Stupid Question

[LivingAlmostLarge]

So I hear from anti-debt people on the board get rid of pets. They are expensive and cost a lot. TRUE. 100% true.

But I wonder, why don't people say that to people having kids? That you shouldn't have more kids than you can afford or stop having kids?

I mean even Mr. Anti-Debt Dave Ramsey says don't let finances rule whether you have kids or not, and don't postpone kids for debt.

But seriously, I gotta wonder, I love parenting right now, but I honestly don't know if I could take the stress of living truly paycheck to paycheck and deep in debt and being a parent. AND considering having more kids.

Honestly I don't think I would have kids if I were using state insurance, WIC, etc. I mean if I weren't making enough to afford to buy health insurance or formula, etc. Doesn't that mean my finances aren't in order?

I know this is a SUPER touchy subject so I apologize in advance.

[disneysteve]

Well, nobody is going to suggest getting rid of a kid you already have, but I think lots of people suggest not having children if you have no money. There have been various threads here over the years where people said they were trying to get their finances in order so they could start a family so I do think it is something a lot of people think about.

[graceful]

What REALLY "irks" me are those people that really don't want kids or bother to raise them, who have them solely to qualify for various aid in NYC.

Young girls who have multiple babies JUST to get all the subsidies.

Obviously not everyone who uses and qualifies for those programs abuse it this way. But I've heard enough "bragging" from little girls still in school that they never have to work because the gov't pays them to have babies. They have social workers "teach" them the best way to milk the system.


I have 2 beautiful girls. We decided NOT to plan to have more because of money and time constraints. If we had the money and I could afford NOT to work but devote my time to the kids and house, I probably would have wanted more kids.

[snshijuptr]

My family always says to me "there's never a good time to have kids, financially" and to that I reply BS. We are not having kids until our finances are in order. As I told my husband, I believe kids are a luxury. This is more for their sake than myself. I don't want to leave a child with my own debt because I could not afford retirement. I want to raise children in a home, not an apartment. If I'm not putting enough money away for retirement and have a downpayment on a house, I will not have a child. This is in addition to having $10,000 baby EF and enough wiggle room in our budget for an additional mouth and needs.

[BlackDiamond]

I wanted kids my whole life and made the painful choice to have my tubes tied a few years ago (I'm in my mid 30's) because I knew I would never be able to provide a decent life for children.

People do think about it.

I personally think that pregnant women who are on welfare should be forced to give the kid up for adoption (or abort if they aren't opposed...). I got banned from another finance board once for suggesting someone who was pregnant and close to homeless have an abortion. Whatever. IMO, having a kid when you are that destitute is just downright selfish and stupid and it continues the cycle of poverty. They're easy enough to prevent.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

DS I would have to say I read a pregnancy board. The MAJORITY of people on the pregnancy board were on state insurance and WIC, etc. None thought about finances and many were having multiple children.

thus i wondered we say get rid of pets, why not say practice birth control too?

[cptacek]

If you wait too long, you might not be able to have kids. What if it takes you 10 years to get to a position where you think you are ready to have them, say 32, but then can't get pregnant? Was it worth it just so you can have some money in the bank? I don't think so. Of course I'm 32 and can't get pregnant, so perhaps this is a bit touchy for me.

A woman's fertility is a finite resource, in a manner of speaking. This is not something to throw around lightly in a rule of thumb kind of way.

And BlackDiamond, I hope you never make a mistake and have to pay for it in such a heinous way.

[snshijuptr]

Personally I feel the people in serious debt are either 1) too irresponsible to be entrusted with raising precious children or 2) living too unstable a life to raise children in a healthy manner. I hate the idea of burdening my children with my irresponsibility. So instead of waiting forever to have children, my husband and I are sacrificing our "youth" (though 23 should hardly be considered youth IMHO) and refusing to party like our peers. We stay home and eat in. We are sacrificing to EARN our future children. Having children you cannot afford is a disrespectful affront to the sanctity and preciousness of children.

[BlackDiamond]

If you wait too long, you might not be able to have kids. What if it takes you 10 years to get to a position where you think you are ready to have them, say 32, but then can't get pregnant? Was it worth it just so you can have some money in the bank? I don't think so. Of course I'm 32 and can't get pregnant, so perhaps this is a bit touchy for me.

A woman's fertility is a finite resource, in a manner of speaking. This is not something to throw around lightly in a rule of thumb kind of way.

And BlackDiamond, I hope you never make a mistake and have to pay for it in such a heinous way.

I don't find abortion heinous personally. I am an atheist who believes life does not begin until the baby is viable outside the womb. So therefore, I really don't/understand the problem with suggesting that a woman who can't afford to have a kid NOT HAVE IT. She shouldn't have gotten pregant in the first place. Babies are so very easy to prevent.

I would never be stupid enough to get knocked up when I couldn't afford a kid. Made it through my teens and 20's before getting my tubes tied when I realized at 27 I would never be able to afford kids. I'm 33 now and I still can't afford a kid so it was the right choice.


"What if it takes you 10 years to get to a position where you think you are ready to have them, say 32, but then can't get pregnant? "

Life sucks sometimes and children are a want not a need. I'd like to take a cruise to the south of france also, but I can't afford that either so I'm not going out an doing it. Sometimes, you have to give up things you want because you can't afford them. Why do people have such a hard time grasping this concept?

Are you really suggesting that a person who wants kids should be a burden to society through welfare and food stamps etc. just because they want to make sure they can have kids young? Wow...

[BlackDiamond]

Personally I feel the people in serious debt are either 1) too irresponsible to be entrusted with raising precious children or 2) living too unstable a life to raise children in a healthy manner. I hate the idea of burdening my children with my irresponsibility. So instead of waiting forever to have children, my husband and I are sacrificing our "youth" (though 23 should hardly be considered youth IMHO) and refusing to party like our peers. We stay home and eat in. We are sacrificing to EARN our future children. Having children you cannot afford is a disrespectful affront to the sanctity and preciousness of children.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

cptatek, what you wrote is exactly what I hear from MANY people. That they really can't afford more kids but still do. Or have them young because they don't want to wait.

So but very few people actually say don't have them now or wait, even though maat (sorry for picking on you) says get rid of pet ASAP. I just don't get how people already on public assistance can have more kids.

Yes I get it if they aren't and end up there through job loss. But I wonder if you know you already are on public dole, how you justify in your head it's okay. And how people who are "anti-debt" Dave Ramsey justifies it when quite a few of his listeners are on public assistance.

I'm for helping hand up big time and public dole. But I think people should get off the dole and stable before having more kids or any kid.

[graceful]

No one is absolutely right one way or another on this topic.

Personally I think it is all about priorities. Right now my priorities are the children we already have and our quality of life and choose to exercise birth control in order to not stretch our finances and time by adding to the family.

That being said, birth control is not 100% effective (neither DH or myself are willing to go under the knife) and IF we are "blessed" with another child, I won't be willing to "give it up" like getting rid of a pet I can't afford. My priorities at that time will be to that child and the rest of the family and will do everything we can to cut back elsewhere in order to accommodate that addition.

While I am not pro-abortion, I would not oppose my beliefs on other people whether I think they are right or not. I believe people should have choices but think that their choice was really made already by not exercising birth control.

Unlike some, I won't condemn someone for having an abortion. Life is full of tough choices and who am I to judge if I'm not living in their shoes? HOWEVER, in my heart, I DO condemn those that use abortion as an alternative to birth control.

In an attempt at a bad analogy, abortion is sort of like bankruptcy or gov't aid to those that have fallen on hard times through no true fault of their own such as job loss or medical bills. However, it is those that abuse the "privilege" (not right) by irresponsible behavior such as spending more than you make on unnecessary luxuries and getting into financial trouble that "take advantage" of the "trap door" that is provided (sometimes multiple times) that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. In both incidences...

On the flip side, I personally won't condemn someone for having a child that they can't afford right now. I do think that people are more important than money. I do see people who can't afford their children, raise wonderful children. HOWEVER, I don't understand those that don't even attempt to make their children a priority, have one after another... They are not only being irresponsible in the financial choices they make, they are being irresponsible to their children... <sigh>

[Radiance]

ok, let me try

1) I would NEVER get rid of a pet I already have. To me pets are alive beings that deserve their lives respected. I currently don't have any pets but I miss my dog and my ferret who have passed away and I cherish my memories with them. I might get rid of a plant perhaps, but not a pet. Well, maybe a goldfish is ok?

2) It is about priotirities, I have a son who I just adore, being a mother has always been important to me to the point that I was ready to adopt after 13 years of unsusecfully trying to get pregnant. Was I financially ready? no. But there he is and I am learning, gettting rid of debt etc. If I was living in poverty, no, I think I would skip and I would get a job involving children. But anything above poverty would do for me to feel I can have a kid.

3) As I said numerous times, kids dont need much. Yes, my son in currently eating up $800/month, but $630 is preschool. that will go away when he starts Elementary school... And I am not being fully frugal, so it could be much less. I am the sole provider.

4) As per OTHER people having kids, I have a strong personal issue with judging others, I am not in their shoes, It is their personal path. I only know what I THINK I would do if I were them, but I am not them.


Besides satisfying my urge to mother, my son propels me to become a better person, to be gentler, more loving and certainly more patience and tolerant.
I am actually interested in fostering kids in the future.

It is a matter of priorities, a career, a "good house", vacations, those are to me much less important than my son and my mothering.
Mothering is not a luxury to me, not even close. It is a NEED, a deep emptional need that defines who I am.

I am right, and so are all of you, there are more than one correct way to go about it.

[cptacek]

Well, nobody is going to suggest getting rid of a kid you already have

BlackDiamond wants to force women to put children up for adoption or get an abortion if they are on the 'public dole'. So there is that.

I think Radiance has it about right. Except she is a little more attached to her pets than I am to mine I would guess, though, if she had to choose between food for her son and food for her dog, the son would get priority.

My sister and her husband got married and had a child a few years later in their early twenties. They both finished community college, but didn't go on after that. They were both working, but barely making it. Her husband got the opportunity to finish college at a four year school after their daughter was born...she was probably 3? They moved 4 states away, sister got a job at the school cafeteria, BIL played basketball on scholarship to pay for the schooling, and they used food stamps during that year and a half. BlackDiamond says during this time period on food stamps, they should have been forced to give up their daughter for adoption. But now, 5 years later, they are pretty much kicking ass and taking names later, financially. Situations change, and most change for the better.

My sister was a bit embarrassed to need the food stamps. I asked her if she was planning on staying on them forever? She said no (actually, I think she said "hell no"). I think that is exactly what food stamps are for. A backstop for people who need help to get them headed in the right direction.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Good point cptacek, but your sister didn't say well I'm on dole, let's pop out more kids. They used it for a reason. To get better paying jobs so they could stop having a hand out.

I wonder how do you justify more kids and say you are providing, when you get assistance?

It's one thing to end up on assistance for awhile due to job loss, bettering yourself, divorce, etc. But then to turn around and decide well I can "provide" for my kids using everyone else's money and justify that no one can afford kids seems a bit unusual.