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.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
29 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Nestor Laiviera
May 10th 2012, 23:12
I am afraid that insofar as your claim that children are a luxury, and not a right, you are incorrect.
I quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948):
Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
Article 16: "(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."
You are fully entitled to disagree with this, but to say that children are a luxury and not a right, is incorrect.
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
Ms Maria Vella
May 9th 2012, 16:15
totally agree with you!
Carmel Vella
May 8th 2012, 07:32
The mentality that the government should pay nanny for all of our needs is bringing all of us down into perdition.'
It is time for all to look at what we can do for ourselves , work and not rely in the generosity if the government at handing out other people's hard earned income through forced heavy taxation. Many are becoming a bunch if no good wussies, and leaches on society.
J Abela
May 6th 2012, 15:59
Excellent article. Two thumbs up!
This mentality that having children is something 'Godsend' which we cannot do anything to prevent (or worse still - shouldn't) is a couple of generations old.
It's also almost insulting when you think that a normal full time employed couple rarely have more than two kids..
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.
G Schembri
May 6th 2012, 09:36
I totally agree with you, these people should first of all be taught all about family planning, and some facts of life. I know of couples who love children and who would love to have three or four kids, but decide to stop at one or two, because they cannot afford to have more. So yes I agree with you that children are a luxury, a luxury and a liability.
Mr Edward Caruana Galizia
May 5th 2012, 13:45
I imagine that having two children suffering from epilepsy is a huge strain on the couple's lives. I wonder if the couple have family members, brothers and sisters, to help out.
Personally I sort of agree with this article. But perhaps this shows that our National Health Service should also include some sort of support for families where a member has a serious illness.
Wouldn't it be a good idea if, should someone fall ill, there were a social worker who visited the family during the time and acted as an outsider to offer clear advice and guidance? It s great that we have free healthcare, but the simple strain of an illness can have huge effects on the family involved. Why not provide a service to stop families like the one mentioned in the article from falling into depression or desolation?
Mario Borg
May 5th 2012, 12:48
Please! An SUV is a luxury, a 5-star penthouse is a luxury, children are NOT a luxury!
Children are a gift from Heaven!
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.
Ms. P.M Graham
May 5th 2012, 08:47
There's quite a lot that didn't actually make sense in this original editorial, because surely the children wouldn't be left in such a hovel if they weren't being cared for properly.
A whole lot of facts were left out of the editorial too, which leads to assumptions and judgments as to why he can't work, but I sometimes think that's deliberate to get people fired up. Lets face it, all we the readers know is what the Times has chosen to print.
It is my personal opinion that people don't always plan children, very few in fact, and sometimes it is through sheer ignorance that a small clan Dependant on the State is born, but it's too late to cry foul now because the children are here and it takes a whole lot more than love to raise them. I am almost sure that there would have been a time where the Social Services should have stepped in, (perhaps at baby number 2) and yes, removed the children if they were not being cared for, but there never seems to be any team work in these situations and it's a whole lot easier to hand out a State Cheque than get involved.
There I am afraid lies the problem. Nip the problems in the bud when they first raise their heads instead of waiting until situations like this, that, with the information available in the original editorial seems to be a fait accomplis
For what it's worth I AM actually one of those who believes that some people should not be allowed to have children, and I don't mean in affording them, but I guess that's a whole other debate :)
Muxa Spiteri
May 5th 2012, 07:09
Well said, shame that the practical solution is never considered because it is 'too harsh' and 'miskin mela ma haqqux jghix hajja ahjar anki forsi jhobbohom allura missier tajjeb?' <- seriously..., that's not the right direction we should encourage.
P Pace Balzan
May 5th 2012, 06:55
Alison; this whole article involves parenting, contraception, family economics/budgeting versus the existence of a present creation with the potential for an eventual good life.
Apart from the mention of epileptic fits the children and their entire life (i.e. not just a mere 10% of it) do not feature anywhere.
Whether a person is born into this world (in this case Malta) via an organized family structure or not should be completely besides any point which you have mentioned.
.
Had , for example, you mentioned the housing estates which existed in Malta a number of years ago and which have now been privatised under the scheme “own your own home” ; your article would have shown how decisions taken by well to do people have now effected/affected the family which you chose to write about.
.
Perhaps when these children grow up and possibly become decision makers through experience they might re-factor housing estates back into the equation.
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.
Carmel Vella
May 4th 2012, 20:16
Having children , and being incapable of looking after them properly is nothing short of a major sin, not to mention the fact that hard working taxpayers should NOT be responsible for their welfare. Let the government take the children away from this couple and place them in an orphanage. They would be much better taken care of , and taxpayer monies will be better used that way. If and when this couple , gets their act together, and they can show proof that they are then capable of looking after their offspring, then let them have them back.
STOP REWARDING BAD BEHAVIOR WITH TAX PAYER MONIES.
Andy Farrugia
May 4th 2012, 19:30
Having children is not a fundamental right, children are a GIFT and bring with them GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. You know where I come from, so to speak, Ms Bezzina, and I do not consider your views on this issue to be either rash or bigoted. And I also agree with you that we should speak out against irresponsibility and callousness. The thing which irritates me most is when people utter inane platitudes such as "judging is the easiest thing to do" as if we cannot criticise what is definitely a case of sheer irresponsibility and horrific egotism. I feel really sorry for children who are unfortunate enough to have such "parents".
ANTHONY PAVIA
May 4th 2012, 18:52
Well said Alison.
Peter Shaw
May 4th 2012, 16:53
Its also unfair on the children who have to live in such a state!
Mr John Borg
May 4th 2012, 16:30
100% agree. In fact my sentiments exactly when I read the article.
Procreating like rabbits definitely does not help in such a situation.
Mr Ishmael Dalli
May 4th 2012, 16:03
Indeed it is a practical way forward. I consider myself quite a moral conservative but here I will stand by you. Yes having children, though a gift of love, one must reckon with today's realities and cost of life so it must be a carefully thought decision . I have to stand by you another time slipping once or twice is one thing but slipping five times is indefensible. I would apply this also to "chronic single mothers" who end up having their lives and the children they bring here in misery and in the poverty trap. Such people at risk should be educated even on birth control methods. Though abstinence is a commendable virtue one has to reckon the fact that some people do not uphold this anymore so such education would prevent greater harm.
Please choose the reason of your report below: