Poor people shouldn't have more than two kids?

amacca

King Felix wrote: »

Harney should rubber stamp that one straight away.

Just looking at her would be contraceptive enough.

as other posters have said....if you want less waifs in hoodies just stop incentivising having kids....reduce overall benefits ...reduce payments after first child and subsequent children...provide the benefits in food stamps etc rather than cash which can be spent down the bookies/off licence etc. Incentivise responsible parenting...haven't any thoughts on that just yet but I'm sure there are ways and means.

as another poster put it though our society is based to some extent on the basis that as one worker bee leaves there are others lining up to replace so question is to what extent do we as a society really want to see this happening.

anyway suggesting that "poor" people should be limited to two kids by law is silly.....not rewarding people for being reckless and irresponsible and making it more their responsibility for upbringing and providing financially for their children imo would be a better policy. If you decide to have kids fine....just dont expect the rest of society to subsidise...that is unless of course society to function properly needs the numbers until it changes/is changed to a society that needs less.

my two cents..probably flawed but I think it has at least some merit.

iPlop

Qualitymark wrote: »

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.

Because the population problem belongs to the poorer classes that's how they're connected!!!

cypharius

Introduce a sterilizing substance into every countries water supply and then supply the cure at a cost of $50,000.

This way:
1) - The only people with kids want them in the first place.
2) - The only people with kids can afford to raise them.
3) - We will be able to know exactly how many children there are.

Zombienosh

cypharius wrote: »

Introduce a sterilizing substance into every countries water supply and then supply the cure at a cost of $50,000.

This way:
1) - The only people with kids want them in the first place.
2) - The only people with kids can afford to raise them.
3) - We will be able to know exactly how many children there are.

thats all we need, even more **** in the water

Qualitymark

Septic Leper wrote: »

Because the population problem belongs to the poorer classes that's how they're connected!!!

Aaaah. So we should remove benefits to make them poorer, you say?

Carlos59

I guess I just don't get it or the thread. The welfare is for the blameless child not the low life sack of **** that wont support it. If the free gov money, your tax dollars, are not given to undeserving parents, and there are many, then the child will pay not them. And just try to enforce a child limit in any non Communist country and I will eat a locomotive without bread if it works. It's not totally effective in China either.

iPlop

Qualitymark wrote: »

Aaaah. So we should remove benefits to make them poorer, you say?

Some sort of deterrent yes!!!

bnt

cypharius wrote: »

Introduce a sterilizing substance into every countries water supply and then supply the cure at a cost of $50,000.

If that could be done, I'd say that the $50,000 should be then given back to the parents over time, with interest, to help with the expense of raising a kid properly. With a final large reimbursement as the kid turns 18 / starts university (or something like that). In other words, it would be like a surety bond, acting as proof that they have the money, and as an incentive to do it properly. If the kid turns out bad under their parenting, they don't get all their money back. :cool:

coffee_cake

cypharius wrote: »

then supply the cure at a cost of $50,000.


2) - The only people with kids can afford to raise them.

Not after you take 50 grand off them, they won't

RolandIRL

Septic Leper wrote: »

Some sort of deterrent yes!!!

yes because people are having children just to get benefits.

/sarcasm

honestly, the attitudes of some people in this thread. though this is AH, what should i expect....respect for people's right to have children? :rolleyes:

Ilyana

While I know that there are people out there who will pop out as many kids as they can to grab state benefits, that does not mean that everyone living on the dole is like that! Not everyone, especially today, receiving state assistance is a "skanger" whose main aim in life is to be set up in their own council house with 5 kids by the age of 21.
Why should perfectly respectable and responsible people who, for whatever legitimate reason, rely on social welfare (perhaps only rent allowance or something else minor) be denied the right to decide on how to form their family?
In my view, that novelist's ideas show a huge generalisation and lack of understanding for people on social welfare.

Qualitymark

Thanks for my smile of the day. Wonderful logic: overpopulation is caused by poverty (poor people rushing around having many children for want of anything better to do), so to solve overpopulation we should increase poverty. LOL! ROFL! BMAROFL!

iPlop

whiteman19 wrote: »

yes because people are having children just to get benefits.

/sarcasm

honestly, the attitudes of some people in this thread. though this is AH, what should i expect....respect for people's right to have children? :rolleyes:

I know people that do it:)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67678855&postcount=88

Terry

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

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

So it's just your opinion that it is state sponsored, yes?

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.

7

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.

This made me chuckle.
Hey, at least you didn't try to sell me a story about Anto and Mary down the road.
Here's the thing; you don't have links or references because it can't be proven. Hear-say, bias and opinion do not constitute proof.

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.

If a woman becomes pregnant, then it is up to her to decide whether or not she carries it to term (ok, not really a choice in Ireland, but I'm not going to go down the abortion road). Who are you to decide whether a woman gives birth or not?
Both sides of the abortion debate would consist mostly of reasonable people. Then there are the extremes on either side. Going by your posts, I would picture you as an extremist on the pro-choice side.

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.

I'd call your behaviour self destructive. I wouldn't try to stop you though. It's your life and you can live it in any manner you choose.
I have no right to tell you how to live your life.

Sticky_Fingers

whiteman19 wrote: »

yes because people are having children just to get benefits.

/sarcasm

honestly, the attitudes of some people in this thread. though this is AH, what should i expect....respect for people's right to have children? :rolleyes:

What attitude is that, the one that expects people to live within their means? With rights comes responsibility...

Ali Babba

Two children? Poor people shouldn't have any children, i'm poor and can't afford to have any. I'm amazed that poor people have so many kids in the first place and bring them into a life of poverty and misery for the most part. It's bloody selfish of them tbh.

Terry

bnt wrote: »

If that could be done, I'd say that the $50,000 should be then given back to the parents over time, with interest, to help with the expense of raising a kid properly. With a final large reimbursement as the kid turns 18 / starts university (or something like that). In other words, it would be like a surety bond, acting as proof that they have the money, and as an incentive to do it properly. If the kid turns out bad under their parenting, they don't get all their money back. :cool:

Awesome. Truly awesome.
This thread just gets better.

bluewolf wrote: »

Not after you take 50 grand off them, they won't

EmilyO wrote: »

While I know that there are people out there who will pop out as many kids as they can to grab state benefits, that does not mean that everyone living on the dole is like that! Not everyone, especially today, receiving state assistance is a "skanger" whose main aim in life is to be set up in their own council house with 5 kids by the age of 21.
Why should perfectly respectable and responsible people who, for whatever legitimate reason, rely on social welfare (perhaps only rent allowance or something else minor) be denied the right to decide on how to form their family?
In my view, that novelist's ideas show a huge generalisation and lack of understanding for people on social welfare.

Quiet, both of you. Sadistic Right wing people are talking.
Less of this making sense crap.

Septic Leper wrote: »

I know people that do it:)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67678855&postcount=88

I know where Bigfoot is.
Can I have a medal?

iPlop

Terry wrote: »

I know where Bigfoot is.
Can I have a medal?

Yes sir ,Yes you can:rolleyes:

Butterflylove

EmilyO wrote: »

While I know that there are people out there who will pop out as many kids as they can to grab state benefits, that does not mean that everyone living on the dole is like that! Not everyone, especially today, receiving state assistance is a "skanger" whose main aim in life is to be set up in their own council house with 5 kids by the age of 21.
Why should perfectly respectable and responsible people who, for whatever legitimate reason, rely on social welfare (perhaps only rent allowance or something else minor) be denied the right to decide on how to form their family?
In my view, that novelist's ideas show a huge generalisation and lack of understanding for people on social welfare.

Well how would you suggest to weed out the good ones and bad ones
I totally agree with what your saying but it seems no easy way to end dependance on benefits....

quibbles

:cool: Wish my parents had had the cop on to stop with two.

wolfpawnat

What is next, every second female child aborted!?!

On the Social Welfare issue that most people are bringing up; A lot of families we're working but now are unemployed so they still have kids to look after, its not their fault the economy went bust! There are people in Ireland that are on social welfare all their lives out of choice and technically shouldn't be able to afford to have kids. I think the state should pay for 2-3 kids MAX and anything after that, thats your own choice.

It is natural for people to want to have children, but if you want several kids while going through life thinking that PRSI and PAYE are sexually transmitted diseases then why the funk should everyone else pay for you???

starbelgrade

Apart from a few posters contributions to this thread, the rest reads like it was a script written for the sequel to "Dumb & Dumber".

Ilyana

Butterflylove wrote: »

Well how would you suggest to weed out the good ones and bad ones
I totally agree with what your saying but it seems no easy way to end dependance on benefits....

You're right, especially with so many people unemployed nowadays.
But they can identify the people who are claiming lots of benefits, instead of one or two kinds, and review their situation to see whether it's genuinely necessary, or they're just bleeding the system. Takes time and money, but could save the economy some revenue in the long run.

Sticky_Fingers

So it's just your opinion that it is state sponsored, yes?

The fact remains that if you have kid, the government gives you money, would you not call this state sponsorship. If not what would you call it?

7
This made me chuckle.
Hey, at least you didn't try to sell me a story about Anto and Mary down the road.
Here's the thing; you don't have links or references because it can't be proven. Hear-say, bias and opinion do not constitute proof.

Hearsay is not proof true but you haven't answered the question I asked. Do you believe that some women have kids in order to get housing/other benefits. If so do you think it is right that they do?

I don't like the insinuation that i am biased against poor people. There is no shame in being poor or being unemployed. I have a problem however when people have kids that they can't support just because they want them.

If a woman becomes pregnant, then it is up to her to decide whether or not she carries it to term (ok, not really a choice in Ireland, but I'm not going to go down the abortion road). Who are you to decide whether a woman gives birth or not?.

It's not my decision whether or not she gives birth it's hers and hers alone. I have stated on numerous occasions that I am not advocating enforced abortions or anything so draconian. What I am advocating though is some responsibility on the part of the man and woman to maximize the chance that a pregnancy does not occur, contraception is cheaper that a child. I have also stated that I would be sympathetic to a woman who fell pregnant despite her precautions, accidents can and do happen.

Both sides of the abortion debate would consist mostly of reasonable people. Then there are the extremes on either side. Going by your posts, I would picture you as an extremist on the pro-choice side

I am pro choice and I make no apologies for it. I believe your right to have children only extends as far as you are capable of supporting them. You on the other hand seem to think that the right to procreate supercedes all other considerations, going as far as to let the child be born into poverty.

I'd call your behavior self destructive. I wouldn't try to stop you though. It's your life and you can live it in any manner you choose.
I have no right to tell you how to live your life.

Thats great, how about you stand me a few drinks when I get out of the hospital;) You don't seem to care that my irresponsible, selfish actions are causing a drain on the system and its limited resources so I think I'll drink some more until I have to be readmitted, the beds are dead comfy, not like the waiting room chairs where other people are waiting

bnt

Terry wrote: »

Awesome. Truly awesome.
This thread just gets better.

Why, thank you - quite proud of that one, I was. (This is AH, after all.)

Terry

Butterflylove wrote: »

Well how would you suggest to weed out the good ones and bad ones
I totally agree with what your saying but it seems no easy way to end dependance on benefits....

The dodgy ones are those who don't wear jeans. and t-shirts with ironic statements on them.
They also live in council estates, and have 500 children.
Then there are the ones pushing the buggies. They're the dangerous ones. Stay well away from them. They have illegal children, and are living off the state. They'll stab you in the eye if you look at them. They are, without a shadow of a doubt, far more evil than the president of Iran (whose name I can't spell). These people are stealing your right to only ever see moderately wealthy walking the streets. I say we kill them all.

Earthhorse

Terry wrote: »

The dodgy ones are those who don't wear jeans. and t-shirts with ironic statements on them.
They also live in council estates, and have 500 children.
Then there are the ones pushing the buggies. They're the dangerous ones. Stay well away from them. They have illegal children, and are living off the state. They'll stab you in the eye if you look at them. They are, without a shadow of a doubt, far more evil than the president of Iran (whose name I can't spell). These people are stealing your right to only ever see moderately wealthy walking the streets. I say we kill them all.

Terry wrote: »

The dodgy ones are those who don't wear jeans. and t-shirts with ironic statements on them.
They also live in council estates, and have 500 children.
Then there are the ones pushing the buggies. They're the dangerous ones. Stay well away from them. They have illegal children, and are living off the state. They'll stab you in the eye if you look at them. They are, without a shadow of a doubt, far more evil than the president of Iran (whose name I can't spell). These people are stealing your right to only ever see moderately wealthy walking the streets. I say we kill them all.

The ones you really gotta watch out for are those with short term memory problems.

Sticky_Fingers

Thats twins Terry, sorry but you've reached your quota:pac:

Terry

Earthhorse wrote: »

The ones you really gotta watch out for are those with short term memory problems.

I hit submit in the quick reply box and it took me to the advanced reply option.
Then i was distracted by my lodger. More on that in the appropriate thread.

Kidchameleon

This wikipedia article is an interesting read...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy