[#1]

Hello girls,

I completely understand you for not wanting to have a baby.  And of course it's YOUR personal choice and no one ever should be judged for that.

I've always felt maternal (since I was 16, had a baby at 27 after graduation in Ukraine and marriage in Wales) and probably out of curiosity as well I actually wanted to have 2 children before we had our son (but after knowing What it's like sometimes we are happy with just 1).  He is 5 now and it's still quite demanding (though all that unconditional love we get is overwhelming and lovely).  I never understood before I had him my friend's words who had a baby already:'It's lovely to watch your own baby grow especially when you have good relations with your husband/partner, work together as a team and help each other, stand by each other as a united front as for the discipline'. I thought: 'What's is there so lovely about it?'

There are challenging moments sometimes but I hope it's worth it.  I hope we'll be able to do a good job as parents and feel proud of our son.

As for FB and babies I can see why you feel fed up with too much information because it is not relevant to your life at all but as a Mum I sometimes feel So much pride for every little thing and achievement of Nathan that I feel the urge to share with some close friends (who have a child and are genuinely interested and sometimes ask for some advice).  I share only some of positive information on 'Mummy Love' group on FB which is a closed group and for mums only so I am trying not to be in that category who annoys those who are CFBC too much 

We are all different and should do what we feel will make US happy and ignore people who don't want to understand our choices.

I am in real search of finding my career and earning decent money.  I feel I haven't fulfilled my potential because I had my son.  If there was a guarantee I could easily get pregnant After I completed some studying in the UK and found a decent relatively well paid job I would first concentrate on my career.  But because I was actually quite desperate to become a mum I didn't want to risk and delay my pregnancy.

As retirement age will be 65 or 70 by the time I retire (I am 32 now), I hope to catch up with some studying and my career. 

All the best

[#2]

Hello girls,

I completely understand you for not wanting to have a baby.  And of course it's YOUR personal choice and no one ever should be judged for that.

I've always felt maternal (since I was 16, had a baby at 27 after graduation in Ukraine and marriage in Wales) and probably out of curiosity as well I actually wanted to have 2 children before we had our son (but after knowing What it's like sometimes we are happy with just 1).  He is 5 now and it's still quite demanding (though all that unconditional love we get is overwhelming and lovely).  I never understood before I had him my friend's words who had a baby already:'It's lovely to watch your own baby grow especially when you have good relations with your husband/partner, work together as a team and help each other, stand by each other as a united front as for the discipline'. I thought: 'What's is there so lovely about it?'

There are challenging moments sometimes but I hope it's worth it.  I hope we'll be able to do a good job as parents and feel proud of our son.

As for FB and babies I can see why you feel fed up with too much information because it is not relevant to your life at all but as a Mum I sometimes feel So much pride for every little thing and achievement of Nathan that I feel the urge to share with some close friends (who have a child and are genuinely interested and sometimes ask for some advice).  I share only some of positive information on 'Mummy Love' group on FB which is a closed group and for mums only so I am trying not to be in that category who annoys those who are CFBC too much 

We are all different and should do what we feel will make US happy and ignore people who don't want to understand our choices.

I am in real search of finding my career and earning decent money.  I feel I haven't fulfilled my potential because I had my son.  If there was a guarantee I could easily get pregnant After I completed some studying in the UK and found a decent relatively well paid job I would first concentrate on my career.  But because I was actually quite desperate to become a mum I didn't want to risk and delay my pregnancy.

As retirement age will be 65 or 70 by the time I retire (I am 32 now), I hope to catch up with some studying and my career. 

All the best

[#3]

I've worked full time (37.5 hours a week) for 6 years before I had my son and we paid crazy money for nursery for 4 years £828 per month, then when he was 3.5 y.o. we had 15 hours free from the government.

Since September 2011 when Nathan started school I work 29 hours a week, I hope to increase them by 33.  The hours are now around his school run. 

What are your jobs?  Do you feel not having a baby helped you to achieve more career wise?  What are you life ambitions and goals at the moment?

[#4]

I agree entirely with your comment about the woman's right to have only one baby. My sister (much to my father's annoyance) chose not to have a family at all. Due to circumstances I have not had children either.

Ironically one of the reasons why we have the forthcomming collapse in the State Pension is that when it was created in the "beneftis for all speach" assumed that there would always be jobs for all and that families would stay together for life, with the proverbial 2.4 children per family unit.   That predicition turned out to be drastically over estimated.

We had a lot of deaths in WW II , not just men on the front line, but civillians too.  Equally we had the "baby boomers" of both the 1940's (with black outs and rations of everything, apart from sex), there was a population explosion. In Victorian times the average birth rate 5.4 children per family unit, albeit a low survival rate among infants, but also an lower life expextancy.

The 1960 explosion ( a direct result of the 1940's birth rate increase), meant that we saw the birth rate stablise at 2.4 per family unit. Then we had immigration which meant that those whos' ethos is to have large families crept in, and counter balanced the reduction in native reproduction, and meant that the birth rate was not only higher but the survival of both mother and child have improved dramatically.  When longevity is take in to account, by 2025 there will be more people over 65 than below 50 years. 

We then have the issue regarding work. The days of Daddy going to work at 16 and leaving with his gold watch at 65 have long gone, so too have the days when son followed father in to the same firm when he was 16.  The average life expectancy of a company or business now (excluding temporary companies that cover events) is less than 25 years, If you want proof of that look at Companies House (www.companieshouse,gov.uk) to see the increase of companies created and dissolved in the space of 5 years.  Companies being formed now are in the 7 series.  Also the number of insolvencies and compulsory closures of companies and business as increased four-fold, due in part to poor management but the lack of support by banks who are too quick to call in a company as soon as it gets in to difficulty.

The three biggest issuers of insolvency proceedings (in order) are:

1. HM Customs VAT

2. Inland Revenue

3. Banks holding debentures and other securities allowing the to take control of a company, withdraw support and close it.

With the cost of living, more to the point housing, both parents have to work, even if one is part time to cover the overheads, let alone things like holidays and days out.  The average family is now now reproducing at the rate of 1.8 per couple due to pressures of work and also the sheer cost of living.  With a descent 3 bedroom house costing in some areas over £500K, the Mortgage, even rent these days usually absorbs the principle earners income. To that end many families can only afford one child.

This leads us to another problem, which nobody really forecast, nor beleived would happen (with the exception of perhaps Enoch Powell and Margaret Thatcher) is that with a reducing birth rate and increasing longevity, together with long term unemployment, means that the money going in to National Insurance, is considerably less than was projected in the  late 1940s when the "benefits for all" speach was made in the House of Commons. 

I remember the "shock-horror" of the 1970s when unemployment hit the 1 Million mark; to-day's (official) figure is just under 3 million, and the true figure nearer 4 million due the way the head count and definitions of being unemployed have changed since Thatcher started tinkering with the calculations; and it is not just the Right of the Political spectrum, the Left have done it too. I would argur that we have not had an accurate unemployment figure since 1979.

This is only going to get worse since with the massive leaps in technology, meaning that you no longer need be in this Country to run a business in this Country means that much of the work is done in overseas call centres. On top of that with the advent of  Direct Dialling, there are fewer switchboard operators needed both in the work place and the telephone industry generally. Being a receiptionist and telephonist, like cop typist was usually a girl's first job.  Girls were preferred for telephony because a partly broken, higher pitched voice travels better down a telephone line. 

I now type all my own letters and e-mails, where as anyone in even a supervisory postition had access to either their own Short-hand typist (now referred to as a Personal Assistant). Only high value staff, i.e. those on £60K plus have this "service" at their disposal. I now draft all my own summonses, particulars of claim  and replies to defences whereas 25 years ago that was done by a very senior member of staff, in-house or external Solicitors' practise; again dictated and typed up by a legal Secretary (not in the Companies House sense).  You will note the number of Solicitors who have merged practices over the last 10 years.

The bottom line is, we no longer need a large population and therefore we could end up in the same situation as China where the Government make it mandatory that there can only be one child per family. I would dread to see that happen, but in reality it will not be needed because few  native British can afford to raise more than two children.  The influx of immigrants (and that is not to be racist) has meant that the non domiciled parents can afford to reproduce more as they (appeared) to get more benefits than anyonelse. Equally many of those people who arrived in the 1970s have now retired and drawing State Pensions which they probably only spent 10 years paying in to.

With native population shrinking the problem with pensions is going to increase and the State Pension is already earmarked for means-testing.  So little wonder parents are opting only to have one child per unit.