Poor people shouldn't have more than two kids?

AckwelFoley

i have no words to express how ****ing disconnected with reality this woman is.


Im not suprised that the Yes vote is winning. This is AH.

Moriarty

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.

Question for you: do you think that there is a global population level, which, if breached, would be unsustainable in terms of our planet's resources (fresh water, food, living space, minerals etc etc)?

If yes, I presume you would agree that we should aim to stay below that level. How should we stay below that level?

Should the Royal Society also be ashamed of themselves?

bleg

Don't worry, the vaccinations and fluoride we've been pumping into people will keep tabs on population explosions.

Gummy Panda

There is only one way to deal with population control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH847W2eauQ

Logan's Run

fonecrusher1

Don't know if this has been suggested but what if they introduced a stamp system instead of the current cash supplement per child system?

Stamps for food/clothes/books etc???

Might make it less appealing for scummers to breed like rabbits.:D

Terry

King Felix wrote: »

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

State sponsored sterilisation. Nice.

I've decided to e-mail the ministers for finance and health with your suggestion.

Attached are screen shot of the e-mails.

Here's the full text:

Hi.
I would like to refer you to a posting on the "After Hours" forum of Boards.ie in relation to government spending on the long term unemployed and/or single parents.

A user (King Felix) has suggested that state sponsored sterilisation may help reduce the amount of money spent on the long term unemployed by limiting them to having only two children.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Here is the post in question: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67683034

Thank you,
Terry.

I'll let you know if they reply.

scorpioishere

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Take away the child allowance from everybody, that would solve the mess

Totally agree with you.

poppyvalley

Schism wrote: »

If there were less people on social welfare do you really think you'd be paying less tax?

Probably not but there might be more to put into health & education

King Felix

Terry wrote: »

State sponsored sterilisation. Nice.

I've decided to e-mail the ministers for finance and health with your suggestion.

Attached are screen shot of the e-mails.

Here's the full text:



I'll let you know if they reply.

Go back to the post and read the small print this time.

I can only assume you're being sarcastic yourself?

Sticky_Fingers

Terry wrote: »

State sponsored sterilisation. Nice.

Voluntary state sponsored sterilization. Why should this be any different than state sponsored procreation that you seem to be all for.

Terry

Terry wrote: »

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.



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?

I find it naive that you don't think that's true. I know a considerable amount of girls who have chosen professional motherhood as a career. Rather than go out to work, they know they'll be entitled to all sorts of benefits including a house if they have kids. And they're right, it works. These girls aren't all skangers either.

Liam Byrne

I don't see a problem with it, to be honest.

If they can afford whatever number of kids, to support them without dipping into the tax that I've paid, then that should be ONE of the criteria.

HOWEVER I would also suggest that if a rich person - or an "in-between" person - can't afford the time to raise a kid then they shouldn't have them either.

So it's not JUST a monetary equation.

Terry

King Felix wrote: »

Go back to the post and read the small print this time.

I can only assume you're being sarcastic yourself?

You hadn't edited it before I quoted it.
In saying that, I do enjoy annoying certain politicians.

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Voluntary state sponsored sterilization. Why should this be any different than state sponsored procreation that you seem to be all for.

So now it's state sponsored procreaton?
I haven't seen the pamphlet promoting this. Do you know where I can get a copy?

Also, I'd still like to see some facts proving that people are having babies so that they can get an extra thirty quid a week.
I'd also like to know who these people are.

King Felix

Terry wrote: »

You hadn't edited it before I quoted it.
In saying that, I do enjoy annoying certain politicians.

Oh yes I did, T. Check the times.

You didn't seriously post that off, did you?

It's half tongue in cheek as opposed to full blown sarcasm, at any rate.

If people agree to be snipped, what's the big deal?

Terry

Leonard Shy Fencing wrote: »

I find it naive that you don't think that's true. I know a considerable amount of girls who have chosen professional motherhood as a career. Rather than go out to work, they know they'll be entitled to all sorts of benefits including a house if they have kids. And they're right, it works. These girls aren't all skangers either.

I'd like to see video testimonials from these girls.

I know where bigfoot is. He's an awful skanger too. Just keeps popping out kids with the missus.

Terry

King Felix wrote: »

Oh yes I did, T. Check the times.

You didn't seriously post that off, did you?

It's half tongue in cheek as opposed to full blown sarcasm, at any rate.

If people agree to be snipped, what's the big deal?

I had quoted it, then decided to send the e-mails. Yes, I did send them. I doubt it will be raised in the dail though.


I once sent an e-mail to Dermot Ahern trying to get charged with blasphemy.

King Felix

Terry wrote: »

I had quoted it, then decided to send the e-mails. Yes, I did send them. I doubt it will be raised in the dail though.

You never know.

Harney might want to make her mark in history.

And I can see statues erected in King Felix's honour, years from now; the man who sorted the world's population problem.

Cheques for testicles.

animaal

As a civilised society, we won't stop people from having children. But we're free to stop incentivising it, if that's what we collectively want. Society takes measures to encourage the behaviour it desires. Look at tax individualisation, put in place to "encourage" married couples to both work.

Population growth can't go on forever. Either we control the world population, or nature will eventually do it for us. I'm thinking something like famine or disease.

If we want to limit population (and I don't think we'll need to do so for a long time yet), a civilised way would be:

1. unlimited contraception for anybody who wants it.
2. Amount of additional state benefit (Child benefit, dole, etc) reduces with each subsequent child after the first.

The big problem, the reason we can't do it today, is economic. Everything from retirement to corporate growth is based on the assumption that for each worker bee leaving the workforce, there are more lining up to replace him.

Butterflylove

I really think there should be a limit but in terms of state benefits ?
as Ive said before two children 3 at most should be covered by benefits after that they should find the means to provide themselves otherwise have no more?

Demonique

King Felix wrote: »

Nobody should have more than two kids.

Two adults, two kids. Zero population growth.

Actually, couples shouldn't have more than one kid, the population needs reducing not stabilising

Terry

Butterflylove wrote: »

I really think there should be a limit but in terms of state benefits ?
as Ive said before two children 3 at most should be covered by benefits after that they should find the means to provide themselves otherwise have no more?

Are you asking a question or making a statement?
I can't really tell.

Zombienosh

I think if they were really worried about kids, contraception wouldn't be so expensive .

fonecrusher1

What about food/clothes stamps for each child instead of the cash incentive that these people find so appealling?

Terry

Zombienosh wrote: »

I think if they were really worried about kids, contraception wouldn't be so expensive .

It should be free. Condoms anyway.

King Felix

Terry wrote: »

It should be free. Condoms anyway.

Harney should rubber stamp that one straight away.

evercloserunion

Demonique wrote: »

Actually, couples shouldn't have more than one kid, the population needs reducing not stabilising

Capping births at two per couple will reduce the population, as not all couples will have two children.

Not that I support capping the number of children you can have, that's an overwhelmingly stupid idea, just a minor point.

Butterflylove

Terry wrote: »

Are you asking a question or making a statement?
I can't really tell.

A statement... Im too fond of the old question mark,

Zombienosh

Terry wrote: »

It should be free. Condoms anyway.

I've been in other countries where they do give them out free in clinics/doctors and other medical establishments.

Sticky_Fingers

Terry wrote: »

You hadn't edited it before I quoted it.
In saying that, I do enjoy annoying certain politicians.




So now it's state sponsored procreaton?
I haven't seen the pamphlet promoting this. Do you know where I can get a copy?

Getting money when you have kids, thats pretty much state sponsored procreation right there.

Here you go:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/child_benefit

How many people would think twice about having a kid if they knew they were on their own and the state wasn't going to help them out.

Also, I'd still like to see some facts proving that people are having babies so that they can get an extra thirty quid a week.
I'd also like to know who these people are.

Sorry don't have any links or references but are you telling me that you truly believe there is not some women in this country who have kids just to get the council housing and child benefit.

Do you also believe that if you are unemployed and living on the dole that it is acceptable for you to try and have a child even though it is obvious that you have no means of supporting them at present and severely limiting your ability to find employment in the future due to child care commitments.

How about if I was on the dole and drank myself silly everyday. I drank so much that I became an alcoholic which hurt my chances of holding down a job. Perhaps I drink so much that I do myself real harm and have to be hospitalized at the cost to the taxpayer. I am an adult and have every right to drink, but do you think it is responsible of me to do so, I wonder would you be so quick to man the barricades on my behalf.

Demonique

Sykk wrote: »

Or... OR! Stop the South Africans from having 15 kids each?

Maybe they'll stop having 15 kids each if they have proper access to contraception and the Vatican stops preaching that birth control is ZOMG DA EBIL