Unpopular Opinions.

BunShopVoyeur

Greentopia wrote: »

Then who else? of course it should be the mother's choice, she's the one carrying the child after all. Now that's not to say I don't believe the father shouldn't have an say also of course if he so wishes.

I don't understand who else you think should make that decision for a woman-the woman's doctor?? her family?? the State??? I'm confused.



It could be seen as quite a ...dispassionate viewpoint but that doesn't make it untrue. They are a drain economically and socially, but that wouldn't be my reason why I would choose to abort such a child. I would do it for the reasons I've already given.

In the context of the woman wanting to give birth to a severely disabled child. I don't think it should be her choice and should be just automatically terminated as standard practice.

few cans?

i dont see why so much hate is generated against justin bieber and jedward. i fail to see the difference between them and any other gombeen currently in the charts

Grimebox

few cans? wrote: »

i dont see why so much hate is generated against justin bieber and jedward. i fail to see the difference between them and any other gombeen currently in the charts

I don't care much for Justin Bieber. He's not forced upon at all here in Ireland it seems so I can easily ignore him, but Jedward?? They're annoying ****s! We see on a regular basis. Remember these ad's?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xUKe8xDEi8

Grimebox

Oh god... what is this. My unpopular opinion for the day: I hate Jedward

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4WryONxXyU

Greentopia

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

In the context of the woman wanting to give birth to a severely disabled child. I don't think it should be her choice and should be just automatically terminated as standard practice.

So the decision should be taken away from the woman and they should be foreced to have terminations regardless of whether they want to keep the child or not??

I hope you're not suggesting a Nazi style eugenics program to stop "undesirables" breeding??

Greentopia

DannyKing wrote: »

Oh, and there's no such thing as god. schools and the church should be totally seperated and independent of one another. A persons religious belief should be determined after they are able to speak/think for themselves and not when they are 6 months old.

Nothing unpopular about that for me, I agree fully

Omackeral

Grimebox wrote: »

I don't care much for Justin Bieber. He's not forced upon at all here in Ireland it seems so I can easily ignore him, but Jedward?? They're annoying ****s! We see on a regular basis. Remember these ad's?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xUKe8xDEi8

Nice user name you have, all the same...

BunShopVoyeur

Greentopia wrote: »

So the decision should be taken away from the woman and they should be foreced to have terminations regardless of whether they want to keep the child or not??

I hope you're not suggesting a Nazi style eugenics program to stop "undesirables" breeding??

I've had to rewrite this post a couple of times but there's no way of making this sound any better.

That is what I feel should happen yes. (Why would anybody want to keep a badly badly disabled child though?)

Nobody benefits from that arrangement except perhaps a selfish woman who wants a baby no matter what and be damned the awful life it will have to live.

Mike 1972

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

Nobody benefits from that arrangement except perhaps a selfish woman who wants a baby no matter what and be damned the awful life it will have to live.

I doubt many people would seriously argue that the act of choosing to give birth to a disabled child is selfish.

It would be controversial enough to argue that such a decision would be misguided but selfish ??????

Sean Bateman

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

The King of Moo

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

So much wrong here, so I'll focus on one thing. Which problems do these people cause, and are they among the most pressing?

Collie D

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

Indeed...seems a right cúntish opinion to be honest. I'm attacking the opinion here, not the opinion holder.

steddyeddy

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

Well Ill invite you to expand on your opinion. You can start with your definition of lower class?

pragmatic1

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

I'd say the "fathers" have more to answer for tbh. Most of the single mothers I know are trying their best. Its the scumbags they have kids with that cause most of their problems.

Sean Bateman

It's a controversial suggestion.

However, there's no "right to life" aspect to it as we're not talking about abortion.

It's purely for the spongers who have children just to make money.

It'd cut future crime in my view but it's obviously extreme...touch of the Dr Mengeles about it!

Sean Bateman

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well Ill invite you to expand on your opinion. You can start with your definition of lower class?

Hard to define concisely.

People who've opted out of society and have no respect for society?

steddyeddy

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Hard to define concisely.

People who've opted out of society and have no respect for society?

From your opinion that would seem to include you.

Mike 1972

Sean Bateman wrote: »

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of your proposal from a social standpoint In medical terms it would be akin to amputating both of a persons legs to treat an ingrown toenail ?

Sean Bateman

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of your proposal from a social standpoint In medical terms it would be akin to amputating both of a persons legs to treat an ingrown toenail ?

Can something be done chemically?

The aim would be to make these women voluntarily become infertile...if that can be done by less invasive means, then so be it.

The King of Moo

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Can something be done chemically?

The aim would be to make these women voluntarily become infertile...if that can be done by less invasive means, then so be it.

Ideally you'd want it done before they have their first child, wouldn't you?

Maybe you could sterilise all women below a certain income?

Because there's just no way the child of a single mother can make anything of themselves, so why allow even one to be born?

Seomra Mushie

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

Shades of eugenics to this post.

Nodin

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

I've bolded the bit that gives me some comfort.

Mike 1972

The King of Moo wrote: »

Ideally you'd want it done before they have their first child, wouldn't you?

Maybe you could sterilise all women below a certain income?

Err Most females of early childbearing age tend to have little or no income.

Even women who are working may experience periods of illness/unemployment/study/part time working

And why just focus on women what about men too ?

I know lets sterilise everybody :eek:

The King of Moo

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Err Most females of early childbearing age tend to have little or no income.

Even women who are working may experience periods of illness/unemployment/study/part time working

And why just focus on women what about men too ?

I know lets sterilise everybody :eek:

I've thought this through you see: lots of single mothers come from poor families so sterilising poor women will make sure they don't have daughters who might become single mothers.

But I agree it's not enough and support your solution. It's the only way we can be sure of getting all the scumbags.

Mike 1972

The King of Moo wrote: »

But I agree it's not enough and support your solution. It's the only way we can be sure of getting all the scumbags.

Would it not be quicker and more effective to Just kill everybody cant be too careful after all............

The King of Moo

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Would it not be quicker and more effective to Just kill everybody cant be too careful after all............

You're right. Look at it this way: if we kill everyone, we can know for sure that we'll get all the dole scroungers, single mothers, foreigners, and dole-scrounging single foreign mothers.

That's the kind of world I'd like to live in...

psychward

The King of Moo wrote: »

You're right. Look at it this way: if we kill everyone, we can know for sure that we'll get all the dole scroungers, single mothers, foreigners, and dole-scrounging single foreign mothers.

That's the kind of world I'd like to live in...

Actually (and this surely is a very sinister topic which I can only deal with jokingly) it would be much fairer to let them all live and give them every opportunity and chance at happiness etc in an ''ideal'' and fair society but once they commit a serious crime ... turn the ingrates into fertiliser immediately
This way we don't pick on anyone due to an accident of their birth and we can also punish bankers , politicians and those with a silver spoon in their mouths who harm society while having grown up with every advantage possible thereby having even fewer excuses...

Mike 1972

The King of Moo wrote: »

That's the kind of world I'd like to live in...

Errr I think youre not fully grasping the consequences of this kill everyone idea ?

The King of Moo

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Errr I think youre not fully grasping consequences of this kill everyone idea

Well there has to be a drawback, but I'll willing to make the sacrifice in order to make a world where my children can... oh.

:pac:

Mike 1972

psychward wrote: »

but once they commit a serious crime ... turn the ingrates into fertiliser immediately

How serious ?

Are we talking about being three days late renewing their car tax or mass genocide ?

psychward

Mike 1972 wrote: »

How serious ?

Are we talking about being three days late renewing their car tax or mass genocide ?

We should probably pilot the scheme on those who try to impose unfair disproportionate car taxes and take it from there.

Greentopia

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

That is what I feel should happen yes. (Why would anybody want to keep a badly badly disabled child though?)

I wouldn't and you evidently wouldn't but what you're suggesting is unconscionable IMO.

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

Nobody benefits from that arrangement except perhaps a selfish woman who wants a baby no matter what and be damned the awful life it will have to live.

Perhaps, but unless you want to go down the road of creating laws as you're suggesting that fit in more with a totalitarian or fascist hell hole than a democracy where people's human rights are valued then we have to respect people's rights in this matter.

I really hope it's that you're just not thinking this issue through enough to realise the implications of what you're saying

Greentopia

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I'd say the "fathers" have more to answer for tbh. Most of the single mothers I know are trying their best. Its the scumbags they have kids with that cause most of their problems.

Thank you for saying that. I wish more people here would realise that instead of continually spewing their bile on these women, as if they get pregnant by miraculous conception!

Mike 1972

Sean Bateman wrote: »

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

Nodin wrote: »

I've bolded the bit that gives me some comfort.

Its certainly is not a line I would be using on a new lady friend whom I had just met and was seeking to impress !

Pandora2

Having lived in the UK during the '80's when Maggie was doing her thing and shamelessly widening the class divide, by creating Sink Estates....full of unemployed and poorly educated citizens, I believe The Jeremy Kyle generation was hothoused!!

These no go areas are stuffed full of people with few opportunities educationally or otherwise, deprived of social inclusion and fed on a diet of Corrie, Eastenders & whatever else the media spews forth:eek:

Think about it......life outside their own front door is Shameless then they turn on the telly and at any given time neighbours are getting it on with the one next door, couples are plotting murder and all sorts of deceitful, criminal and obnoxious behaviour. Everyone goes to the pub 2/3 times a day.......children are precocious and resilient and recover from any imaginable disaster/terror/abuse (Case in point: Simon in Corrie!! That kid should be in deep, deep therapy!!) Couples are here today, gone tomorrow......tug of love situations are normal.............it's OK to shag your sister's ex...the list is endless and much of it happens in a Country Village, an Eastend Square, a Street in Manchester and I'm not sure what goes on in Hollyoaks but I'm guesssing by my 16 year old.....it's pretty raunchy:eek::eek::eek:

So my humble opinion is that poverty, lack of education, politicians & the media are responsible for The Jeremy Kyle Generation!! They know nothing different!!

Pandora2

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

Another man with womb envy!! Seriously, your opinion truly belongs in this thread!!

Mike 1972

Pandora2 wrote: »

The Jeremy Kyle Generation!!

I always considered Jeremy Kyle closer to the genre of soap than documentary

Pandora2

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I always considered Jeremy Kyle closer to the genre of soap than documentary

My point exactly!!

WallysWorld

Duncan Stewart is the only "celeb" Rte has ever produced that I find remotely watchable, I'm not sure why that is...

Skylinehead

WallysWorld wrote: »

Duncan Stewart is the only "celeb" Rte has ever produced that I find remotely watchable, I'm not sure why that is...

Because Duncan's a legend! :cool:

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Crooked Jack wrote: »

As far as i know there are no parish teams, just club and county teams. i dont know any clubs that are drawn along parish lines.

I know of very few here in Connacht that aren't. Probably varies from place to place.

Phenomenally Phrank

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The swimming pool is crap.

TAKE THAT BACK NOW!!!!

Phenomenally Phrank

On a more serious note, I believe the following:

>the criteria for going on the dole should be made much stricter
>If you are killed/injured through your own stupidity or whilst committing a crime, then you/your family automatically lose the right to sue.
>Prison should be made tougher.
>If you shun society altogether and flout even it's most basic rules, then you deserve to be shunned by society yourself.
>Speech should never be criminalized, not matter how vile or inflammatory it is.
>heroin addiction is not a disability.

ItsAWindUp

I think PETA is a fantastic organisation

Finneen

The reason people receive no reply when they apply for a job is because they don't enclose a stamped addressed envelope with their CV.

stripysocks85

massdebater wrote: »

I think blondes are FAR sexier than brunettes.

Redheads NEVER feature in these yokes!

Pandora2

stripysocks85 wrote: »

Redheads NEVER feature in these yokes!

We're in a class of our own;)

Elessar

Rugby is the sport of latent homosexual men.

EDIT: Don't know if that's too offensive, I'll remove if required.

Scanlas The 2nd

Concerts are crap

cloptrop

People who constantly attack single mothers are either deadbeat dads, rapists or wannabe wife beaters.
relationships are very fickle these days and people mature alot later than they used to .
The person you started going out with at 18 could be your partner for life in the 70s but nowadays people just dont mature till around 30 odd.
People have kids before they realise that their boyfriend isnt cool hes a waster arsehole , or vice versa.
Its a sign of the times as a man I can safely say the people who think the worlds problems are caused because a man lives away from the girl he had a kid with , and that these kids should be downcast really are the baddies .