When is the right time to have kids?

[iamfat]

When did you feel was the "right time" to have kids, or was it an "accident" ?

Maybe we can all share our experiences when we felt it was time to expand the family. Is it mostly financially, emotionally, religiously, or just 'cause?

[curtis]

Well, this is a big one, but I know lots of people don't consider it - when you can financially afford to.


When did you feel was the "right time" to have kids, or was it an "accident" ?

Maybe we can all share our experiences when we felt it was time to expand the family. Is it mostly financially, emotionally, religiously, or just 'cause?

[CSK'sMom]

I honestly don't believe thre is a standard answer that applies to every couple. With that said, hubby and I opted to have our kids while we were young and could really enjoy them. We are both the youngest in our families which no doubt factored into our decision as well as there being a 10 year age difference between hubby and his youngest sister. We dated for 4 years before we got married, I was 21 and hubby was 25. I was pregnant 3 months after getting married and yes, it was planned as were all our kids. I wouldn't change what we did, I happen to like where our life is now. I will 40 this year and our oldest will be 18. Our 2 other kids are 15 and almost 12 which affords us quite a bit of freedom when we want it! :D

[Whiplash7828]

My GF and I dated 8 years before finally deciding to make the leap!!! :D
I was/am 28 she is 26. We waited for several reasons:

Live out our early 20s, party, have fun.
Get ourselves into a better financial position
Mature (individually and as a couple)

We have been engaged for 8 years and (she) finally decided to get married this summer....hehe. :razz:

[sdm242]

Everyone's different.

I was married at 21 and my husband was 24. We were both still in university and agreed that we wanted children once we were out of school and were still young and energetic. I din't want to wait and have the added possibility of dealing with fertility issues.

Our first child was born when I was 24, the second when I was 26. Both of them were planned. I'm 30 now, and many of my friends are just starting their families now. I may not have had the freedom to party and fun when I was in my mid 20's but I have a lot more freedom than my friends now!

I don't believe in the idea that you have to be financially stable to have kids. Maybe I should clarify that-you need to be financially stable enough to support a family, but you don't need to have a huge nest-egg, etc. We've been able to provide all that our family needs (and some of our wants) and that's even with me staying at home to raise our kids.

I think the most important thing about the timing of children is to have them when you are ready. That could be in your early 20's, could be early 30's. Only you can know.

[Whiplash7828]

I don't believe in the idea that you have to be financially stable to have kids. Maybe I should clarify that-you need to be financially stable enough to support a family, but you don't need to have a huge nest-egg, etc.

Agreed.

[CSK'sMom]

I'll agree with sdm242 as well! I don't think you can ever really know how much having kids will cost until they are here. Our kids have always have everything they need and most of their wants as well. :cheesygri

Now I'll add this tidbit, for comparison. As I said, we had our kids when we were young. They are now almost 18, 15 and almost 12 as I turn 40 this year. My brother will be 44 this year, married 4 years this year and has a 3 year old! Last time he was home from Vancouver we LOAO's as we planned an adult's dinner out. He was scrambling to find a babysitter while we phoned in a pizza for our kids and walked out the door. :D

[Kranberry]

I'll agree with sdm242 as well! I don't think you can ever really know how much having kids will cost until they are here. Our kids have always have everything they need and most of their wants as well. :cheesygri

Now I'll add this tidbit, for comparison. As I said, we had our kids when we were young. They are now almost 18, 15 and almost 12 as I turn 40 this year. My brother will be 44 this year, married 4 years this year and has a 3 year old! Last time he was home from Vancouver we LOAO's as we planned an adult's dinner out. He was scrambling to find a babysitter while we phoned in a pizza for our kids and walked out the door. :D

There is the flip side, while you were 24 and at home with your 2 year old, he was probably out partying. If you had planned an adult dinner out at that time, you would be scrambling to find a babysitter, and he wouldn't even have to phone for a pizza.

To each their own, early or late, both have advantages and disadvantages. What's right for you is when you want to have kids, regardless of age (within physical limitations of course) or financial situation, you can have kids. It's just a difference of whether your kid get's a bugaboo, or a used stroller from a used kids store.

[fireguy9]

Big disadvantage to the late families and I mean late 30s and those that push 40,,,,, you wont be doing the fun things with them because the aches and pains will have set in,,,, sickness and even worse,,,,,, the odds are not in your favour you will even live to see grandkids!!!!:!:

My brother is in that boat, 37 this yr, and his wife 39, no kids,,, she keeps thinking about her carreer first,,,, better take that promotion. Its going to be awfully lonely if they dont have kids once there family is past on! Plus my kids are 11 and 14 now,,, so they wouldnt even play with kids if they had them.

[deep]

I think too many people confuse "financial stability" with "being ready to retire". Kids certainly make you budget better, get ready for university, cars, weddings, whatever...but that's life. I think it's far better to have kids young while you can get the most out of each other. We had our first child at 27, second at 30...and that wasn't really as young as I wanted to be. My parents were at 23 and 26, which would be better.

[Trooper8111]

I think too many people confuse "financial stability" with "being ready to retire". Kids certainly make you budget better, get ready for university, cars, weddings, whatever...but that's life. I think it's far better to have kids young while you can get the most out of each other. We had our first child at 27, second at 30...and that wasn't really as young as I wanted to be. My parents were at 23 and 26, which would be better.

If you look at it financially, you can never afford children. I was 23 when I became a father and now having a great time with my two teens.

[Xax]

I'm 27 and my wife is 24. We don't have a whole lot of money, but then we plan on teaching our children self-sufficiency with regards to education, transportation, weddings, etc. We're having twins, but fortunately we're getting a lot of hand-me-downs to soften the financial burden.

[3weddings]

Big disadvantage to the late families and I mean late 30s and those that push 40,,,,, you wont be doing the fun things with them because the aches and pains will have set in,,,, sickness and even worse,,,,,, the odds are not in your favour you will even live to see grandkids!!!!:!:

My brother is in that boat, 37 this yr, and his wife 39, no kids,,, she keeps thinking about her carreer first,,,, better take that promotion. Its going to be awfully lonely if they dont have kids once there family is past on! Plus my kids are 11 and 14 now,,, so they wouldnt even play with kids if they had them.

I was 31 when I had my oldest who is now only 10, my youngest is 5 and still in kindergarten. DH and I are both healthy, active and very involved in every aspect of our childrens lives, whether it's basketball, volleyball, swimming, snowboarding....what every they choose we do it with them. To imply aches and pains is way off base.

We didn't meet until I was 29, and dh was 36!

I LOVE that we travelled and enjoyed single life before finding our soulmate and combining household. Granted at that age we were very set in our ways, but we were also mature enough to settle in and give our undivided attention to our family. We enjoy a vivied social life and rarely get a sitter for grown up time. Our children are as at home at La Castille as they are at McDs!!!

Granted I will be in my mid fifties when the youngest starts College, but that's the new 40 these days.

[mrcantrell]

I knew I was ready because my wife told me I was.

[3weddings]

I knew I was ready because my wife told me I was.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Yeah....dh was told by his friends with tweens that I would decide!! lol

[CSK'sMom]

Big disadvantage to the late families and I mean late 30s and those that push 40,,,,, you wont be doing the fun things with them because the aches and pains will have set in,,,, sickness and even worse,,,,,, the odds are not in your favour you will even live to see grandkids!!!!:!:


Funny you mention the not living long enough to see grandkids fireguy, my brother and I had that conversation a couple of months ago. We will be putting kids through college in our 40's, he'll be doing it at 60! :-0 He doubt's he'll ever see grandkids, especially if his daughter waits till her late 30's or 40's. He figures he'll be lucky to see her wedding which he'l be paying for well after his own retirement. They'd like to have another baby but the reality of their ages ad the implications has set in.

[gmark2000]

It's best to not to be poor when starting a family.

It was reported last year (http://www.campaign2000.ca/rc/) that 1.2 million children - almost one child out of every six in Canada live in poverty.

That is not fair to the child.

[Kranberry]

It's best to not to be poor when starting a family.

It was reported last year (http://www.campaign2000.ca/rc/) that 1.2 million children - almost one child out of every six in Canada live in poverty.

That is not fair to the child.

So what your saying is that if I'm poor I can't have children? Is this your way to weed out the poor people? Prevent them from having children? What makes a poor father/mother a bad parent? What if a poor family love their children and give them everything they can, but a rich family ignores the child and beats it. Money should NOT be an issue about having a child.

[fireguy9]

Funny you mention the not living long enough to see grandkids fireguy, my brother and I had that conversation a couple of months ago. We will be putting kids through college in our 40's, he'll be doing it at 60! :-0 He doubt's he'll ever see grandkids, especially if his daughter waits till her late 30's or 40's. He figures he'll be lucky to see her wedding which he'l be paying for well after his own retirement. They'd like to have another baby but the reality of their ages ad the implications has set in.

Exactly my point. Average income people will not be retiring early in that boat. To each there own,, but I wouldnt want to be in that boat! and glad Im not. Freedom 52-55 is coming for us:!: :D

[Freak]

I was 27 and my wife was 26 when we had our first daughter who is now turning 3. Our second daughter is 1 and we are thinking about going for a 3rd. I really wanted to have my first child when I was 25, but a number of factors got in the way and it really has worked out for the best.

I realize I probably wasn't mature enough to handle the day to day responsibilities (as I had some issues adjusting with my first, when I was 27). It takes a lot to give up the ability to just "drop things" and go. My biggest issue was that all of my friends were either single or only dating and none of them had children. As a result they didn't understand, so they were constantly asking me to go out places. My wife being as great as she is, always let me go out. Unfortunetly I have paid the price because I don't feel very close to my oldest daughter...the only good part is that I have changed and matured a lot with the 2nd daughter.

So I personally think it is really difficult to even know when YOU are ready for a child...never mind trying to tell someone else when they are ready!

Anyways, they are the 2 greatest achievments in my life and although I agree to a point that money/financial stability should not be your primary deciding factor, it will make things much easier and more enjoyable.

The reality is that having children adds a lot of stress to your life. They require constant attention and support (not just money!) which is something I don't think you can ever truly be ready for.

In the end as long as you do it with the right intentions you will do fine!

Freak

[curtis]

So what your saying is that if I'm poor I can't have children?

Actually, yes, if you're really poor and already living below the poverty line, you shouldn't have children.

[tkl]

When I realized that all four parents were really aging. I wanted our parents to meet their grandkids, at least some of them. I also wanted my boy to meet his great grandfather while he's still going strong. I'm glad we did since one of my boys grandfather passed away 3 days before he turned one. At least grandpa and him had 8 months of laughter together. God willing, I would also like to meet my grandkids.

Moreover, there was no real reason to delay it other than the usual selfish ones. As we all know in this forum, once you have kids, everything changes for the better.

[Kranberry]

Actually, yes, if you're really poor and already living below the poverty line, you shouldn't have children.

That is actually a pretty prejudice way of thinking. Should we enact laws preventing poor people from having children? Why don't we just send all the poor to a third world country? While were at it, might as well ship out lazy people, and old people, they're just a waste of space.

I guess if poor people never had children we wouldn't have these people living:

James Brown
Napoleon Hill
Charlie Chaplin
Hans Christian Anderson

Heck you could even say Jesus was born in poverty.

[gmark2000]

Attention all teenage girls, common sense is hereby forbidden. Please make babies because you can and there are no social, financial and personal consequences...

[Topher]

I was 28 when my son was born and 30 when my daughter was born. I'll be young enough to be around to see my grandkids, but old enough to feel like a grandpa. My older sister and her husband, on the other hand, decided to wait until they bought a house, then she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and underwent a couple of years of therapy and follow-ups. She ended up having her first child at the age of 35. I don't know if they plan on any more kids, but they'll be pushing the upper 50s or early 60s to put their kids through college. Everyone has a different set of criteria. I wasn't ready (even though I thought I was) when my son was born, and I had to do a lot of maturing since then. Now, I wouldn't change anything if I had to do it over again.

[curtis]

I don't generally like to compare the value of one's life, but you've got 4 people named for millions and millions of kids living in poverty and crime.

It is not prejudiced. Enacting a law would probably go too far, but all the people you seem to defend are drains on the system, usually with no sense of any self-awareness.

A great person is worth no more than a disabled person, but when you start to affect other people negatively, you should seriously consider what you are doing. If you don't have a choice, then fine. That is by far and large NOT the case.

"I guess if poor people never had children we wouldn't have these people living:

James Brown
Napoleon Hill
Charlie Chaplin
Hans Christian Anderson

Heck you could even say Jesus was born in poverty."

So what?

That is actually a pretty prejudice way of thinking. Should we enact laws preventing poor people from having children? Why don't we just send all the poor to a third world country? While were at it, might as well ship out lazy people, and old people, they're just a waste of space.

I guess if poor people never had children we wouldn't have these people living:

James Brown
Napoleon Hill
Charlie Chaplin
Hans Christian Anderson

Heck you could even say Jesus was born in poverty.

[poedua]

Actually, yes, if you're really poor and already living below the poverty line, you shouldn't have children.

Huh ?

I'm not following...WHY - " if you're really poor and already living below the poverty line, you shouldn't have children ".. should being poor make an difference one way or the other ?

Got some reasons WHY you think this is valid argument ?

[charliebrown]

Huh ?

I'm not following...WHY - " if you're really poor and already living below the poverty line, you shouldn't have children ".. should being poor make an difference one way or the other ?

Got some reasons WHY you think this is valid argument ?

Well, if you read the above in context with the earlier arguments about the number of kids/families living in poverty, then I'd agree it's a valid argument. The word "should" is key -- people have choices, and if bringing a child into this world could result in their suffering, then the couple SHOULD evaluate whether they have the ability (financial/mental/physical) to raise the child.

No one is saying that everyone making below $XXX or from race A or living in area C CANT have children. If you're browsing this forum for tips on raising a child, that probably means you're resourceful enough to evaluate whether you can raise the child.

[poedua]

Well, if you read the above in context with the earlier arguments about the number of kids/families living in poverty, then I'd agree it's a valid argument.

I don't think it is ...kids can live in the depths of poverty and still be happy and very well-adjusted.

I'd submit affluence and bad parenting screws up more kids than poverty.



The word "should" is key -- people have choices, and if bringing a child into this world could result in their suffering, then the couple SHOULD evaluate whether they have the ability (financial/mental/physical) to raise the child.

That is a good point, poor is not synonymous with " suffering " IMO.


No one is saying that everyone making below $XXX or from race A or living in area C CANT have children. If you're browsing this forum for tips on raising a child, that probably means you're resourceful enough to evaluate whether you can raise the child.

However, some on this thread are simply saying that if your are poor ...you shouldn't have kids.

I find that to be an utterly ridiculous argument for telling someone they shouldn't have kids.

[Toronto]

If you are constantly waiting for the perfect time, that time will never come.

[charliebrown]

I don't think it is ...kids can live in the depths of poverty and still be happy and very well-adjusted.

I'd submit affluence and bad parenting screws up more kids than poverty.


That is a good point, poor is not synonymous with " suffering " IMO.

However, some on this thread are simply saying that if your are poor ...you shouldn't have kids.

I find that to be an utterly ridiculous argument for telling someone they shouldn't have kids.

Good points. I've seen my share of kids with parents who believe that giving them loads of money = good parenting

[Flame_lily]

It's best to not to be poor when starting a family.

It was reported last year (http://www.campaign2000.ca/rc/) that 1.2 million children - almost one child out of every six in Canada live in poverty.

That is not fair to the child.

Define poor & it's relevance to parenting. We all have very diverse lifeskills that we learn differently. I grew up 'poor' but as a result of that I learnt great financial management skills - make do with what you have. I also learnt enjoy my life regardless of my bank account balance. Lessons I hope to pass on to my kids. How many people today are tied to miserable jobs that cost them dearly emotionally & spiritually but won't leave because they are afraid of being 'poor'?

[Bullseye]

We were/are 29 and 31 for our two kids. We're very happy that we choose to travel extensively in our 20's and have kids after, even though we've been together since we were both 17. Some fun you can really only have in your 20's, and we're glad we didn't miss that.

Now we're quite happy to be settled down and do more domesticated things.

[gorf]

Poor is such a loose word. I think alot of people here were not brought up in money and were poor, but my situation is, my parents could provide for their family. All basic needs were met and they didn't rely on food banks or social services to provide for their family.

If you're poor and can provide, then go for it. If you're poor and cannot provide for children and must rely on food banks and social services, then use a condom. Personally, I don't agree with popping out kids and having the taxpayer having to provide all basic needs for them.

As far as the right time to have kids, there really is no right time. Every couple is different and has different priorities. We waited until we were emotionally ready and could "afford" to raise a child in the manner we wanted and then let nature take its course. What we wanted was to be fiancially stable enough and that we had a home, could provide all the basic needs and could afford to have a parent stay at home to raise the children without the use of public or private daycare. Having a parent raise our children was of great importance to us and we managed to be able to do this at < 25. We'll be around, God willing, to see our grandkids.

[Flame_lily]

There was an article last week (I think) from ?StatsCan reporting that average families with children are not seeing the economic gains seen by their higher income counterparts. I can't find it now. There was also a report that most of the families accessing food banks & social services are working in part-time service industry jobs (think McD's). Should these not have babies? I think the notion of lazy welfare parents is not as prevalent as we'd like to think. What I find kind of amusing is the self-righteous indignation of working people towards 'welfare bums' but somehow consolidating debt is socially acceptable?:confused:

[gmark2000]

Released today (http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2007/06/c7412.html):

Based on the latest Statistics Canada data, the 2006 Report Card on
Child Poverty in Ontario states that 478,480 children - one in every six
children - in Ontario are living in poverty.

From today's Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070306.wpoverty0306/BNStory/National/home):

Living in poverty has a critical impact on both immediate and long-term well-being. The Canadian Council on Social Development says children who live in persistent poverty have poor health [and nutrition], do less well in school, are more likely to have emotional problems, to exhibit anxiety and aggression, and to become involved in illegal activities.

Given the choice of introducing a child to these risk factors, the prospective parents should indeed weigh financial obligations along with this responsibilty. No one is advocating that the poor should not be allowed to have children. But the sad reality is that you need to adequately feed, clothe and educate/play with your children and there is a monetary capacity related to this. Not acknowledging this reality is naïve rationale.

[poedua]

Released today (http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2007/06/c7412.html):

Based on the latest Statistics Canada data, the 2006 Report Card on
Child Poverty in Ontario states that 478,480 children - one in every six
children - in Ontario are living in poverty.

From today's Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070306.wpoverty0306/BNStory/National/home):

Living in poverty has a critical impact on both immediate and long-term well-being. The Canadian Council on Social Development says children who live in persistent poverty have poor health [and nutrition], do less well in school, are more likely to have emotional problems, to exhibit anxiety and aggression, and to become involved in illegal activities.

Given the choice of introducing a child to these risk factors, the prospective parents should indeed weigh financial obligations along with this responsibilty. No one is advocating that the poor should not be allowed to have children.

One poster is.


But the sad reality is that you need to adequately feed, clothe and educate/play with your children and there is a monetary capacity related to this. Not acknowledging this reality is naïve rationale.

You're missing the point.....the " reality " of poverty IS being acknowledged by poor people...but some don't find that " reality " relevant to their decision - nor should they in my opinion - to have kids. People aren't poor forever.

You can be poor and still be an excellent parent that adequately provides for the physical and emotional well-being of kids - risk factors not withstanding.

[gmark2000]

I don't disagree with your last statement at all. Good parents come from all social classes. The lower classes are challenged with more disadvantages.

However, I need clarification in your statement that "some don't find that 'reality' relevant to their decision" is recognizing a person's rights and freedoms to self-assert despite disadvantages OR saying that ignorance of reality is permissible OR neither.

[poedua]

I don't disagree with your last statement at all. Good parents come from all social classes. The lower classes are challenged with more disadvantages.

However, I need clarification in your statement that "some don't find that 'reality' relevant to their decision" is recognizing a person's rights and freedoms to self-assert despite disadvantages OR saying that ignorance of reality is permissible OR neither.

Neither.

[gmark2000]

As opposed to conceiving by "accident" (are there really accidents or lack of precautions), having children should be a conscious decision, not to be taken lightly, on a whim, or by pure folly. I cannot fathom the clear rationale for finding "reality" as irrelevant.

This is reality. Children begin their dependency from the point of conception.

[poedua]

As opposed to conceiving by "accident" (are there really accidents or lack of precautions),

Please. C'mon. You know better than that.

Of course there are " accidents ".

No birth control is 100% fool-proof - unless it's complete abstinence or one or the other partner in a relationship undergoes permanent sterilization.



having children should be a conscious decision, not to be taken lightly, on a whim, or by pure folly.

Correct...no one is claiming otherwise. Least not me.

Decisions can be taken lightly, on a whim, or by pure folly by poor, rich and the ultra rich.

Lets' face it.....socio-economic status is no guarantee of sound thinking or judgement.


I cannot fathom the clear rationale for finding "reality" as irrelevant.

I can. Like I said, you can be poor and still be an excellent parent that adequately provides for the physical and emotional well-being of kids - risk factors not withstanding. The " reality " of poverty IS being acknowledged by poor people.


This is reality. Children begin their dependency from the point of conception.

This is simply stating the obvious.

This motherhood statement applies to every parent that ever existed, exists now and will exist in future on this earth....be they poor, working poor, rich or ultra rich.

[TrevorK]

I don't think it is ...kids can live in the depths of poverty and still be happy and very well-adjusted.

Can? Absolutely
More likely? I doubt it

We can argue all we want about whether people are 'truly happy' and such (The classic 'American Beauty' arguement), but the bottom line is that in our materialistic society (That hits everyone regardless of wealth) it is safe to say that those who are in poverty are less happy than those without.

Poverty is not having what you need to maintain a basic standard of living. Depriving people of their basic needs on a continual basis, when they see day in / day out how many people live in excess, does not make for a happy life.


I'd submit affluence and bad parenting screws up more kids than poverty.


The problem is that poverty also comes with many other characteristics (Again, this is a generalization and applies to most. Obviously there are exceptions):
- Lesser quality of education
- Less education period
- Higher risk of illness/diesese
- Higher risk of criminal activity

The list goes on and on. Statistics from the US, regarding their 'Projects' can back up all of the claims above. When the cycle of poverty is allowed to perpetuate, the citizens that come out of the area have a lesser 'quality of life' as deemed by societal standards/norms.

Poverty itself doesn't cause bad children, but the conditions that contribute to poverty, the outcomes of being in an impoverished environment, and the constant interaction with others in the same state can greatly increase the chance of 'bad children'.

[poedua]

Can? Absolutely
More likely? I doubt it

I don't.


We can argue all we want about whether people are 'truly happy' and such (The classic 'American Beauty' arguement), but the bottom line is that in our materialistic society (That hits everyone regardless of wealth) it is safe to say that those who are in poverty are less happy than those without.

No...it isn't " safe to say " ...it's a stretch ......at best.

Materialiism may be a suffiicent way of attaining happiness but it certainly is neccessary. Simple odds and logic would presume that there are just as many happy rich people out there than happy poor people.



Poverty is not having what you need to maintain a basic standard of living. Depriving people of their basic needs on a continual basis, when they see day in / day out how many people live in excess, does not make for a happy life.

I disagree. I've seen poverty first hand.

Not everyone cares about what other people have .." how many people live in excess ".I don't accept that happiness is a function of what other people have, but if it is, that attitude afflicts rich and poor alike.

You can be wealthy and have all of " what you need to maintain a basic standard of living " and still be unhappy - happiness is a state of mind regardless of what life throws at you IMO.




The problem is that poverty also comes with many other characteristics (Again, this is a generalization and applies to most. Obviously there are exceptions):
- Lesser quality of education
- Less education period
- Higher risk of illness/diesese
- Higher risk of criminal activity

The list goes on and on. Statistics from the US, regarding their 'Projects' can back up all of the claims above. When the cycle of poverty is allowed to perpetuate, the citizens that come out of the area have a lesser 'quality of life' as deemed by societal standards/norms.

I don't equate " standard of living " with happiness.

Your " 'quality of life' may not be up to " standards" but it doesn't mean you can't be just as happy as those who are at those standards.


Poverty itself doesn't cause bad children, but the conditions that contribute to poverty, the outcomes of being in an impoverished environment, and the constant interaction with others in the same state can greatly increase the chance of 'bad children'.

What a coincidence, so can this ......


" WEALTH itself doesn't cause bad children, but the conditions that contribute to WEALTH, the outcomes of being in a WEALTHY environment, and the constant interaction with others in the same state can greatly increase the chance of 'bad children'.

Nice try though.

[Jonavin]

Released today (http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2007/06/c7412.html):

Based on the latest Statistics Canada data, the 2006 Report Card on
Child Poverty in Ontario states that 478,480 children - one in every six
children - in Ontario are living in poverty.

From today's Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070306.wpoverty0306/BNStory/National/home):

Living in poverty has a critical impact on both immediate and long-term well-being. The Canadian Council on Social Development says children who live in persistent poverty have poor health [and nutrition], do less well in school, are more likely to have emotional problems, to exhibit anxiety and aggression, and to become involved in illegal activities.

Given the choice of introducing a child to these risk factors, the prospective parents should indeed weigh financial obligations along with this responsibilty. No one is advocating that the poor should not be allowed to have children. But the sad reality is that you need to adequately feed, clothe and educate/play with your children and there is a monetary capacity related to this. Not acknowledging this reality is naïve rationale.

Well, I grew up in a social housing project (think Regent Park in Toronto) and most of my friends were all from this environment. Today they are all doing very well. Most are having successful careers in IT, medicine, accounting, etc... and some would even be considered affluent. Most of us pay more in taxes than our parents made in income growing up.

It's definitely more challenging to be poor but it doesn't mean your kids are doomed. It all depends on upbringing. One thing we all realized as we move up the social ladder is that you don't wealth (as in money) doesn't directly correlate with happiness.

Of course, there are many more people (not in my personal circle of friends) who continue to be stuck in endless poverty generation after generation. Not to demean anybody in the situation, but if you choose booz/gambling over books/food for your kids, you'll never get out of the hole. Our parents did the later and all of us are better off for it.

So I would say that bad parenting is worst than being poor. Sure, poor parents will have to make more sacrifices. People just have to live within their means. You should be mentally/physically prepared to be a parent as well as meeting the basic fiscal needs.

[Flame_lily]

1. Most parents who lived through the Depression had way less materially than welfare parents today. If people hadn't had kids during the Depression most of us wouldn't be here today.

2. Middle class families in some countries may have the same things materially as 'poor' parents in Canada.

3. Most people who have been abroad will tell you how amazed they are at how genuinely happy people living in 'poverty' are; think Cuba, Brazil, Mexico. Most of these families have happy, healthy well-adjusted kids.

IMO the Stats we get only help perpetuate the impression of 'oh-my-goodness-these-poor-people' & it's counterpart 'oh-mygoodness-if only-I-had-such&such-I'd-be-happy/better-parent'. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophet.

[patrob]

I set myself a goal that by the age 30, I would be done with having kids...& have accomplished that :cheesygri :cheesygri :D My oldest son is 5 1/2 & our Twins boy/girl are 2 1/2... No more babies for us ;)

[gmark2000]

I guess that we shouldn't worry that one in six children are living in poverty then. Most are happy and well-adjusted. It's all a media ploy by the NDP and OCAP.