Having children shouldn't be a business opportunity

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah but we profit from the tourism so it evens out.

Funny that you're mocking the religious right. Far leftism is "State take, state give".

Would you folks prefer abortions?

I think a better idea is having child protection get cracking and put em in a foster home until the parent is financially able to support em.

You do know who pays for the various child protection agencies don't you? Taxpayers. You won't save any money by taking these children into care. Next suggestion?

We need a one child per person policy like what China has. That'll sort it.

BTW, that was mostly a joke, but I do wonder what effects it would have in the UK. Could be an interesting experiment.

It would make our ageing population into even more of a crisis.

But in the big scheme of things overpopulation is kinda inevitable now.

If it was only about money, then I would've suggested adoption instead of putting the kids into foster homes until they can support em or til they turn into adults. Child protection is a service that contributes to society, sitting on your ass at home drinking malt liquor and watching TV all day doesn't do society a favour at all.

I'm sure a lot less people would stick their dicks in every p**** or spread their legs to every dick if they knew they couldn't freeload off the government and be bailed out of every irresponsible choice they make.

That may be the case, but its very easy to forget that we also have a contributory national insurance system in this country that (in theory) pays for a safety net of benefits, paid for by working people. There is an EPIC blind spot amongst taxpayers about this. Any one of them could lose their job, could become disabled, in the blink of an eye. They are in for a HUGE shock when they realise how little the benefits system actually pays out, and how much like arbeitsschu scum they will be treated. Treated by a system THEY funded.

How about the productive and busy worker, who has worked every day of his life to support his large family that he has every right to raise, who gets caught up in Government-driven jobcuts? Or suddenly gets run down by a drunk driver and paralysed? Should HIS children be taken away because he will now struggle to pay for them? Because that is what happens when people play fast and loose with such systems.

You missed the part where I said this in the thread:



So that means I'm obviously not talking about people who get paralyzed by drunk drivers and are therefore unable to work. They are the ones who are truly in need of welfare, not lazy irresponsible f*****s who are able to support themselves but are unwilling.

As for those who become unemployed, the safety net should definitely apply to them, but in that case it still has to be made to greatly reduce potential for abuse. Such as if you don't get another job within a year or two, then have fun struggling. Or whatever time span would be reasonable since I pulled 1-2 years out of my ass.

People, haven't you forgotten something? Something called Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment? Some people must be unemployed, or so is decided by our neoliberal governments following Milton Friedman. So if there is a reserve army of labour necessarily in place then people should not complain about those in it.

It used to be that young children in England would be put to work in factories or mines, or as chimney sweeps. Many were also shipped off to Australia. Would you prefer an arrangement like this?

And there is the rub. Our government are busy telling people with every legitimate reason for being unable to work that they are workshy, asocial and undeserving, even those who were disabled fighting in our army . Even the Nazis never stooped to that level. So it does not matter whether someone is deserving or not, they will be treated as undeserving. No safety net can function if the Government cuts holes in it, and changes the definition of deserving by the day. The ones TRULY in need are being treated as callously as the worse of the fraudsters and thieves, possibly more so for they are UNDESERVING of such treatment.

I would prefer access to abortions for people who are too poor to raise children, yes. I don't want to generalize, but poor non-white women are often the ones who have the hardest time being able to get an abortion, and also use the most welfare when they have more kids than they can handle.

This rule would never fly in America, what with all the pro-lifers, but here's what I would do: if a woman gets an abortion, put an IUD in after the procedure. I support a woman's right to choose. I'm not a fan of abortion personally, and I understand both views ... but if we make abortion illegal, people will still want to terminate unwanted pregnancies at the rate abortions happen currently. It will just be via abortion methods pre-Roe instead, with metal coathangers going up there or someone kicking the pregnant woman's stomach hard, hoping to cause a miscarriage. People can die from these methods because they're extremely dangerous. I prefer a safe, medical abortion being available to women over a coathanger or else scenario. But, again, that's just me.

However, I'm very anti multiple abortions, especially if they happen close together. If the first unwanted pregnancy and subsequent abortion doesn't knock some sense into you, what will? At least with an IUD, for a few years the woman won't get an unwanted pregnancy.

If a woman is a single mother and can't afford to pay for her children, IUD. Heck, if a woman is below the poverty line with no support system ... IUD. IUD's are really successful at preventing pregnancy and would ease the strain on the welfare system in the long haul. But the government would never require IUD's for aborting women in America, especially non-white women... sad because they're the ones who need them most of all.

Another way to stop the madness is to stop rewarding people for breeding with large tax cuts. I know a family of 8 and they had a good $10,000+ in tax breaks a couple of years back! Our family, with one child (me), got nothing for a tax break! It makes no sense to me.

Yes, that is what they want to bring back. They want suffering. They want life to be as short, brutish, and nasty as possible. That builds "character" and makes their dicks grow hard. Beating their wives and children when they misbehave also makes the manly conservative dick grow hard.

Sure sounds like a sweeping generalisation to me.

I thought that President Clinton had thrown most of these "poor non-white women" and their kids off of welfare?