Dublin mayor wants to test children in in poor areas for fetal alcohol syndrome

Doc Ruby

Stark wrote: »

Your eyes are part of your face.

Quote from the wikipedia article I linked:

Is that what you believe the poster in question meant? Because in context of the rest of the post, I'd have a hard time believing that.

SerialComplaint

LittleBook wrote: »

Herald Correction - Lord Mayor On Child Testing

Pity that the correction doesn't address the 'social class' issue at all - is the testing suggested in the draft paper for all parts of the city, or just certain section

Logical Fallacy

seamus wrote: »

It seems like a wholly reasonable idea to me.

He was basically saying that in many cases, especially in lower socioeconomic areas, that children with FAS can be sometimes misdiagnosed with things like ADHD or Autism, or in many cases will just go completely undiagnosed because the mother doesn't have the money or the education to realise that the child should see a specialist.
This in turn means that many of these children will end up involved in crime or substance abuse, especially given the environment they're growing up in.

I don't think suggesting that women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to drink heavily during pregnancy is that shocking, surely?
In any case, he suggested that these children be screened purely because they were less likely to receive the same focus of medical and psychological care than a child from a more wealthy background.

Post Reported

Reason : Contains sense, no room for that here.

spurious

Doc Ruby wrote: »

...what?

I seriously hope you aren't a teacher.

As I hope you're not a doctor if you don't know this is true.

In layman's terms, 'watery looking eyes', slightly too far apart.

There are lots of things you don't need tests for to recognise.

flutterflye

spurious wrote: »

As I hope you're not a doctor if you don't know this is true.

I'm fairly sure that you can't diagnose purely on the facial features though.
I think there has to me a more thorough assessment including looking at speech, motor skills, memory functioning, behaviour etc...

geeky

seamus wrote: »

It seems like a wholly reasonable idea to me.

He was basically saying that in many cases, especially in lower socioeconomic areas, that children with FAS can be sometimes misdiagnosed with things like ADHD or Autism, or in many cases will just go completely undiagnosed because the mother doesn't have the money or the education to realise that the child should see a specialist.
This in turn means that many of these children will end up involved in crime or substance abuse, especially given the environment they're growing up in.

I don't think suggesting that women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to drink heavily during pregnancy is that shocking, surely?
In any case, he suggested that these children be screened purely because they were less likely to receive the same focus of medical and psychological care than a child from a more wealthy background.

I'd agree with that statement except for the claim that it's 'especially in lower socioeconomic areas'. Misdiagnosing FAS for ADHD or some other problem is also quite a middle class phenomenon as well - many mothers don't like being told that 'only a glass or two of wine' has done their kid damage in the womb, and doctors are loathe to call it like it is.

steddyeddy

geeky wrote: »

I'd agree with that statement except for the claim that it's 'especially in lower socioeconomic areas'. Misdiagnosing FAS for ADHD or some other problem is also quite a middle class phenomenon as well - many mothers don't like being told that 'only a glass or two of wine' has done their kid damage in the womb, and doctors are loathe to call it like it is.

Indeed many of the secondary diasbilities which develop in some cases of fas dont develop depending on the quality of life. Many on more advantaged areas dont get a diagnosis and do better in general. I dont know how anyone can say any amount of alcohol is acceptable during pregnancy. Alcohol abuse is not confined to one class.

steddyeddy

Pedro K wrote: »

This, for me, is a big problem. It was brought up in another thread about drinking culture too.

There seems to be a lot of people in Ireland who 'don't drink,' but just have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner. Then they wonder how they have become alcoholics or why their liver is knackered. Most wines are three times the abv of beers.

I think, and I stand open to correction here, that if people saw a pregnant woman drinking a can it would be met with widespread condemnation, but if it was a glass of wine there would be a sizeable number of the same people who would say 'ah sure it's only a glass of wine.'

For the record, I don't condone drinking any alcohol at all during pregnancy.

According to the fetal alcohol syndromes Irish website 66% of Irish mothers drink during pregnancy. There is a drinking culture in Ireland in general stigmatising one particular class is ignoring the attitude to drinking in general in Ireland. The bottle of wine a day thing is ridiculous to be honest. Its hypocrisy at its best. Its a more sociably acceptable form of drug abuse.

Dudess

Richard Hillman wrote: »

True but its more prevalent in the underclasses I.E the skanger community and thats who he is talking about but cant say that because the left wing media. The working classes and middle classes in general dont need to be advised. The underclasses have gotten to a stage where they need to be shackled into doing the right thing.

Political correctness created and appeases the underclasses. Their way of life should not be pandered to, it should be fought, mocked and punished.

After Hours is really turning into a haven for people with the following mindset: "I need one thing to blame for a societal problem, but I don't have any original thoughts myself... I know, I'll blame political correctness!"

CruelCoin

Its a simple fact that those from the working classes are more likely to abuse any and every harmfull substances (alcohol, drugs, ciggarettes, etc) than those from middle/upper classes.

I fully support such testing, and it should be extended to testing expecting junkies, smokers etc.

CruelCoin

Richard Hillman wrote: »

True but its more prevalent in the underclasses I.E the skanger community and thats who he is talking about but cant say that because the left wing media. The working classes and middle classes in general dont need to be advised. The underclasses have gotten to a stage where they need to be shackled into doing the right thing.

Political correctness created and appeases the underclasses. Their way of life should not be pandered to, it should be fought, mocked and punished.

Knackers, knick-knacks, scobies, tinkers, scumbuckets, schweee batta borgor.

Now that we have it out of our system, lets move on shall we?

steddyeddy

CruelCoin wrote: »

Its a simple fact that those from the working classes are more likely to abuse any and every harmfull substances (alcohol, drugs, ciggarettes, etc) than those from middle/upper classes.

I fully support such testing, and it should be extended to testing expecting junkies, smokers etc.

Any and every harmful substance? Can you suggest a genetic or any biological component to to back up your beliefs that socio economic groups are genetically predisposed to substance abuse?

Logical Fallacy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Any and every harmful substance? Can you suggest a genetic or any biological component to to back up your beliefs that socio economic groups are genetically predisposed to substance abuse?

He didn't say they were genetically predisposed to it.

Logical Fallacy

Dudess wrote: »

After Hours is really turning into a haven for people with the following mindset: "I need one thing to blame for a societal problem, but I don't have any original thoughts myself... I know, I'll blame political correctness!"

Look, you are quoting someone who things left wing liberalism and political correctness created the underclasses.

Not much should surprise you from someone who can revise history in such a fashion.

steddyeddy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

He didn't say they were genetically predisposed to it.

Quite right he didnt yet he said they are more likely to do it. Alcohol abuse aswell as drug abuse has a genetic component though so I assume hes aware of some region of dna which recognises the social group of the genome it finds itself in.

flutterflye

steddyeddy wrote: »

Quite right he didnt yet he said they are more likely to do it. Alcohol abuse aswell as drug abuse has a genetic component though so I assume hes aware of some region of dna which recognises the social group of the genome it finds itself in.

Genetics weren't mentioned at all.
What are you on about?

seamus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Can you suggest a genetic or any biological component to to back up your beliefs that socio economic groups are genetically predisposed to substance abuse?

Are you suggesting that there's a biological difference between the socio-economic classes?

People in lower socio-economic classes are more likely to have issues with alcohol and drug dependency, which in turn has knock-on effects leading to increased involvement in crime and domestic violence.

Alcohol is an odd one, probably because its legal. Most studies find that people with higher incomes tend to drink more often, but people with lower incomes tend to drink more volume. That is, higher earners may have a glass of wine with dinner every other evening, but lower income earners will just drink two bottles every Saturday night.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

Are you suggesting that there's a biological difference between the socio-economic classes?

People in lower socio-economic classes are more likely to have issues with alcohol and drug dependency, which in turn has knock-on effects leading to increased involvement in crime and domestic violence.

Alcohol is an odd one, probably because its legal. Most studies find that people with higher incomes tend to drink more often, but people with lower incomes tend to drink more volume. That is, higher earners may have a glass of wine with dinner every other evening, but lower income earners will just drink two bottles every Saturday night.

No but people are suggesting that those from lower classes are

Its a simple fact that those from the working classes are more likely to abuse any and every harmfull substances (alcohol, drugs, ciggarettes, etc) than those from middle/upper classes

He didnt say some people from certain backgrounds abuse some drugs he said those from working classes are more likely to abuse any and all drugs. Since predisposition to alcohol and drug abuse is genetic the above poster is inadvertantly suggesting that there is significant genetic variance between the classes.

steddyeddy

From alcohol action Ireland

One of the common myths around parental alcohol problems is that it is confined to poorer families as if middle-class families are not adversely affected by alcohol. The same thinking used to surround domestic abuse. Allowing for individual exceptions, the reality is that a child from a poorer background is likely to face a greater range of risks to their health and wellbeing because poverty and all it brings is liable to compound parental alcohol problems.

This would be more my way of thinking to be honest not someone who is born into a certain class is more inclined to have problems with alcohol. The real picture is far more complicated than a lot of people's view regarding certain groups of people. I would also say the problems asociated with poverty exacerbate the symtoms of fas.

Logical Fallacy

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but people are suggesting that those from lower classes are



He didnt say some people from certain backgrounds abuse some drugs he said those from working classes are more likely to abuse any and all drugs. Since predisposition to alcohol and drug abuse is genetic the above poster is inadvertantly suggesting that there is significant genetic variance between the classes.

Can I see a study that proves without a doubt that drug and alchohol addiction is a genetic problem?

I believe this gets thrown around a lot because kids with alcoholic/drug using parents are more like to do so themselves. What people often fail to do is consider the social factors involved and normally when asked to provide a definite study they fail to do so.

As you seem to know so much about it I assume you know that the research this was derived from was a study of twins...and even then the research itself was only able to suggest a possible genetic factor.

steddyeddy wrote: »

From alcohol action Ireland



This would be more my way of thinking to be honest not someone who is born into a certain class is more inclined to have problems with alcohol. The real picture is far more complicated than a lot of people's view regarding certain groups of people. I would also say the problems asociated with poverty exacerbate the symtoms of fas.

Then why do you have such an issue with testing being made available to poorer people?

CruelCoin

steddyeddy wrote: »

Quite right he didnt yet he said they are more likely to do it. Alcohol abuse aswell as drug abuse has a genetic component though so I assume hes aware of some region of dna which recognises the social group of the genome it finds itself in.

I'm not going to try argue genetics with you as i don't have the sluightest clue about the topic.

What i said was they are more likely, and this is backed up by publicly available statistics.

CruelCoin

seamus wrote: »

Are you suggesting that there's a biological difference between the socio-economic classes?

Well, hang on,

If you look at the average inner city thug, you notice the heavy brows, cauliflower ears, squashed noses, inability to breath through the nose....
Some might say they are a different sub-breed, just as rottweilers are different to german shepards etc, but are both considered dogs.

"dons flame-suit"

steddyeddy

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'm not going to try argue genetics with you as i don't have the sluightest clue about the topic.

What i said was they are more likely, and this is backed up by publicly available statistics.

My view on it would be that the alcohol abuse spreads across the class divide and that for those in the lower socio economic bracket the problem is exacerbated.

geeky

steddyeddy wrote: »

My view on it would be that the alcohol abuse spreads across the class divide and that for those in the lower socio economic bracket the problem is exacerbated.

It's also easier to hide drink and drug abuse of varied stripes with the middle class benefit of social confidence, education, and generally carrying like a 'nice lad/girl having the craic'. There's plenty of people with drink and drug issues in the middle and upper classes; they're just better at concealing it.

geeky

Oh, and in reference to the person who suggested testing expectant junkies, don't test, just take the effing kids.

It's very, very easy to be right-on about drugs when you've never helped wean a baby off smack.

geeky

seamus wrote: »

Are you suggesting that there's a biological difference between the socio-economic classes?

People in lower socio-economic classes are more likely to have issues with alcohol and drug dependency, which in turn has knock-on effects leading to increased involvement in crime and domestic violence.

Alcohol is an odd one, probably because its legal. Most studies find that people with higher incomes tend to drink more often, but people with lower incomes tend to drink more volume. That is, higher earners may have a glass of wine with dinner every other evening, but lower income earners will just drink two bottles every Saturday night.

In fairness, there are inherent weakness with any kind of self-reported lifestyle study, especially when it comes to the use of drugs. People with more education around what's expected will claim to have healthier habits than they actually do.

steddyeddy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Can I see a study that proves without a doubt that drug and alchohol addiction is a genetic problem??

Exposure to drugs causes plasticity in neural circuits related to reward and motivation, supporting the idea that addiction is a biological disorder. Plasticity (of synapses and circuits) results from drug use and drug abuse. Degree of plasticity is related to methylation and other epigenetic mechanisims within ones genome. Thats long been known but Ill dig out some papers on it for you.

I believe this gets thrown around a lot because kids with alcoholic/drug using parents are more like to do so themselves. What people often fail to do is consider the social factors involved and normally when asked to provide a definite study they fail to do so.

I think the social problem exacerbates the addiction rather than predisposes one to it.

As you seem to know so much about it I assume you know that the research this was derived from was a study of twins...and even then the research itself was only able to suggest a possible genetic factor.

Well thats just one of hundreds of studies. Other experiments used animal models, animals other than humans that is. I would say ones epigenome would play a larger part in addiction than the actual genome. Even twins seperated at birth did show some genetic predisposition to addiction independent of social factors. Its certainly more compllicated than "all working class are more likely to abuse any and all drugs".

Then why do you have such an issue with testing being made available to poorer people?

I dont but I dont want a group of people from an already disadvantaged group targeted exclusively for a disease that carries a massive stigma. Better access to health services in general are needed for disadvantaged areas. Alcohol abuse and fas in Ireland needs to be dealt with irrespective of the social class. It would be frankly horrible to target exclusivley one group of people with the stigma of drinking during pregnancy.

steddyeddy

geeky wrote: »

It's also easier to hide drink and drug abuse of varied stripes with the middle class benefit of social confidence, education, and generally carrying like a 'nice lad/girl having the craic'. There's plenty of people with drink and drug issues in the middle and upper classes; they're just better at concealing it.

Indeed this is exactly my feelings on the subject. I have known people from all classes that were drug abusers. It highlighted the fact to me that class doesnt matter. People are people some are just unlucky to have been born into a disadvantaged situation.

Odysseus

nua domhan wrote: »

To be honest, i'd like to see anyone drinking during pregnancy brought up for child abuse. If a parent gave that "collection of cells" a sip of vodka (subjected them to alcohol) the day after the birth they'd be investigated but not the day before?

Ps nice how you contradicted yourself dehumanising a child in a post about not dehumanising mothers. :P

That would really help, FFS trying to get people in detox/stabilisation places is difficult enough. If you think that in a law is going to prevent FAS in severe cases, please think again.

The cases I would deal with each year could not give a fcuk about any law. Get them in and at least you can try to work with them, tell them they will be punished if they tell services what is happening, and you will get nowhere.

Get the people who need it involved in services, then at least you can intervene where the need is. Such black and white laws will never work around any type substance use.

Odysseus

CruelCoin wrote: »

Its a simple fact that those from the working classes are more likely to abuse any and every harmfull substances (alcohol, drugs, ciggarettes, etc) than those from middle/upper classes.

I fully support such testing, and it should be extended to testing expecting junkies, smokers etc.

I don't think a lot of clinicians who work in the area would agree with that. Addiction is a complex problem there are few simple facts to it.

Monty Burnz

geeky wrote: »

It's also easier to hide drink and drug abuse of varied stripes with the middle class benefit of social confidence, education, and generally carrying like a 'nice lad/girl having the craic'. There's plenty of people with drink and drug issues in the middle and upper classes; they're just better at concealing it.

'Plenty' isn't really a scientific term. The fact is that drink and drug abuse are more common in the underclass, although of course it permeates all levels of society.

Monty Burnz

CruelCoin wrote: »

Its a simple fact that those from the working classes are more likely to abuse any and every harmfull substances (alcohol, drugs, ciggarettes, etc) than those from middle/upper classes.

Just to be clear, I don't there's any particular problem with the 'working class' - it's the non-working, lifetime social-welfare dependent class that the concern is with.

Nodin

CruelCoin wrote: »

Well, hang on,

If you look at the average inner city thug, you notice the heavy brows, cauliflower ears, squashed noses, inability to breath through the nose....
Some might say they are a different sub-breed, just as rottweilers are different to german shepards etc, but are both considered dogs.

"dons flame-suit"

I understand that if you measure the various bumps on their skull, they correspond to a criminal type.

nua domhan

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont but I dont want a group of people from an already disadvantaged group targeted exclusively for a disease that carries a massive stigma. Better access to health services in general are needed for disadvantaged areas. Alcohol abuse and fas in Ireland needs to be dealt with irrespective of the social class. It would be frankly horrible to target exclusivley one group of people with the stigma of drinking during pregnancy.

Well it would be pretty ideal if every disease was treated and screened across every social class and postcode equally but why spend the money testing area's where you're not gonna find many people to help? Should i be out spending the same amount of money testing Asians for Diabetes as i would for testing white people (asians have a far less incidence).

As for the idea that genetics isn't related to social standing, i could argue that it is totally related to your social class - it's basically the process of evolution at work. Think about it, if being intelligent enough to get a 3rd level education and high paying job and lifting yourself from lower to middle class isn't genetics dictating your social class then i don't know what is.

SerialComplaint

CruelCoin wrote: »

Its a simple fact that those from the working classes are more likely to abuse any and every harmfull substances (alcohol, drugs, ciggarettes, etc) than those from middle/upper classes.

Have you stopped to think about why this might be the case? And just to save time, when you blame the parents, I'll be asking you why that particular group of parents from that particular class are not good parents?

oxo_

I dunno where people are going with this whole "class" thing and blaming, exclaiming or pushing whole disadvantaged areas into some makey-up lower class as if it's the reason or symptom of all the problems.

Most, if not all those from the area I live in that I know of or have seen involved in serious and persistent anti social behaviour are NOT poor in any sense of the word. They're just little fking cnuts, regardless of how good or bad their parents are or how they were or were not raised. They're just cnuts.

Most of them seem extremely intellectually challenged, disrespectful to others, no manners, no fear of any consequences (lol what?) and the severe lack of Garda action coupled with liberal retarded judges who pity them when the Garda ever do anything to try bring them to justice means they go about their anti social behaviour uncontested. There are no consequences, there is no fear of any repercussions outside of them pissing the wrong person off and taking a hiding for it.

Coupled with the large amount of pubs and offlicences, some of whom deliver drink as if they're operating a takeaway, to kids, and I mean kids, not teenagers who might look older than they are but actually delivering orders of drink to children - what chance is there really to help a disadvantaged area like Ballymun when those that make the laws and are supposed to be enforcing them, just couldn't give a crap and allow the above along with open drug dealing (crack or pcp anyone?) on the streets, in broad daylight, in full view of expensive and worthless CCTV systems ?

Some of the Gardaí here are wonderful and do a good job but their meagre resources only stretch so far.

The "blame" in all of this lies with successive crap governments and elected councillors who do fk all about the problems. A lot if not all that's being done to address the problems and educate is being done by local people with little or no help from anyone else.

I don't even see the point in voting anymore, anyone from any party that's ever been elected around here has been a useless cnut, and that includes SF who a lot held out some hope of change when we elected Dessie "Finglas" last time, the guy doesn't even turn up for meetings 90% of the time, meetings that directly relate to combating drugs and alcohol related crime and abuse in the area.

Apart from all that, there's actually nothing to fcking do out here, if you want to do or go anywhere of any worth, you've to walk to the mainstreet to get a bus because they no longer service Ballymun estates other than passing through the main road, so even all the old people get fked now.

Is it any wonder so many turn to drink and drugs when their country continues to piss all over them. It's just a shame now they start feeling and acting that way before they've even left school. I say that as I type while listening to a group of about 10 drunk kids outside, none of them older than 13 or 14, on a schoolnight, sitting under one of the lamposts hosting the "amazing" CCTV system Ballymun got in to tackle behaviour such as this.

Anything that helps to honestly try and address the problems is welcome, fck Mary Fitzpatrick and fck FF for taking a serious issue and using it to score points with.

As much as I detest Labour, the mayor at least I feel is making an honest effort to start a process off and for that he deserves some praise because it must be hard to go up against all the corrupt cnuts in there that allowed this crap situation to continue for so long, and they still persist in creating obstacles to any change.

CruelCoin

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Have you stopped to think about why this might be the case? And just to save time, when you blame the parents, I'll be asking you why that particular group of parents from that particular class are not good parents?

We could go on and on about:
how they were dis-advantaged while neatly avoiding the topic of how they trash their own surroundings,
How they are generally un-employable. Attitude, dress, reliability, punctuality etc etc.

Thugiosh behaviour is a choice to make. Everyone has the power to say "no, i will not throw a brick at that car. Instead i will go home and walk the dog."

Maybe its an inability to say no to things that se-rail people lives? I don't know.

Hell, it could even be a coping skill to help them get through their days.

Yes, i'm waffling, and not one **** was given.

Cussypat1974

we should stop bloody breeding anyway as the planet is overpopulated.

allibastor

the dublin mayor is bang on to be fair.

the main social issues do arise from, in general, the poorer classes. but it is a social problem as they tend to be poorly educated on the effects. i do remember a good ole limerick pregnant teen once saying to her friend who had asked if smoking while pregnant was ok, and i quote "sure the baby has its won lungs don't it, the smoke goes into mine"

poor genius. would make einstein proud.

but the problem of F.A.S is huge and it does lead to behavioral problems later in life, and to be fair, if the parent (mother) can't be bothered to stop drinking or smoking for nine months,what chance will there be that they will accept the long term problems that will come after.

some people should not be allowed to have kids to be fair, if you can't make small sacrifices for them. but then again the bleeding hearts will say it is not their fault they are ignorant and keep on drinking or smoking while pregnant. i would like to see people do what i did once in limerick maternity and pull the ciggie out of the hand of a pregnant woman. that was good.

mattjack

allibastor wrote: »

some people should not be allowed to have kids to be fair, if you can't make small sacrifices for them. but then again the bleeding hearts will say it is not their fault they are ignorant and keep on drinking or smoking while pregnant. i would like to see people do what i did once in limerick maternity and pull the ciggie out of the hand of a pregnant woman. that was good.

Who are you decide who should have kids.

My wife smokes occasionally , maybe 15 a week, when expecting she smoked maybe 10 for the whole duration of her pregnancy ,
I would've loved to see you grab a cigarette from somebodys hand in a hospital.

why don't you stand outside the Rotunda in Dublin and grab cigarettes fro peoples hands, your close enough to the Mater A and E then for any treatment you might need.

allibastor

mattjack wrote: »

[/B]

Who are you decide who should have kids.

My wife smokes occasionally , maybe 15 a week, when expecting she smoked maybe 10 for the whole duration of her pregnancy ,
I would've loved to see you grab a cigarette from somebodys hand in a hospital.

why don't you stand outside the Rotunda in Dublin and grab cigarettes fro peoples hands, your close enough to the Mater A and E then for any treatment you might need.

firstly, yes i would stand there and take ciggies from hands, someone has to stick up for there child,

secondly, was your wife not able to stop smoking for the 9 months? did she or you not read in tot her effects of smoking into your child's development. did you not think it was a good idea not to smoke once you decided to bring a life into this world. maybe your baby doesn't want to smoke and your wife forced it to. interestingly do you or your wife smoke in the house or in the car with the kids in it?

mattjack

allibastor wrote: »

firstly, yes i would stand there and take ciggies from hands, someone has to stick up for there child,

secondly, was your wife not able to stop smoking for the 9 months? did she or you not read in tot her effects of smoking into your child's development. did you not think it was a good idea not to smoke once you decided to bring a life into this world. maybe your baby doesn't want to smoke and your wife forced it to. interestingly do you or your wife smoke in the house or in the car with the kids in it?

She had about ten cigarettes in 9 months on one pregnancy for the other three she didn't smoke, I don't smoke.She smokes outside.

Id still love to see you take cigarettes from somebody's hands and I'm still interested in your comments about not allowing some people to have children, please elaborate...

allibastor

mattjack wrote: »

She had about ten cigarettes in 9 months on one pregnancy for the other three she didn't smoke, I don't smoke.She smokes outside.

Id still love to see you take cigarettes from somebody's hands and I'm still interested in your comments about not allowing some people to have children, please elaborate...

Well, it is better to not have smoked throughout the pregnancy, as i am sure you would agree. to be fair, ten is not a huge amount and i will concede that. but still smoking outside, smoke carries on clothes and hair and skin. it is still bad. good on you for not smoking.

secondly, some people should not be allowed to have kids, those who drink and take drugs and smoke like steam trains throughout the pregnancy should not have been granted the ability to have kids. i don't think i will hear much argument that some gob****e who drank everyday from day one through the nine months of pregnancy should be allowed to keep the baby, the same as some junkie who bears a child that is addicted to drugs from the moment it is born.

And yes, i have pulled ciggies from hands before, both from people who smoke in door ways and blow it into my face when passing out, to a small number of pregnant women. i very much doubt someone will do much to me, i am not a small boy.

mongdesade

Richard Hillman wrote: »

True but its more prevalent in the underclasses I.E the skanger community and thats who he is talking about but cant say that because the left wing media. The working classes and middle classes in general dont need to be advised. The underclasses have gotten to a stage where they need to be shackled into doing the right thing.

Political correctness created and appeases the underclasses. Their way of life should not be pandered to, it should be fought, mocked and punished.

Jawohl, die untermensch müssen bestraft werden :rolleyes:

mattjack

allibastor wrote: »

secondly, some people should not be allowed to have kids, those who drink and take drugs and smoke like steam trains throughout the pregnancy should not have been granted the ability to have kids. i don't think i will hear much argument that some gob****e who drank everyday from day one through the nine months of pregnancy should be allowed to keep the baby, the same as some junkie who bears a child that is addicted to drugs from the moment it is born.

No matter what you think , you cannot decide who should or should not be allowed have children.Where do you draw the line .. do we allow older women have children or do we tell young girls they are to young to be parents, what about people from families a predisposition towards addiction or genetic illness do we tell them don't have kids ?

Your comment about being a big boy who grabs cigarettes off pregnant women , thats just using your size to intimidate people.

allibastor

mattjack wrote: »

allibastor wrote: »

secondly, some people should not be allowed to have kids, those who drink and take drugs and smoke like steam trains throughout the pregnancy should not have been granted the ability to have kids. i don't think i will hear much argument that some gob****e who drank everyday from day one through the nine months of pregnancy should be allowed to keep the baby, the same as some junkie who bears a child that is addicted to drugs from the moment it is born.

No matter what you think , you cannot decide who should or should not be allowed have children.Where do you draw the line .. do we allow older women have children or do we tell young girls they are to young to be parents, what about people from families a predisposition towards addiction or genetic illness do we tell them don't have kids ?

Your comment about being a big boy who grabs cigarettes off pregnant women , thats just using your size to intimidate people.

and your comment about how i would need to be near an A and E dept shows you seems to have little in the way of rational outside of violence.

to be fair, i am firm in my belief that some junkie who will never look after their kids or some down and out also who puts their childs life at risk every time they pass out from drink should not be allowed to have kids.

and i never said i was big, just not small. and to be fair, sometimes stupidity needs to be shown its errors. if some moron who is taking drugs, drinking or smoking while pregnant gets annoyed that someone expresses an opinion on it then **** them, they will be expecting things in the future for help of their kids whom they gave a terrible start to in life. all i want to show is that if you are able to have kids you should be willing to ensure they can get the best possible start in life, and smoking,drinking and drug taking is not that.

mattjack

allibastor wrote: »

mattjack wrote: »

and your comment about how i would need to be near an A and E dept shows you seems to have little in the way of rational outside of violence.

to be fair, i am firm in my belief that some junkie who will never look after their kids or some down and out also who puts their childs life at risk every time they pass out from drink should not be allowed to have kids.

and i never said i was big, just not small. and to be fair, sometimes stupidity needs to be shown its errors. if some moron who is taking drugs, drinking or smoking while pregnant gets annoyed that someone expresses an opinion on it then **** them, they will be expecting things in the future for help of their kids whom they gave a terrible start to in life. all i want to show is that if you are able to have kids you should be willing to ensure they can get the best possible start in life, and smoking,drinking and drug taking is not that.

I'm not in the slightest bit violent.

Your entitled to an opinion , but suggesting some people should not be allowed have kids is wrong.

I work in addiction and would never call anyone a junkie, moron or stupid because of drug/alcohol use.

allibastor

mattjack wrote: »

allibastor wrote: »

I'm not in the slightest bit violent.

Your entitled to an opinion , but suggesting some people should not be allowed have kids is wrong.

I work in addiction and would never call anyone a junkie, moron or stupid because of drug/alcohol use.

I have also worked in Addiction centers, and do you know what. i would call these people stupid. it is and always will be a choice to put that needle in your arm or take that line and do this or do that. always. people have rubbish upbringings but some make a choice to want to do better for themselves.

in all your working there, how man junkies have you seen coming from households where being a junkies or a drunk or what not has occurred. i have seen it myself loads of times where kids from parents who should have been sterilized themselves end up repeating the cycle,and drag more kids into it.

that is why i am so vocal about it, just brushing it under the carpet does nothing for these people, i have seen loads of time those being helped coming back again and again and again.there is no point in patching over their problems if you do not try and stop the same problems from happening in the next generation.

mattjack

allibastor wrote: »

mattjack wrote: »

I have also worked in Addiction centers, and do you know what. i would call these people stupid. it is and always will be a choice to put that needle in your arm or take that line and do this or do that. always. people have rubbish upbringings but some make a choice to want to do better for themselves.

in all your working there, how man junkies have you seen coming from households where being a junkies or a drunk or what not has occurred. i have seen it myself loads of times where kids from parents who should have been sterilized themselves end up repeating the cycle,and drag more kids into it.

that is why i am so vocal about it, just brushing it under the carpet does nothing for these people, i have seen loads of time those being helped coming back again and again and again.there is no point in patching over their problems if you do not try and stop the same problems from happening in the next generation.

enough said.

cgarrad

Tell the working class testing is only available to those in Dublin 4 due to cut backs.

Idiots will be queuing out the door to get it done once the program is "expanded"

Course then they will be claiming disability and carers allowance so better to let them wallow in ignorance...