having many children under financial hardship

[starving_student]

If you were going through really hard financial times. Would you consider delaying starting a family, not having any more children or even consider having an abortion if pregnant? (this is not an abortion related post). Just curious if you see problems in having mutliple children if you are already so poor that you can hardly feed yourself or the ones you already have. This post is not related to the previous discussion we had on the frugal list even if this is what got me to think about this...

[gackle]

Coming from a conservative standpoint, I believe that kids are just like anything else in the financial world - if you can't afford it then don't buy it (or in this case create it). I don't believe in relying on the government if you don't have to, plus I wouldn't want to put a child through hunger, possible homelessness, etc. I think the Wall Street Journal had an article this week that the cost of each child can run upward of $1 million from birth to college. Pretty sure this was a middle to upper-class lifestyle as they mentioned costs of iPods, etc.

[PRICEPLUS]

My parents had 9 of us and I suppose if they waited to be able to afford us they might not of had any. I am very grateful for the gift of life. I grew up without much but I had a lot of love.

I don't think, even controlling for inflation and other factors,that my parents spent the equivalent of 1 million per child!

In the end I think the only thing of value that we can leave behind us is our children!

[rduell]

It's an individual decision, but I agree with Priceplus. We have 5 children and up until 5 years ago, I stayed home and homeschooled so we lived on one income, which was about $30,000 a year. It was tough, really tough, but that's why I'm such a good budgeter now. I had to be in order for us to pay the bills. We did not rely on the government (except for WIC when they were little), we just cut corners anywhere we could.

Could we afford to have them by society's standards? No, but we did it anyway. They wore hand-me-downs and never had all the stuff that other kids had like the latest video games and electronic gadgets, but they were happy.

There is no way that we spent anywhere near a million per child and our kids have survived and thrived.

[asmom]

It depends on what you mean by hard financial times. Believe it or not, that term is relative. If I were homeless and/or hungry then it would be a no-brainer that I should not have a family. I don't think that if I had an oops! and got pregnant that I would have an abortion but certainly I wouldn't deliberately plan one under those circumstances.

If I were merely "poor" and perhaps not thriving by some people's definition, well that is another story.

[Ima saver]

No, I would not have children if I could not afford them. My adopted daughter had 5 children, she lived on the government and never worked one minute. She has since had all 5 children removed from her home.

[creditcardfree]

If you are living on welfare, you cannot afford children. But I would never condone abortion regardless of income level.

Many people think they can't afford kids, but I think it is their lifestyle financial choices that have convinced them there is no room in the budget for children. Just my opinion.

[Ima saver]

I think it is wrong to have children just to get a bigger government check. so often these children do not grow up to be happy, productive adults.

[Aleta]

I think that all of us have had had hard financial times at one time or another. Back in 1974, my husband lost his job and was unemployed for a few months. Unfortunately, we didn't have the skills about finances that we do today, but we always had food bought up ahead. My sons were 8 and 4 at that time. We applied for food stamps for 1 month and I'm not ashammed of it because we truly did need the help. I started working during that month that we received the stamps which was Dec, and we were never able to receive them again. But, that's OK. I think that is truly what the program is about; it's about emergencies, not entitlements.

Many times we're told that we can't find workers to do the jobs that the illegals do and I personally see a big welfare role of people who should be doing the work to give back to the economy that has helped them.

My brother is a Major in the Salvation Army and there was a time when they gave food and shelter to people that they could ask them to help with some of the chores (like sweeping, etc.) Now, they're not allowed to do that anymore.

I think that if I'm not mistaken that I heard that California once penalized people by lowering their checks if they continued having children. Sounds like a good idea to me. Give them the food allottment like they used to. Wasn't such a bad idea and it was pretty good stuff and yes it helped the economy.

[shelbylovesmelby]

It's an individual decision, but I agree with Priceplus. We have 5 children and up until 5 years ago, I stayed home and homeschooled so we lived on one income, which was about $30,000 a year. It was tough, really tough, but that's why I'm such a good budgeter now. I had to be in order for us to pay the bills. We did not rely on the government (except for WIC when they were little), we just cut corners anywhere we could.

Could we afford to have them by society's standards? No, but we did it anyway. They wore hand-me-downs and never had all the stuff that other kids had like the latest video games and electronic gadgets, but they were happy.

There is no way that we spent anywhere near a million per child and our kids have survived and thrived.

TY! Your post sums up our current situation though the OP whom has more than likely has no children cannot seem to comprehend what devoted parents we are and how we have bent backwards & fwd's to provide for our kids. You have one lousy week & the guy is on my case like a fly on BM!


Our state created the W2 program to stop people from making welfare a career. That was a big problem & still is in the inner city of abusing the "system". A gal I was WORKING with knew someone who had like 8 kids & only had them w/ men who had good jobs so she could live off of their child support checks,,, she knew what she was doing.

I know someone else who refuses to get married because than she will not get any government assistance & wouldn't get the extra tax credits for being a single mom. Mind you I don't talk much to her as I don't approve of the things she's done over the years to manipulate people as well as the "system" as she finds nothing wrong with it.

Everyone has a different standard of living. Sometimes the kids don't get PS2 like their friends do for Christmas, Air Jordans, or the lastest American Girl doll BUT that is OK they can settle for the $40 dollar cabbage patch kid, some new clothes & whatever other surprises Santa has in his bag this year.

[rduell]

You're welcome.

Actually, I don't know the whole story behind this thread because I haven't read many posts this week. Just relating my experience.

[pearlieq]

Coming from a conservative standpoint, I believe that kids are just like anything else in the financial world - if you can't afford it then don't buy it (or in this case create it).

This is where I fall. Kids are blessings, but they cost money! If you can't afford them, DON'T HAVE THEM!!!

Basically, if someone having kids costs me money (they're taking gov't assistance, letting debts get charged off, etc.) then I'm very much against it. I don't begrudge people applying for government assistance if they need it, but if you're on assistance (or would need assistance to support a kid), don't get pregnant!

I'm willing to help someone through tough times, but my patience really wears thin when people deliberately make things worse for themselves.

I understand sometimes birth control fails, but I think it's the responsibility of someone who can't afford a kid to do everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen. I would stop short of recommending an abortion, but I'm happy to pay for birth control!

If someone can feed and clothe their kids, however modestly, on their income, more power to them! Kids don't need much besides a full belly, shelter, and love. But if someone can't even provide that without me footing the bill, no way!

Kids are a luxury.

[Ima saver]

pearlique, I promise to never get pregnant!!

[LuckyRobin]

I don't think this is ever an easy issue. As human beings it is fundamental to our nature to procreate. It is a biological drive and it isn't always as simple as do I choose to or do I not choose to. When you start talking about taking away someone's right to bear children, it may start with the poor but where does it end? Who decides who is poor? Are you poor if you have a bad week at the end of the month with barely enough money to cover the grocery bill? Are you poor if you live in a trailer on rented land because you can't afford a house? Or are you just poor if you are on welfare, foodstamps, WIC? Are you poor because your company is on strike and you have to pump gas for 8 weeks and apply for assistance until your contract negotiations settle? Who decides what poor is?

Then how to enforce it? Forced birth control? Sterilization? Is it enough to prevent poor people from having children, do we then prevent retarded people from having them since most of them are on government assistance too? What about the blind, the deaf? People with undesireable genetic traits like buck teeth and hooked noses? Freckles? Where does it end when it starts down that slippery slope? Eugenics, perhaps?

No, people should not have children if they can't afford to feed them, clothe them, or shelter them. They also shouldn't get pregnant in the middle of the husband's felony trial, either but my SIL did. Should has very little to do with lack of common sense. People should also not get pregnant without a support structure. The best one being 2 hands on parents, but failing that at least an active family structure of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. But they do that all the time. Should is such a judgemental word.

As for aborting a pregnancy because you are poor? No. There are too many non-governement institutions that will help you. Sure, you may have to sit through a sermon every day but so what? Small price to pay to have that help. There are too many people that want to adopt babies that would be willing to help you. Abortion is a huge decision in any case and to throw it out so casually, for economic reasons, no. That is a decision that women have to live with for the rest of their lives. If they weren't raped, a victim of incest, a minor, or about to die from pregnancy complications, than no way. Not for being poor. Not for being irresponsibile and not wanting to live with the consequences. Not because it is inconvenient. Not because it is legal. Not because it is a choice. Not me. I would not interfere with someone else's right, but I would never want to see it happen because of money out of all reasons.

[JanH]

Well said, Lucky Robin!