Poor people shouldn't have more than two kids?

Sticky_Fingers

dvpower wrote: »

We aren't China. In Europe, we've having problems sustaining our population.

Its a right winger's dilemma. We can't have the skangers having too many kids, but we need to sustain the population to pay future pensions, so its either more skanger kids or more immigration. What to pick?:eek:

I did address population decline in the West in the quoted post. I said that I was in favour of more immigration from the poorer regions to help meet out labour demands as our population ages. Someone has previously mentioned the problems faced in Japan due to an aging population and the associated problems of not taking in foreign workers to meet the shortfall, their loss. As for the argument that all the foreigners will somehow erode our culture and dilute our whiskey soaked heritage I would suggest that any culture that is so vulnerable to outside influences deserves to fall by the wayside.

dvpower

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You did, my apologies

Even with CHB and other benefits related to having children (back to school allowances etc), the financial incentives aren't great.
In any case, CHB is available to all parents (and I don't see anyone ever claiming that working parents are incentivised to have children by it).

I would have thought that if financial measures were a useful tool to incluence poor people about having kids, the cost of rearing a kid in the first place would be disincentive enough.

Long Term Louth

Terry wrote: »

My mother died 27 years ago today.

So who are these skangers?

At least you knew who she was.

Butterflylove

I voted yes im one of the ones that comes froma very large family my mother had 9 kids thats right 9 im thrid eldest and Id gladly say that there should be a limited,

Two, Three at max is plenty, if you have anymore be it on your own head.

We've all seen it the familys in the UK and here have 12 kids for benefits,

and to be fair it would be more likely to be a spolit child that would end up living off the state getting everything handed to them as kids why should it stop when they turn 18 and get preggers....

clived2

Terry wrote: »

My mother died 27 years ago today.

So who are these skangers?

I apologize and sorry for your loss

phill106

Zombienosh wrote: »

Amanda Craig, the British novelist, says the Coalition Government should ban 'poor' people from having more than two children, to help save the environment.

Because only poor peoples children "use up" the environment? And only the 3rd and more?

OldNotWIse

dvpower wrote: »

Even with CHB and other benefits related to having children (back to school allowances etc), the financial incentives aren't great.
In any case, CHB is available to all parents (and I don't see anyone ever claiming that working parents are incentivised to have children by it).

I would have thought that if financial measures were a useful tool to incluence poor people about having kids, the cost of rearing a kid in the first place would be disincentive enough.

With respect, I never said they stood to MAKE money on their children, as distinct from having everything paid for.

RobbieTheRobber

Why are we stopping the kids they are not the problem, we need them to build the future its the old people who we need to get rid of.

Every family of four should only be allowed to keep one of the parents parents alive, so if you have three kids ok sorry your overshot your limit there we are going to have to kill your childrens only granny now!

Seriously what are old good for?

starbelgrade

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Er sorry where in the constitution does it state that having children is a basic human right? Does this mean that women who are infertile can sue the state? And the thing about children is it's one thing to actually PRODUCE them, but why should others be expected to pay for their upbringing?
The premise of the argument is not that the wealthy have more RIGHTS, its that the wealthy have more MEANS to bring up a child and so will not be a burden on society if they procreate for a hobby. This, however is unlikely as ironically it seems the LESS well off people are the MORE inclined they are to have kids.

Article 41.1.1˚ of the Constitution recognises the family as “the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law” and guarantees its protection by the State.

Equality before the law is also guaranteed by Article 40.1.

So yes, it is against the very founding principals of our state to limit the number of children people have, based on something as arbitrary as financial means.

On top of that, the right to found a family is protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In addition to this, the International Conference on Population and Development's view is that it is the right of the individual, not the state, to determine the number of children people have.

If people think that this is a good road to go down, then we simply have to look at China where their one-child policy is both in principle and in practice, a violation of human rights & where it's enforcement has led to bribery, coercion, compulsory sterilization, forced abortion, and infanticide.

Anyone who voted "yes" in this poll should be f*cking ashamed of themselves.

Earthhorse

Okay, okay, how about this; the state will continue to support all children but any child after the second must be given a stupid name e.g. if your surname is O'Brien they must christen you Brian.

iPlop

Earthhorse wrote: »

Okay, okay, how about this; the state will continue to support all children but any child after the second must be given a stupid name e.g. if your surname is O'Brien they must christen you Brian.

or Brian Of the scabby parents

starbelgrade

Kazvixen wrote: »

I agree with the idea that procreation should be limited to 2 per couple.
Anybody ever see that movie Idiocracy? I think its a prediction of the future.....

I think half the posts in here, including yours, would suggest that this prediction may not be too far wrong.

Sticky_Fingers

Article 41.1.1˚ of the Constitution recognises the family as “the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law” and guarantees its protection by the State.

Equality before the law is also guaranteed by Article 40.1.

So yes, it is against the very founding principals of our state to limit the number of children people have, based on something as arbitrary as financial means.

On top of that, the right to found a family is protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

No one is disputing the peoples right to found a family, its the size of the family that I have an issue with. I cant see anything there that forbids limiting of family size, also isn't divorce going against the spirit of this Article (I'm no lawyer so please don't jump down my throat)

If people think that this is a good road to go down, then we simply have to look at China where their one-child policy is both in principle and in practice, a violation of human rights & where it's enforcement has led to bribery, coercion, compulsory sterilization, forced abortion, and infanticide.

We're not advocating a one child policy, we're advocating a two child policy. China saw a problem and they dealt with it, where do you think they would be today if it was not implemented or took the necessary steps to curb their population growth? As for the problems caused by the system, they are very real and some are overly harsh (compulsory sterilization, forced abortion and infanticide). I think failure to comply should be dealt with by financial penalties or other less punitive methods such as denying the parents access to civil service jobs.

Anyone who voted "yes" in this poll should be f*cking ashamed of themselves.

Perhaps we should but the thing about shame is that you only feel it when you think you've done something wrong and I don't see the shame in holding a viewpoint that is opposed to yours or anyone else's. What is a shame though is that there are children being born into this world not out of love but out of the selfishness of their parents who would rather take the "easy" option of becoming baby factories and living off the proceeds then actually getting a "real" job.

starbelgrade

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

We're not advocating a one child policy, we're advocating a two child policy.

So you are saying, that by halving the extent of China's violations of the human rights of their citizens, it makes it OK?

Holy f*ck. I've heard it all now.

iPlop

starbelgrade wrote: »

So you are saying, that by halving the extent of China's violations of the human rights of their citizens, it makes it OK?

Holy f*ck. I've heard it all now.

The world has a population problem! two thirds of the worlds population is living on less than two dollars a day.What is the problem having a policy of two children and no more? It makes perfect sense..Reduce the population over 20>30 years when deaths will out number births..The world is growing at a rate of 300,000 a day!!!! 90 million this year versus 39 million deaths!!!This is not sustainable..There should be a two child policy world wide and it should be enforced on poor people

http://www.worldometers.info/

Terry

Earthhorse wrote: »

Okay, okay, how about this; the state will continue to support all children but any child after the second must be given a stupid name e.g. if your surname is O'Brien they must christen you Brian.

I do endorse this idea, but the simple fact that we now have little Chantellarama's and LaFondatoya's running around the place makes this moot.

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

No one is disputing the peoples right to found a family, its the size of the family that I have an issue with. I cant see anything there that forbids limiting of family size, also isn't divorce going against the spirit of this Article (I'm no lawyer so please don't jump down my throat)


We're not advocating a one child policy, we're advocating a two child policy. China saw a problem and they dealt with it, where do you think they would be today if it was not implemented or took the necessary steps to curb their population growth? As for the problems caused by the system, they are very real and some are overly harsh (compulsory sterilization, forced abortion and infanticide). I think failure to comply should be dealt with by financial penalties or other less punitive methods such as denying the parents access to civil service jobs.

Perhaps we should but the thing about shame is that you only feel it when you think you've done something wrong and I don't see the shame in holding a viewpoint that is opposed to yours or anyone else's. What is a shame though is that there are children being born into this world not out of love but out of the selfishness of their parents who would rather take the "easy" option of becoming baby factories and living off the proceeds then actually getting a "real" job.

Ahh, so you're just going to kill half of the babies. That's alright then.

By the way, do you or anyone else claiming that an epidemic sized portion of the female population are becoming baby making factories for an extra few quid have any plausible facts to back up these claims?
Or is it just a case of those bleedin' skangers down the road just had another feckin' baby. Look at the state of them. How dare they keep procreating and ruining my life type of thing?

Sticky_Fingers

starbelgrade wrote: »

So you are saying, that by halving the extent of China's violations of the human rights of their citizens, it makes it OK?

Holy f*ck. I've heard it all now.

One man's violations is another man's pragmatic approach to a precarious situation. You can call them crimes, atrocities or affronts to humanity all you want but it still does not negate the fact that they were needed. And before you start on the whole "mass murder can be justified by the same argument" type rebuttal that I can see forming in your mind they were preventative actions not murder. I also stated in the post that I was against the use of physical force or punishment for breaking the one child law but this is China were talking about ffs they'd execute you for crossing the street the wrong way over there. Just because the law was formulated by a kill crazy government doesn't make it inherently evil.

The big picture is that we are all floating around in a sinking ship and if more and more people pile in then its inevitable that its going to sink one day taking us all with it. Why is it so monstrous of me to think that when someone says that they want to bring an extra person (who doesn't even exist yet) onboard for their own personal reasons or material gain that they are being selfish and reconsider.

Sticky_Fingers

Ahh, so you're just going to kill half of the babies. That's alright then.

Cop onto yourself, I clearly stated that I was against enforced abortion

Terry

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

One man's violations is another man's pragmatic approach to a precarious situation. You can call them crimes, atrocities or affronts to humanity all you want but it still does not negate the fact that they were needed. And before you start on the whole "mass murder can be justified by the same argument" type rebuttal that I can see forming in your mind they were preventative actions not murder. I also stated in the post that I was against the use of physical force or punishment for breaking the one child law but this is China were talking about ffs they'd execute you for crossing the street the wrong way over there. Just because the law was formulated by a kill crazy government doesn't make it inherently evil.

The big picture is that we are all floating around in a sinking ship and if more and more people pile in then its inevitable that its going to sink one day taking us all with it. Why is it so monstrous of me to think that when someone says that they want to bring an extra person (who doesn't even exist yet) onboard for their own personal reasons or material gain that they are being selfish and reconsider.

So how do you suggest preventing poor people from having a third child?

cynder

just to say, anyone can become poor these days, just because they seem to be rich they can be in debt over their head, one day it all comes crumbling down, they either decide to kill their family and themselves or sign on.

Seems they prefer to be murders than bankrupt.

King Felix

Terry wrote: »

So how do you suggest preventing poor people from having a third child?

How about a check for a percentage of the amount they'd get in benefits if they agreed to the snip?

Greyfox

King Felix wrote: »

How about a check for a percentage of the amount they'd get in benefits if they agreed to the snip?

+100 to this, I think it's totally irrisponsible for poor people to have more then 2 kids when they can't afford a decent upbringing for them. I think it's disgraceful that child benifit doesn't stop after 2 kids.

Qualitymark

Septic Leper wrote: »

The world has a population problem! two thirds of the worlds population is living on less than two dollars a day.

How are these two facts connected, please, Septic Leper?

For those who think poor people should have fewer children - if you want fewer children in the world, wouldn't it be more sensible for rich people to have no children, since they're out making money all the time and can't mind them?

Sticky_Fingers

Qualitymark wrote: »

How are these two facts connected, please, Septic Leper?

For those who think poor people should have fewer children - if you want fewer children in the world, wouldn't it be more sensible for rich people to have no children, since they're out making money all the time and can't mind them?

Globally rich people aren't the source of the population problem, its generally the poorer or emerging nations that are primarily driving population growth. It would be hypocritical for us to turn around to them and say, stop making babies, if we didn't follow our own advice.

dsmythy

dvpower wrote: »

We aren't China. In Europe, we've having problems sustaining our population.

Its a right winger's dilemma. We can't have the skangers having too many kids, but we need to sustain the population to pay future pensions, so its either more skanger kids or more immigration. What to pick?:eek:

Natural population growth over population top-ups my choice every time.

The "poor" have always been the drivers of population growth since god knows when. It seems it's only now with the advent of the welfare state that this is suddenly a problem to be solved.

iPlop

Qualitymark wrote: »

How are these two facts connected, please, Septic Leper?

if two thirds of the global population are living on less than 2 dollars a day they are poor!

Qualitymark wrote: »

For those who think poor people should have fewer children - if you want fewer children in the world, wouldn't it be more sensible for rich people to have no children, since they're out making money all the time and can't mind them?

It's usually the poorer countries with the big population i.e India ,china etc...

Gummy Panda

Terry wrote: »

So how do you suggest preventing poor people from having a third child?

compulsive anal sex.

Up the bum, no harm done.

dsmythy

Gummy Panda wrote: »

compulsive anal sex.

Up the bum, no harm done.

That's what she didn't say! Way hey!

Earthhorse

Septic Leper wrote: »

It's usually the poorer countries with the big population i.e India ,china etc...

Exactly. So if people are genuinely concerned with global overpopulation then one of the best things we can do is invest in education of children in poorer nations, which has been proven to reduce family size. Education in girls moreso than boys (both have some impact on reducing family size but the impact is larger when you invest in girls' education).

If people are concerned purely about population decline in Ireland, first off, we haven't really reached that point, and second of all we're a part of the EU and have an open policy toward immigration so we do not face the same problems countries like Japan do.

Draconian and impractical suggestions regarding limiting family size are the last thing anybody should be considering.

Qualitymark

Septic Leper, I meant these two facts - how do these connect?

1) The world has a population problem!

2) two thirds of the worlds population is living on less than two dollars a day.