Advert

Children are a luxury

Last Sunday this paper ran a story about a forty year old man who for some reason or other hasn’t worked in 18 years.

Whether he doesn’t work because of physical or mental health reasons is unclear, but he has since then fathered five children - the youngest being two years of age.  

Together with his wife, he is bringing them up on social benefits alone and they live in a four-roomed Valletta housing apartment that is falling to pieces.

They have garbage bags instead of window panes and three beds and a cot to sleep the seven of them.  

Two of the children suffer from epileptic fits, and the father claimed that sometimes he has to borrow money to buy their medicines.

The story was entitled “Someone needs to take notice of people like us”, and as much as I agree that we should, my first reaction was that ‘someone needs to get a vasectomy or wear a permanent condom.’

This is what I stated on my Facebook wall and despite the disgusted umbrage that some people took against it, I stand by my words, not out of sheer stubbornness, but because I’m more than convinced that in such cases, the first and absolutely necessary step towards alleviating the situation is to stop having children.

Some of those who felt appalled by my words suggested more charitable measures. Some suggested relocation and finding the family bigger and better housing, whilst others were all for monetary donations, education, no judgments and being charitable.  

Whilst all this is good and hunky dory, if the couple keeps churning out children, no amount of help is ever going to suffice.

As rational as this seems to me, many disagree - I was told that by suggesting a vasectomy or the use of condoms, I was being unreasonable and too harsh on people who possibly have mental problems.

I was told that I’m bigoted and rash, and that judging is the easiest thing to do.

I was even told that suggesting the most effective child-control methods on the face of the earth borders on the eugenic.

Someone even suggested that this paper should fire me for having such an opinion.

Well excuse me for being practical!

For peace sake, I did not say that the State should forcefully sterilize the couple, which I understand would warrant such reactions, but that ‘someone’ (clearly mimicking the father’s own words), should do it voluntarily because it’s the rational and practical thing to do.

Having children is not a fundamental right, children are a luxury. If you can’t afford them you should not have them, which thanks to modern medicine is entirely possible.

Slipping once or even twice is somewhat excusable, but five times, when you’re in such dire straits, is indefensible.

Even the Millennium Chapel, which according to the report is following this family through a three-year project, should close an eye on ancient traditions and suggest a more effective child control than the safe period, but of course that is more unlikely to happen than the sun turning blue tomorrow.

And that’s where the rest of us should come in because if we cannot judge between right or wrong then we are left with no way to move forward.

Whether the couple are depressed, or have other problems that have landed them in this situation, whether it’s their fault or not, I’m pretty sure that the children did not fall out of the sky and landed in their laps.

So yes, I reiterate ‘Someone needs to get a vasectomy or wear a permanent condom’ because if they keep the baby baking going, everything we do to help will be futile.

Advert

29 Comments

Post comment

Please see our new Comments Policy

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

For more details please see our Comments Policy

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Ms Maria Vella

May 16th 2012, 15:45

Yes, we all speak of rights here and there but no one speaks of responsibility.....if you cannot afford to have kids then irrespective of whether it is a declared human right then you should not have them....same applies if you don't have the possibility to offer them some degree of stability

Jonathan Camilleri

May 7th 2012, 10:10

Well I agree, for example I have been unemployed since Jan 2012, and, the Social Security Department does not bother to help me financially, since it says that I am living with my parents. I admit to living better off than the persons living above, but the Government cannot keep on ignoring the poor people.

Alison Bezzina

May 6th 2012, 08:34

Agreed but disagree... if you come to a point in your life where you can't afford an SUV or a 5-star penthouse anymore, you can sell them, or just let them rot.

You can't/shouldn't do that with children.

Children are a lifetime commitment without exit clauses...not only do you need to make sure that you're in a position to maintain them when you have them, but that you'll still be in the same position or better at least for the next eighteen years.

Mario Borg

May 6th 2012, 10:19

Do you realise that by the standard no one could have kids? You never know what is going to happen in the next 18 years!!!!!! Besides that is a very short-sighted vision compared to eternal life - provided you believe of course, that we are not just for the here and now short span of what, 80 years of hardship and struggle?!

Alison Bezzina

May 6th 2012, 12:18

This is not to compare animals to children as some might conveniently misinterpret, but if someone couldn't afford to pay rent for a roof over their head, or for a meal and basic medicine, would you suggest that they adopted or bought five dogs ?

I should hope not...and the same applies in principle when having children.

The least you can do is to make sure that you're in a position to take care of them when you have them.

Whilst it's true that no one can foresee the future, there's a big difference between taking calculated risks and absolute rashness.

Mario Borg

May 6th 2012, 18:11

While its true that parenthood needs to be taken very seriously and responsably, again, you can never compare having kids to owning pets - actually it is in this priciple that I entirley disagree. I fail to even see a point there.

As to what is constitutes rashness as compared to a calculated risk is a subjective argument.

I will not enter into a case that I do not know well personally and judge ---but a family in extreme poverty may still end up bestowing more love to their kids than any multimillionaire who dumps his own kids in a heap of luxuries but is unable to love his own offspring - and this is very easy to understand I hope...

P Pace Balzan

May 7th 2012, 11:31

Brilliant replies Mario Borg.

carlos ellul

May 8th 2012, 07:11

An irresponsible parent is an irresponsible parent irrespective whether he's rich or poor. Now returning to the subject, having 5 kids whilst being unemployed and unable to give them a decent present and future is irresponsible. Love alone will not feed and give these kids a decent living that's for sure.

Anyway as my grandfather used to say the goal posts for 'eternal life' keep shifting so its not use to go against common sense for it. Can you blame him? Throughout his life time, he risked 'eternal life' for his family and himself for not donating his father's inheritance to the church, for voting MLP during the interdett times and for sending his children to school. I am sure that one day the church will catch up with common sense one more time and say that unless one can't afford to give a decent life to their children then they shouldn't have them in the first place.


Mario Grech

May 8th 2012, 08:03

Love alone can't feed or heal disease. Try consoling a hungry baby with cuddles and love. See where that gets you!

P Pace Balzan

May 8th 2012, 11:41

@ Mario Grech
What are you trying to imply?
Are you perhaps suggesting to put the world on hold because of unknown future circumstances?
As a general rule love is the start and the struggle/cross is the continuation which stares everyone in the face.
The alternative is to quit on life.

Mario Borg

May 8th 2012, 14:49

A courteous note to Mr Carlos Ellul:

Agreed that an irresponsible parent may be rich or poor; and that is exactly why poverty should not be the criterion used as an excuse to point fingers! It is too easy to judge...

Thank you for sharing some of your own background in life.

As for myself, I'd like to share, that I have found the Gospel to be true that: "It is not by bread alone that man lives; but by every Word that comes from the mouth of God" - I do not believe this phrase blindly - but through having experienced it in my own family's life! Otherwise I would not speak.



Mike Abbot

May 5th 2012, 10:00

Perhaps when these children grow up and possibly become decision makers through experience they might re-factor housing estates back into the equation.

paid for through taxes by people like Myself & Alison Bezzina? why should we sit back and watch people have as many babies as they want and then have to carry the burden ourselves? There is a difference between people struggling and in need on a good social welfare system and people struggling because they are plain irresponsible.

P Pace Balzan

May 5th 2012, 12:52

@Mike Abbot
As far as I am aware the housing estates were built via funds generated in part from taxes but also from governmental businesses.
In recent times government profit making businesses have been privatised whilst the loss making ones are being funded by our taxes.
We are now in a situation where the "Mother & Child Concept - ie continuity" and "Love thy Neighbour" concept are now classified under "No-I do not want my taxes to go these people".
.
What you are missing Mr Abbot is that the asset "ie housing estates" did exist in Malta however their sale has actually reduced the taxes we have paid.
.
I can continue, however I will give you time to respond.

Advert
Advert