges-like protests. But, at the very least, taxing it (thereby affecting only the better-off) would be a start. It would allow some redistribution of the money to those who need it more.

If you can dis-incentivise serial births, hopeless situations might be prevented.

D.

Dravokivich

Dinarius wrote: »

A total distortion of my original question.

The point is not to punish those who find themselves in the predicament they are in now, far from it; the point is how do we deal with a problem that is patently there and patently a recurring one?

Maybe it’s not possible to deal with it.

Obviously, preventing people from having children is a non-runner.

But, the welfare system, in the way that it deals with both the rich and the poor (esp. children’s allowance) is way overdue an overhaul.

I agree that any attempt to limit it would be met with water-charges-like protests. But, at the very least, taxing it (thereby affecting only the better-off) would be a start. It would allow some redistribution of the money to those who need it more.

If you can dis-incentivise serial births, hopeless situations might be prevented.

D.

You are talking about kids who you feel, should "never" have been born.

TomSweeney

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

Having too many kids when you can't support them is a genuine career move these days.

ti get da foreva home like!

seamus

LirW wrote: »

I understand it's frustrating to see some people making some sort of career from popping kids out. But nothing can realistically stop them.

And realistically the number is tiny. Looking to "fix" it, is like looking to cut off your finger to remove an idler.

Dinarius wrote: »

If the rights of the child were to exceed those of the parent at a certain point, I have no idea how you would enforce them.

Hence my question.

You see, when faced with an issue, can we fix it, and should we fix it, are two separate issues.

If you can't fix it, then asking whether you should, is redundant.

In a perfect world, people who cannot afford children would voluntarily stop. Or would give them up for adoption. And there would be no negative downside to this.
But we don't live in a perfect world. What we have now is the best compromise.

Dinarius

Dravokivich wrote: »

You are talking about kids who you feel, should "never" have been born.

If a child is never born, then there is no child to talk about.

D.

fryup

many devout/deluded catholics throughout the world did it for centuries...its only in recent years that they're beginning to cop on

Dinarius

seamus wrote: »

And realistically the number is tiny. Looking to "fix" it, is like looking to cut off your finger to remove an idler.

You see, when faced with an issue, can we fix it, and should we fix it, are two separate issues.

If you can't fix it, then asking whether you should, is redundant.
...
But we don't live in a perfect world. What we have now is the best compromise.

I accept you can’t fix it; so, can you mitigate it, through taxation, capping, whatever?

If the answer is yes, then it should be done.

I accept that it’s political dynamite, but having situations where child number 3/4/5/6/7 has virtually zero start in life is appalling.

D.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Everybody can potentially not afford children. You don't know what will happen in the future.

There's no homeless crisis in Ireland, that's a load of balls. There's certainly an entitlement crisis though.

LirW

Dinarius wrote: »

I accept you can’t fix it; so, can you mitigate it, through taxation, capping, whatever?

If the answer is yes, then it should be done.

I accept that it’s political dynamite, but having situations where child number 3/4/5/6/7 has virtually zero start in life is appalling.

D.

Poor countries, even in Europe have quite high birth rates, higher than the well-off countries. People will have children, even if they don't have money.
There seem to be a few factors, it's often under-educated people, poor areas, the belief that you can always make it work.
Responsible people will be held back having children when you make it infinitely more difficult to get state support for the children, irresponsible people will continue doing what they do because they simply don't care. It certainly didn't hold back a lot of Irish parents having children even though everyone was poor.

There should be tax credits for children (plenty of other EU countries have them in addition to child benefit) and maybe tax credit for child care, since that's breaking the bank of many parents. Other countries have heavily subsidised child care, there's none here unless you're in receipt of certain welfare payments, so either subsidise it or give tax credits.

I believe it is impossible to enforce a law that prevents spongers from having children without hurting people that genuinely need help, like low- income families or families that fell on hard times due to illness etc.

Dinarius

Interesting replies.

My instinct is that there is a valid moral imperative at play here; that there is a situation which could be improved, at the very least.

But, I also suspect that it would be trumped every time by political pragmatism; i.e. survival.

D.

Ray Palmer

Dinarius wrote: »

This tragic story featured on RTE This Week today.

Sorry I didn't hear anything tragic. I heard of a family that had children who don't seem to understand contraception. You can say what you like about having kids and if it is sensible to have them but they just didn't seem to care.

I also didn't find the women believable. The father of the kids obviously didn't live there yet her children still get upset he doesn't stay at night. They wouldn't expect him to say as they would know no better.

It isn't like something happened to get them in this situation they created it themselves

18 months ago she had 3 kids. Now she’s got 5!! What the actual Fu**? Tallaght or Clondalkin seems to be the preferred choice. How very dare landlords request a deposit.

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

I think that I better go for a walk. I’m beyond angry at her self pitying attitude.