Having lots of kids - Is it arrogant?

First topic message reminder :

I grew up with a guy who I am still friends with to this day

He got married and now has 5 kids with his wife

The other day a few pictures came up on Facebook and I just could't help but think "You really must love yourselves to want to supply the world with so many copies of yourself"

Now as a guy who has never wanted kids, never will and quite honestly cannot even grasp the concept of why anyone would want them maybe I am naturally going to be cynical

I appreciate what they do doesn't affect me but I just couldn't help but think "how smug are you"

So is having lots of kids arrogant or do they just like children?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Your two arguments are at odds with each other.

An example would be someone with a home big enough to house say 5 children, they have the means to send them to private school and private healthcare but they're only allowed to have two because they'll be a burden on society, how?

The overcrowding argument is nonsensical.

No it isn't. How can the planet continue to swell in terms of population and life remain sustainable? How many people is too many for the world to cope with in terms of the resources needed to sustain people living on a planet? This is not a rich and poor argument it's about reducing the population to sustainable levels. All these eco-warriors who bang on about global warming, it is completely pointless. There's no point in recycling your waste or catching the train, or making sure you use roll-ons. People are the biggest cause of energy usage and pollution and the more people there are the more pollution there is going to be. So don't worry too much chappy about splitting up your rubbish into glass, plastic and food waste because it makes not the slightest bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.

Controversial subject I know, but governments needs to address this and a child cap should be placed on most citizens of the planet.

Plenty of married couples don't have kids...Plenty of people are spinsters and bachelors...Lesbians and gays a plenty also..

So I imagine the average kids per household is pretty low anyway..

In other words your argument is bollox..

There were 7.7 million families with dependent children in the UK in 2012, 1 in 7 of which had three or more dependent children. Married couples had a higher average number of dependent children in their family than other family types, at 1.8 children per family compared with 1.7 on average.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/family-size/2012/family-size-rpt.html

Mochyn talking out his/her backside.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

There were 7.7 million families with dependent children in the UK in 2012, 1 in 7 of which had three or more dependent children. Married couples had a higher average number of dependent children in their family than other family types, at 1.8 children per family compared with 1.7 on average.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/family-size/2012/family-size-rpt.html

Mochyn talking out his/her backside.

No you and Trussperson are just lacking intellect, either that or in denial. The argument is not about rich/poor it's about over population. The world keeps getting more crowded yet the planet doesn't get any bigger.

Besides I'm confused with that link you posted as it seems to back up my argument

"The UK has a higher percentage of households with three or more children than three-quarters of European Union countries"

Precisely!

Crikey this thread is still going

Who would have thought after Dave and Sha's vile insults against me for daring to post something they disagree with that such reasonable debate is going on. Nice one lads

Regards

Steffan wrote:I grew up with a guy who I am still friends with to this day

He got married and now has 5 kids with his wife

The other day a few pictures came up on Facebook and I just could't help but think "You really must love yourselves to want to supply the world with so many copies of yourself"

Now as a guy who has never wanted kids, never will and quite honestly cannot even grasp the concept of why anyone would want them maybe I am naturally going to be cynical

I appreciate what they do doesn't affect me but I just couldn't help but think "how smug are you"

So is having lots of kids arrogant or do they just like children?

Maybe they just like sex, with children being the outcome?  Of course nowadays people can take preventative actions to reduce the "risk" of getting pregnant or "kill / terminate" the developing child in the womb.  

On a separate point - I don't agree with the use of taxpayers money to fund IVF treatment.

On a separate point - there is an affordability issue. Some people make use of the welfare state in having large families. In fact some large families wouldn't survive in the absence of the welfare state.

I wouldn't say it's arrogant.

My FB feed sadly is littered with old school friends/ret@rded cousins moaning they can't afford the kids they churn out. Highlights the lack of intellect in my neck of the woods.

Most now do overload social media with kiddie pictures. I am old fashioned and rather keep them within the confides of my house and to a minimum.

Nore Staat wrote:...Of course nowadays people can take preventative actions to reduce the "risk" of getting pregnant or "kill / terminate" the developing child in the womb.

 
Go on, be brave. Say what you really want to say....

Nore Staat wrote:On a separate point - I don't agree with the use of taxpayers money to fund IVF treatment.

Given your above comment, I'm not surprised. I tend to agree with you in some cases, but probably not for the same reasons.

Mochyn du wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:So, essentially, its fine for people to have big houses they have earned when there is overcrowding but I shouldn't have 4 kids even though I could afford it?

No. It's fine for someone to be ambitious and successful and enjoy the corresponding rewards. It's also fine for someone to have as many children as they want providing the don't create a burden to the State or society.

If you have 4 kids, accommodated in your own 4 bed house, and send them all to private school/are a higher rate tax payer that contributes enough into the system to balance your kids' drain on education on healthcare - how can anyone complain?

Though, as per the earlier poster, a large empty house could also be said to not contribute to a drain on natural resources, whereas a large family certainly could.

This is not about being able to pay for your kids it's about overcrowding and decreasing living space, conurbations constantly being eroded away by more and more urbanisation and general overcrowding everywhere.  Breeding self sufficient children not reliant on welfare when they grow up doesn't solve the issue of the planet's population constantly increasing.  When will it reach a breaking point?  

Check out the Mars trilogy.  Either we sanction a limit on the amount of breeding we do or we find new planets to live on.

Happy Friday.  I'm off to sample some fine Belgian and German beers!

NASA the ESA and various other budding space agencies are working hard on the latter.

Have you not been following the various news reports about proposed colonies on the Moon and Mars? Of course, we'll need to invent FTL travel or wormhole technology before we can visit any of the exoplanets that have been discovered recently.

Mochyn du wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

There were 7.7 million families with dependent children in the UK in 2012, 1 in 7 of which had three or more dependent children. Married couples had a higher average number of dependent children in their family than other family types, at 1.8 children per family compared with 1.7 on average.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/family-size/2012/family-size-rpt.html

Mochyn talking out his/her backside.

No you and Trussperson are just lacking intellect, either that or in denial.  The argument is not about rich/poor it's about over population.  The world keeps getting more crowded yet the planet doesn't get any bigger.  

Besides I'm confused with that link you posted as it seems to back up my argument

"The UK has a higher percentage of households with three or more children than three-quarters of European Union countries"

Precisely!

My house is big enough for more children so i'll carry on as I please without taking into account this tin hat bullcrap.

This debate is kept going because yes, it does spark interesting debate. Just think the word arrogant doesn't fit. Seems a bit silly.

The arrogant part is just to inflame. The debate is somewhat interesting although it is being underpinned by absolute nonsense

I still don't have any kids. As this debate has gone on a while I thought the update would be useful. I am more than happy to auction off my 2.2 allocation, or whatever the average is now, so anybody who is planning to have a few can do so without any feelings of arrogance, irresponsibility or whatever other guff they have been accused of thus far on this thread.

Bidding starts at either a fiver or any boxing books I don't currently have.

Ill give you the fiver if I can have one with your wife?

Artificially of course, I don't wanna do a sex

Julius has already beaten you to it

Mochyn du wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

There were 7.7 million families with dependent children in the UK in 2012, 1 in 7 of which had three or more dependent children. Married couples had a higher average number of dependent children in their family than other family types, at 1.8 children per family compared with 1.7 on average.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/family-size/2012/family-size-rpt.html

Mochyn talking out his/her backside.

No you and Trussperson are just lacking intellect, either that or in denial.  The argument is not about rich/poor it's about over population.  The world keeps getting more crowded yet the planet doesn't get any bigger.  

Besides I'm confused with that link you posted as it seems to back up my argument

"The UK has a higher percentage of households with three or more children than three-quarters of European Union countries"

Precisely!

Not sure what you're struggling with. Maybe adjust the tin foil hat for some better signal.

Mochyn du wrote:Interesting topic. I personally think no-one should be allowed to have more than 2 children.

The link I've posted above shows that the UK is already operating well within your proposed threshold therefore no ignorant Malthusian cull required.

One of each is enough, I always wanted two, so did my ex-partner and I had the snip at 23. I'm happy enough with that. My current partner has 3 kids and to be honest 3 is too many to cope with, and hard to afford. One or two is best in my opinion.

I want to have the snip done but am afraid of the pain

My mate said it's no worse than having a tattoo done. Probably best I have it done soon though

Shifty wrote:One of each is enough, I always wanted two, so did my ex-partner and I had the snip at 23.  I'm happy enough with that.  My current partner has 3 kids and to be honest 3 is too many to cope with, and hard to afford.    One or two is best in my opinion.  

Divorce is no good...People should stay with each other at least five years before having offspring.

Been with my partner 8 before our first little bundle of joy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Shifty wrote:One of each is enough, I always wanted two, so did my ex-partner and I had the snip at 23.  I'm happy enough with that.  My current partner has 3 kids and to be honest 3 is too many to cope with, and hard to afford.    One or two is best in my opinion.  

Divorce is no good...People should stay with each other at least five years before having offspring.

Been with my partner 8 before our first little bundle of joy.

I agree we were together 5 years before we had ours 2 years apart, and stayed together for 16 years over all.

My ex would have happily had one within about 6 months of us being together. That really doesn't make sense at all to me. Then I got a mate who got his ex girlfriend pregnant first time they...got intimate. Irresponsibility at its finest

Nore Staat wrote: On a separate point - I don't agree with the use of taxpayers money to fund IVF treatment.

Without wishing to hijack the thread, may I ask why? It always seems to be a popular position to take, but the argument behind it rarely seems to go beyond "the state shouldn't pay for people to have kids", "some people just aren't meant to", or "we're already over-crowded".

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Nore Staat wrote: On a separate point - I don't agree with the use of taxpayers money to fund IVF treatment.

Without wishing to hijack the thread, may I ask why? It always seems to be a popular position to take, but the argument behind it rarely seems to go beyond "the state shouldn't pay for people to have kids", "some people just aren't meant to", or "we're already over-crowded".

Are those not perfectly reasonable arguments?

The only reason I would deny IVF treatment would be because the orphanages are full and if you want babies then please take em out of those sh!tholes but there are arguments against this or other problems worth considering.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Nore Staat wrote: On a separate point - I don't agree with the use of taxpayers money to fund IVF treatment.

Without wishing to hijack the thread, may I ask why? It always seems to be a popular position to take, but the argument behind it rarely seems to go beyond "the state shouldn't pay for people to have kids", "some people just aren't meant to", or "we're already over-crowded".

Are those not perfectly reasonable arguments?

Not really. None of them are actually complete thoughts, and all have quite noticeable holes. In response to the first point, you could argue that the state pays for any number of things that some people may never have need of or that people could get by without. For the second, that never seems to be extended to encompass non-treatment of other medical conditions. And so on.

But regardless, those are just strawman arguments I posed for discussion. If you think there are strong arguments, then what are they?

In fairness it would probably be easier for a woman that needs IVF to get pregnant without it..... than adopt an orphaned kid..

The red tape is a disgrace..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:In fairness it would probably be easier for a woman that needs IVF to get pregnant without it..... than adopt an orphaned kid..

The red tape is a disgrace..

Agreed.

So you think one wrong condones another? Just becuase the State already spanks out cash for BS reasons (e.g. vacuous tarts getting boob jobs), they should just crack on with IVF too?

And I don't understand your second point. "some people just aren't meant to" doesn't extend to non-treatment of other medical conditions. Like what? And is low fertility a 'medical condition' that warrants treatment like, say, diabetes? "Some people just aren't meant to eat sugar"

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you think one wrong condones another? Just becuase the State already spanks out cash for BS reasons (e.g. vacuous tarts getting boob jobs), they should just crack on with IVF too?

And I don't understand your second point.  "some people just aren't meant to" doesn't extend to non-treatment of other medical conditions. Like what? And is low fertility a 'medical condition' that warrants treatment like, say, diabetes? "Some people just aren't meant to eat sugar"

I appreciate that my counter-arguments are whataboutery. As I said, I just put forward the arguments as an example.

I don't think one 'wrong' condones another. I just think the argument against IVF isn't especially strong. On the first point, you could point to things like public parks. Why should anyone be entitled to that? Why should the state pay? Or, more directly, child welfare payments.

For the argument of "some people just aren't meant to have kids", why is that fatalism never extended further? Critical illness? "Maybe it's just your time". Serious disability? "Life can be hard". That's never done. Why? If medical science can solve a problem, how are fatalistic arguments acceptable?

There's a bit of a difference between being unable to have children and having either a life threatening illness or a serious disability. Preventing death is somewhat more important to creating new life.

Hammersmith harrier wrote: Preventing death is somewhat more important to creating new life.

Maybe so, but that's by the by. If medical science is capable of remedying both situations, why is fatalism acceptable in one situation but not the other?

I'm not really understanding your point, medical science is capable of reshaping my nose but that doesn't mean I should be able to have it done at the expense of tax payers money.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you think one wrong condones another? Just becuase the State already spanks out cash for BS reasons (e.g. vacuous tarts getting boob jobs), they should just crack on with IVF too?

And I don't understand your second point.  "some people just aren't meant to" doesn't extend to non-treatment of other medical conditions. Like what? And is low fertility a 'medical condition' that warrants treatment like, say, diabetes? "Some people just aren't meant to eat sugar"

I appreciate that my counter-arguments are whataboutery. As I said, I just put forward the arguments as an example.

I don't think one 'wrong' condones another. I just think the argument against IVF isn't especially strong. On the first point, you could point to things like public parks. Why should anyone be entitled to that? Why should the state pay? Or, more directly, child welfare payments.

For the argument of "some people just aren't meant to have kids", why is that fatalism never extended further? Critical illness? "Maybe it's just your time". Serious disability? "Life can be hard". That's never done. Why? If medical science can solve a problem, how are fatalistic arguments acceptable?

1) There's a wider societal good to public parks, in economics speak - a positive externality. Bit like vaccination. An irrelevant analogy.

2) Totally fallacious points and not remotely analogous to what's being discussed. Not being able to have kids is akin to not being tall or not being able to run fast - NHS shouldn't be funding expensive operations to rectify those. They are wholly different to critical illnesses and other actual medical conditions.

Put it this way, a Dr would not be breaching their hippocratic oath by not helping someone have kids, but they would if they refused to treat someone with cancer, AIDs etc.

I sometimes feel I have too many children...precisely two children too many...I have two children...

TopHat24/7 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you think one wrong condones another? Just becuase the State already spanks out cash for BS reasons (e.g. vacuous tarts getting boob jobs), they should just crack on with IVF too?

And I don't understand your second point.  "some people just aren't meant to" doesn't extend to non-treatment of other medical conditions. Like what? And is low fertility a 'medical condition' that warrants treatment like, say, diabetes? "Some people just aren't meant to eat sugar"

I appreciate that my counter-arguments are whataboutery. As I said, I just put forward the arguments as an example.

I don't think one 'wrong' condones another. I just think the argument against IVF isn't especially strong. On the first point, you could point to things like public parks. Why should anyone be entitled to that? Why should the state pay? Or, more directly, child welfare payments.

For the argument of "some people just aren't meant to have kids", why is that fatalism never extended further? Critical illness? "Maybe it's just your time". Serious disability? "Life can be hard". That's never done. Why? If medical science can solve a problem, how are fatalistic arguments acceptable?

1) There's a wider societal good to public parks, in economics speak - a positive externality.  Bit like vaccination.  An irrelevant analogy.

2) Totally fallacious points and not remotely analogous to what's being discussed.  Not being able to have kids is akin to not being tall or not being able to run fast - NHS shouldn't be funding expensive operations to rectify those.  They are wholly different to critical illnesses and other actual medical conditions.

Put it this way, a Dr would not be breaching their hippocratic oath by not helping someone have kids, but they would if they refused to treat someone with cancer, AIDs etc.

Infertility is a medical condition. In fact, that's a large part of the reason IVF is funded - it's more commonly the cheaper option than addressing the underlying issue.

On the subject of analogies, yours are interesting. The NHS does fund operations/ treatment for stunted growth. I assume therefore that you think it shouldn't. How about plastic surgery on facial deformities (that have no other health impact)? Would you accept that the NHS should treat conditions like that? If so, why are they different? Where should the line be drawn on NHS treatment?

Other posters have discussed the birth rate. The UK's is below the population replacement rate. If you want to bring up societal benefits, then isn't maintaining the population quite important? Particularly given the ageing population. On that basis, isn't paying for IVF a positive message to society?

facial deformities (that have no other health impact)?

Sadly they often lead to psychological issues that in turn lead to episodes of self harming and worse. However, I do feel that people abuse the system by claiming the slight bump in the bridge of their nose is causing them untold distress and simply must be rectified at the public's expense but sadly we live in a world when everyone who perceives themselves to a victim must then be treated as such and genuine cases get lost in the murk and mire

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you think one wrong condones another? Just becuase the State already spanks out cash for BS reasons (e.g. vacuous tarts getting boob jobs), they should just crack on with IVF too?

And I don't understand your second point.  "some people just aren't meant to" doesn't extend to non-treatment of other medical conditions. Like what? And is low fertility a 'medical condition' that warrants treatment like, say, diabetes? "Some people just aren't meant to eat sugar"

I appreciate that my counter-arguments are whataboutery. As I said, I just put forward the arguments as an example.

I don't think one 'wrong' condones another. I just think the argument against IVF isn't especially strong. On the first point, you could point to things like public parks. Why should anyone be entitled to that? Why should the state pay? Or, more directly, child welfare payments.

For the argument of "some people just aren't meant to have kids", why is that fatalism never extended further? Critical illness? "Maybe it's just your time". Serious disability? "Life can be hard". That's never done. Why? If medical science can solve a problem, how are fatalistic arguments acceptable?

1) There's a wider societal good to public parks, in economics speak - a positive externality.  Bit like vaccination.  An irrelevant analogy.

2) Totally fallacious points and not remotely analogous to what's being discussed.  Not being able to have kids is akin to not being tall or not being able to run fast - NHS shouldn't be funding expensive operations to rectify those.  They are wholly different to critical illnesses and other actual medical conditions.

Put it this way, a Dr would not be breaching their hippocratic oath by not helping someone have kids, but they would if they refused to treat someone with cancer, AIDs etc.

Infertility is a medical condition. In fact, that's a large part of the reason IVF is funded - it's more commonly the cheaper option than addressing the underlying issue.

On the subject of analogies, yours are interesting. The NHS does fund operations/ treatment for stunted growth. I assume therefore that you think it shouldn't. How about plastic surgery on facial deformities (that have no other health impact)? Would you accept that the NHS should treat conditions like that? If so, why are they different? Where should the line be drawn on NHS treatment?

Other posters have discussed the birth rate. The UK's is below the population replacement rate. If you want to bring up societal benefits, then isn't maintaining the population quite important? Particularly given the ageing population. On that basis, isn't paying for IVF a positive message to society?

Interesting stuff. Will try to deal in turn:

1) It's a medical condition like a sniffly nose is a medical condition. It isn't life threatening and it does not affect your health.
2) Think stunted growth ops is tricky too. Rememeber thinking it was BS when a 4'11" girl wanted desperately to be an air stewardess but she was too short so the NHS did the op to get her to 5'2". That's bullcrap. Short is short. Since when did people get to just choose their height and, more importantly, ask someone else to foot the bill of it?
3) Dave has correctly addressed the deformity point.
4) Birth rate is the best argument of the lot. As you could argue that the lifetime tax revenue from that to be born child, even PV, will balance if not exceed the cost of IVF.

But to me that's like paying for a stripper to get bigger t!ts so she can earn more.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Mochyn du wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

There were 7.7 million families with dependent children in the UK in 2012, 1 in 7 of which had three or more dependent children. Married couples had a higher average number of dependent children in their family than other family types, at 1.8 children per family compared with 1.7 on average.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/family-size/2012/family-size-rpt.html

Mochyn talking out his/her backside.

No you and Trussperson are just lacking intellect, either that or in denial.  The argument is not about rich/poor it's about over population.  The world keeps getting more crowded yet the planet doesn't get any bigger.  

Besides I'm confused with that link you posted as it seems to back up my argument

"The UK has a higher percentage of households with three or more children than three-quarters of European Union countries"

Precisely!

Not sure what you're struggling with. Maybe adjust the tin foil hat for some better signal.

Mochyn du wrote:Interesting topic.  I personally think no-one should be allowed to have more than 2 children.  

The link I've posted above shows that the UK is already operating well within your proposed threshold therefore no ignorant Malthusian cull required.

My points are well backed up and not in the slightest bit ignorant. The following piece might help you. Or probably not. A cocky bonehead with 6th former wisdom is always likely to be a stubborn so and so.

http://www.populationmatters.org/documents/families_smaller.pdf

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:In fairness it would probably be easier for a woman that needs IVF to get pregnant without it..... than adopt an orphaned kid..

The red tape is a disgrace..

Trouble is it's not quite as simplistic as that. I think you're implying that women that can't have kids should adopt and relieve the much needed strain on care homes but the problem is that people tend to want their own biological children or would rather go without. Whilst this may seem idealistic and selfish there are legitimate concerns with adoptions. Many parents find that nature overrides nurture. No matter how much love and attention you give, if the biological parents were a-holes then it's likely that your adoptive children will become likewise. Being married to someone with close involvement in the care profession I can attest to this although I'm sure this isn't always the case.

IVF is a wonderful thing yet some arrogant posters think this is akin to a boob job, which it clearly isn't! Everyone who wishes to bear children should be given help to do so and as a father myself there is no better experience than becoming a parent. The fact that this is free on the NHS is however a bit misleading. As far as I'm aware the NHS treats patients sparingly and gives couples one or two goes before they have to foot the bill themselves and go privately. A lot also depends on the age of the woman and sometimes the NHS won't treat women for age reasons.

The point of the article is "having LOTS of kids". All issues such as economic growth and replacement rates must be superseded by the urgent need for global controls on population growth for the sake of the biosphere and the continuation of the human race. Yet somehow this seems to be lost on some people. Each year, the UK adds another Cardiff to it's population. Living close to the actual Cardiff , I think one is more than enough.

I have a boy.

Not in a mad rush to have another.

2 would be enough for me and my wife.

Anymore would be a huge handful.
For those that have more than 2, must be tough, so fair play.

Mochyn du wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:In fairness it would probably be easier for a woman that needs IVF to get pregnant without it..... than adopt an orphaned kid..

The red tape is a disgrace..

Trouble is it's not quite as simplistic as that.  I think you're implying that women that can't have kids should adopt and relieve the much needed strain on care homes but the problem is that people tend to want their own biological children or would rather go without.  Whilst this may seem idealistic and selfish there are legitimate concerns with adoptions.  Many parents find that nature overrides nurture.  No matter how much love and attention you give, if the biological parents were a-holes then it's likely that your adoptive children will become likewise.  Being married to someone with close involvement in the care profession I can attest to this although I'm sure this isn't always the case.

IVF is a wonderful thing yet some arrogant posters think this is akin to a boob job, which it clearly isn't!  Everyone who wishes to bear children should be given help to do so and as a father myself there is no better experience than becoming a parent.  The fact that this is free on the NHS is however a bit misleading.  As far as I'm aware the NHS treats patients sparingly and gives couples one or two goes before they have to foot the bill themselves and go privately.  A lot also depends on the age of the woman and sometimes the NHS won't treat women for age reasons.  

The point of the article is "having LOTS of kids".  All issues such as economic growth and replacement rates must be superseded by the urgent need for global controls on population growth for the sake of the biosphere and the continuation of the human race.  Yet somehow this seems to be lost on some people.  Each year, the UK adds another Cardiff to it's population.  Living close to the actual Cardiff , I think one is more than enough.

Life isn't perfect....I'm lucky enough to have sired two of my own and have no doubt that it must be emotionally distressing for a Woman to not be able to nurture her own..(less so for a man I believe..I wouldn't love my two any less)

However I think every kid deserves a Mum and Dad and many are denied that luxury...through no fault of their own.

Personally I have more time for the mental health of the kid who finds himself as pretty much a number in the system than a Woman who has "Options"..

Life is a bitch sometimes you have to compromise..

Maybe it's a simplistic view but I often find life can be needlessly complicated..

No, everyone does not have a 'right' to a baby simply because they wish to have one; any more than everyone has a right to live on a ranch in Montana............................................. (okay so that's a personal Right of mine that I'm still waiting on!!!).

Sometimes life means you have to accept your limitations and say I wasn't as lucky on that score as the others.

The alternate view is that often, and once again inevitably, it's peer pressure, as defined by magazines and online media, that project this image on women especially that they are not complete unless they have that baby experience and all the acres of absolute garbage that surrounds them when going through the process (all the different ways of giving birth as an example..... whilst bungie jumping is the very best!!!! )

Women feel pressured into being part of the flock, having that little treasure in the arms, doing the shopping for the tiny shoes..........................etc.  

I don't blame people - I think it's all just evolution.  Not only do your hormones push you to keep the species going, your fellow humans heap the pressure on too.  Nobody can resist it except the wise

The planet has more than enough humans.  People should be encouraged to contribute to the lessening of our 'footprint'.  When next you think of global warming and shout down the cynics - give a thought to however many mouths and bums you yourself added to the planet's ills.

SecretFly wrote:No, everyone does not have a 'right' to a baby simply because they wish to have one; any more than everyone has a right to live on a ranch in Montana............................................. (okay so that's a personal Right of mine that I'm still waiting on!!!).

Sometimes life means you have to accept your limitations and say I wasn't as lucky on that score as the others.

The alternate view is that often, and once again inevitably, it's peer pressure, as defined by magazines and online media, that project this image on women especially that they are not complete unless they have that baby experience and all the acres of absolute garbage that surrounds them when going through the process (all the different ways of giving birth as an example..... whilst bungie jumping is the very best!!!! )

Women feel pressured into being part of the flock, having that little treasure in the arms, doing the shopping for the tiny shoes..........................etc.  

I don't blame people - I think it's all just evolution.  Not only do your hormones push you to keep the species going, your fellow humans heap the pressure on too.  Nobody can resist it except the wise

The planet has more than enough humans.  People should be encouraged to contribute to the lessening of our 'footprint'.  When next you think of global warming and shout down the cynics - give a thought to however many mouths and bums you yourself added to the planet's ills.

These will be the same magazines who tell women how to get a body like Rita Ora in six weeks then five weeks later publish a series of pictures that shown Rita Ora has slightly dimpled thighs with the headline "Rita Ora is a fat ****...should she be killed?"

PS I have nothing against Rita Ora, she seems nice enough but what do I know, she might throttle mice in her spare time.

If you try coming up her stairs she'll f**k you up! And that's official.

SecretFly wrote:If you try coming up her stairs she'll f**k you up!  And that's official.

Think that one word would be the difference maker

Do you think that Brexit will have an impact on the amount of children the average couple can comfortably have?
I am speaking in terms of financially, emotionally and practically.

People find a way to make it work financially, TRUSS took up lapdancing at the Oyster then realized he should start charging. He's done OK out of it..

"If you want to watch me shake my stuff, it's £10"
" If you want me NOT to...it's £20"

aja424 wrote:Do you think that Brexit will have an impact on the amount of children the average couple can comfortably have?
I am speaking in terms of financially, emotionally and practically.

I'm not so sure about the 'can have' implications but I could make an accurate guess that the 'will have' will go up over the weeks we're living through - or at least the first stages of a baby if you get my meaning. Isn't it said that such times of upheaval or anxiety are the very times that couples get busy in the bedroom?

SecretFly wrote:

aja424 wrote:Do you think that Brexit will have an impact on the amount of children the average couple can comfortably have?
I am speaking in terms of financially, emotionally and practically.

I'm not so sure about the 'can have' implications but I could make an accurate guess that the 'will have' will go up over the weeks we're living through - or at least the first stages of a baby if you get my meaning.  Isn't it said that such times of upheaval or anxiety are the very times that couples get busy in the bedroom?

I can state quite categorically that, in my experience, it bloody well is not!