I thought the right liked charity?

Post Reply New Topic

Having mild autism makes it far less likely I'll have kids. It's frustrating watching people in my area pop them out when they can't look after them financially while someone like me who can more than happily look after them to the point if giving them a free house struggles to be taken seriously by women.

I dislike people like the former. I have nothing against their kids but I have a lot against their parents. Having kids knowing they'll have a difficult childhood is unethical in my eyes.

People who were able too look after them and fall on hard times however? They should have the savings to transition over to state aid in the bank. Once on benefits and assuming they don't have any vices they should be fine.

Last edited by Nades on 18 Dec 2020, 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

While there is no law that says people should only produce offspring if their earnings are above a certain level, there is a lot of wisdom behind holding off parenthood until one has at least graduated high school, obtained gainful employment, secured permanent housing, and married the prospective co-parent of their future children -- such people are more likely to raise healthy, well-behaved, well-educated, and successful children than those who "pop them out when they can't look after them financially".

No I really think people should keep their legs closed and penises in their pants if they can't afford kids. I've been doing it for years along with a large number of men on this forum. Contraception and abortions are pretty cheap if not free in the UK too. Having an accident with 21st century contraception is very difficult.

You have to be aware, a single mother/dad who had a "whoopsie" getting sympathy out of me for their lack of money after they gave in to their sexual urges is like a fat man trying to get sympathy from an Ethiopian because their fridge is empty. I would quite like a "whoopsie" actually as politically incorrect as that analogy is. Some of us are not privileged enough to even have an accidental child.

Did you know that you have to take the pill at around the same time everyday?

Your life is hectic. You forget to take your pill 3 days in a row. You forget that you've forgotten. This is the first time you and your partner have had the time or energy to have sex in 2 months.

Accidents happen. Life happens. We aren't all robots on controlled timetables.

Last edited by hurtloam on 18 Dec 2020, 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's still a privilege though and one that still should have been planned ahead.

Sorry but they won't get any sympathy from me. Such a accident with contraceptives sounds wonderful from my perspective.

As for benefits, the UK provides ample for strugglig parents provided they're not abused.

The moment someone thinks ALL poor people drink and buy booze and puff their faces and go to nail saloons is the moment I cease interaction with them because its clear to me they have a prejudice view on the poor and not worth my time of energy arguing with them and educating them. I have seen this argument too many times for a reason to hate on the poor receiving benefits despite the fact they have jobs and work their asses off so their kids have what they need and food is on the table and they have running water and heat and electricity and a roof over their heads.

But the thread isn't about the parents who work hard to put food on the table. The thread is about parents who can't and I have an issue with parents who can't especially if they knew feeding them was going to be difficult before they had them. I have zero respect for those parents.

I don't mean all poor people too. I've been specific about the demographic of poor I strongly dislike. Even if someone doesn't spend a fortune on vices and is poor they still have a moral duty not to bring a child in the world until they pick themselves up.

The only exception is losing a job for whatever reason but savings that should have been built up should be sufficient to move over to state aid.

100% agree

You do get yobs who play the system. There are some where I live, just round the corner from me is a problem family. And I can understand feeling jaded if you know a lot of people like that.

But that doesn't mean everyone on that street who receives a council house and benefits is like that.

I'm from a totally different background to you. Things seemed good when we were born, but things went wrong.

My Dad took various jobs to support us. Some unemployment in there. There were benefits we received. Grants for school uniforms.

I had a time where I didn't have shoes. I had sandals, which were no good in rain and boots which were too warm for spring. My sister had a coat all through one winter with a broken zip. That was all we could have. There was no money for new things. Mostly we wore old fashioned hand-me downs from relatives and friends. Nice 70s collars on school shirts in the early 90s. Cars with huge rust holes in them. My Mum couldn't work because there was no family to take care of the smallest sibling and child care was too expensive. Even if she took a part time job, we would have been poorer because benefits would have taken a cut.

My parents weren't really able to start making ends meet until I was in my early teens. My Mum could work because we were old enough to be left alone and my Dad re-trained and had better paying work.

I don't know what we would have eaten without benefits in the early years.

Your parents seem different compared to the parents I'm referencing. You implied they had the means to support you before everything went tits up and when they were in receipt of benefits I assume they also didn't waste them on vices? If that's the case then there is no issue with that, that's what benefits are for and if anything not enough is given to parents like yours.

The issue I have is that the whole article referenced by the OP of the thread implied that somehow benefits were wasted reading between the lines. The UK has a generous benefits system especially for those with kids and the cap is 20k a year for a single mother for example. If that single mother works or even her partner, that benefits cap is removed so even more than 20k can be claimed annually, sounds reasonable right and perfectly adequate to keep the food banks and charities from calling? In my eyes yes so I wondered what on earth must have happened for UNICEF to actually be called on to feed kids. If the parents of the kids in the article were not on benefits, why weren't they?


I've made assumptions that their parents are just squandering benefits money and I stand by that assumption. Being from one of the poorest counties in the entire UK I've had a 30 year front row seat of the s**t show of the benefits system and some of the less than capable parents kicking the unholy arse out of it. There is sadly a lot of them in my town and all of them don't seem to care about their kids. Tobacco first, alcohol second and kids last in their eyes and we all know a family (or in my case several) who are like this and they seem like prime candidates to require this UNICEF aid.

Well, Jacob Rees-Mogg is a man who grew up in a 20-bedroom mansion and has his vast (£100 million or more) wealth hidden away in tax havens. ...not including the £45 million his wife stands to inherit, of course.

That doesn't exactly make him an expert on poverty in my book.