Do you believe that people should only have as many kids as they can currently afford? The logical answer is yes, but keep in mind that if our parents waited until they could afford us, many of us probably wouldn't be here. So what should be more significant? The desire to have a child, or the practicality of it?

I think its better to only have kids you know you can afford to pay for. I look at those poor families with 6 kids and can never make sense of it.

I've got one word: OCTOMOM!

nuff said!

RobbieFTW wrote:

I think its better to only have kids you know you can afford to pay for. I look at those poor families with 6 kids and can never make sense of it.

Chris wrote:

Do you believe that people should only have as many kids as they can currently afford?

Yes! I got some aunts and uncles with 10 kids and it's just ridiculous, because none of them are wealthy. I'm glad my parents knew when to stop and I think their sensibility rubbed off on me.

I think it depends. As Chris pointed out, if people waited until they were READY to have kids, probably none of us would be here...and this reminds me of some people who hate the show Roseanne saying they shouldn't have had 3 kids since they couldn't afford to send Becky to college, well was that REALLY forseeable 17 years ahead of time? Things change, jobs change, inflation comes in, etc., you can't predict how much of what you're going to need for any kid and when you're going to need it. But I definitely think people need to consider how much they're going to potentially make, and how much they have, and do some mental math of running that against how much it's going to cost as something to consider before jumping into having 10 kids.

Supernova wrote:

I think it depends. As Chris pointed out, if people waited until they were READY to have kids, probably none of us would be here...and this reminds me of some people who hate the show Roseanne saying they shouldn't have had 3 kids since they couldn't afford to send Becky to college, well was that REALLY forseeable 17 years ahead of time? Things change, jobs change, inflation comes in, etc., you can't predict how much of what you're going to need for any kid and when you're going to need it. But I definitely think people need to consider how much they're going to potentially make, and how much they have, and do some mental math of running that against how much it's going to cost as something to consider before jumping into having 10 kids.

I think there is a difference between that situation and other people intentionally choosing to have kids at a time when they are currently not financially stable. Rosanne and crew were working class rednecks who were arguably on the "poor" side. But they were not poverty stricken in the classic sense. They could still afford to feed the family and buy clothes and basic necessities. They had a house, a car and didn't seem to be really struggling to put food on the table. Plus they had the support of each other and the aunt. But there are people out there in way worse shape that end up having kid after kid and it's just ridiculous!

Sometimes unexpected things happen like an illness, the loss of a job or a downturn in the economy. That's a lot different that repeatedly churning them out when you know damn well you can't afford it.

In a perfect world people would only have as many children as they can afford. As long as there is proper food on the table and a proper roof over their heads, I don't see it as a big deal if the parents of 6 kids don't get the luxuries that 1 or 2 kids might get. I have a problem with the people who keep reproducing when they can't even provide the basic necessities.

If they're going to actively try to have a kid, sure, wait until they can afford it. But if they just are letting God/nature make the call, then what's gonna happen is gonna happen.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

If they're going to actively try to have a kid, sure, wait until they can afford it. But if they just are letting God/nature make the call, then what's gonna happen is gonna happen.

Really? Because that seems like a totally contradicting argument to your "abstenence only" sex education stance. I seem to remember making this exact same argument to you about why we should teach kids about condoms. So now I have to ask: if your opinion on poor people having kids is that "what's gonna happen is gonna happen", do you also think that we have the responsibility as a society to ensure that people are properly educated enough to make responsible decisions that affect the lives of children? Or does that only matter when it comes to kids having sex, not allegedly responsible adults?

I am starting to think you're getting some kind of side perks by shadowing me. Nothing contradicts anything. lol I ain't gonna waste time answering another round of your silly psychoanalyzing loaded probes.

Yes and no. If you're not that financially well off or feel like you're emotionally ready but get pregnant or get someone pregnant and decide that you're going to take responsibility for it, then I can't say that you shouldn't have a baby. However, like someone pointed out, there is a big difference in that and continually popping out kids you know you can't pay for. If you're P. Diddy and can afford the gazillion dollars for child support, cool but if you know you're already struggling but feel you should have more or keep having more like there's not such thing as birth control, then you need to take a step back.