[tulip]

Originally Posted by willman

I suppose we could do away with state provision of education - seen as this was introduced to beneift the poorer families.

You are on the wrong track. Some people have no intentions of working to support themselves or their families. That was not what the welfare system was intended for and one of the reasons it's falling apart. Having kids knowing that you can't and won't support them is wrong.

[willman]

Originally Posted by tulip

You are on the wrong track. Some people have no intentions of working to support themselves or their families. That was not what the wellfare system was intended for and one of the reasons it's falling apart. Having kids knowing that you can't and won't support them is wrong.

No i'll find you are wrong. FREE eductaion was for the masses and part of the historical social reform to remove poverty and illiteracy.

Having no intention of working is not the same as being able to afford children.

[Cyclone]

Okay, I don't really put the two together in my head, the modern welfare state doesn't seem to be intrinsically linked to schooling, it's more about cash handouts in the form of benefits.

Did you vote yes btw? There were 2 when I looked who did.
(To those 2)So say, a couple, unemployed, no prospects of employment, living in subsidised accommodation, you think it's morally acceptable for them to deliberately have a child? With every intention of the state supporting it through handouts.

[discodown]

Originally Posted by willman

I gather that from our crossed posts.
The problem is who gives society the right to dictate ?
A society that celebrates drunken ness and makes celebrities of some fo the worse examples of society - people who can now "afford" to have children.

Do we really want a society made up of wannabe's and better thans.?

Are you suggesting that morally its ok to choose to have children you know you can't financially support and rely on the state to look after them?

[Mathom]

Originally Posted by Cyclone

There's no tongue in cheek smiley, but it was semi serious. If people couldn't automatically rely on bailouts, would they be more responsible?

They'd still have them. We are animals and we breed. And what's more, there are no 100% effective contraceptives apart from not having sex and stopping that is about as likely as stopping icebergs.

[willman]

Originally Posted by Cyclone

Okay, I don't really put the two together in my head, the modern welfare state doesn't seem to be intrinsically linked to schooling, it's more about cash handouts in the form of benefits.

Did you vote yes btw? There were 2 when I looked who did.
(To those 2)So say, a couple, unemployed, no prospects of employment, living in subsidised accommodation, you think it's morally acceptable for them to deliberately have a child? With every intention of the state supporting it through handouts.

Perhaps you're views of the welfare state really means benefits and not the social reform of the state for the welfare and education of everyone.

I voted yes - and as much as it would gripe at me, the answer would remain yes. Until someone can prove to me they are worthy of making a decision to withdraw the rights of others.
I mean we can't even get id cards voted in in this country.

The next step would be demarkation of how much is needed to afford a child?
Then how big is your house?
Then where you live?

[willman]

Originally Posted by discodown

Are you suggesting that morally its ok to choose to have children you know you can't financially support and rely on the state to look after them?

It wouldn't be acceptable to me morally - but i preserve the right of others to have the opportunity of that decision.
What if they have a child and then an epiphany and decide to get a job?
They#d never get that opportunity or desire to work 'cos you decided they weren't good enough to have children.

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by Mathom

They'd still have them. We are animals and we breed. And what's more, there are no 100% effective contraceptives apart from not having sex and stopping that is about as likely as stopping icebergs.

Abortions are 100%, adoption works 100% as well.

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by willman

Perhaps you're views of the welfare state really means benefits and not the social reform of the state for the welfare and education of everyone.

I voted yes - and as much as it would gripe at me, the answer would remain yes. Until someone can prove to me they are worthy of making a decision to withdraw the rights of others.
I mean we can't even get id cards voted in in this country.

The next step would be demarkation of how much is needed to afford a child?
Then how big is your house?
Then where you live?

Stopping them is a solution, I said right at the start I wasn't looking for a solution. It's more of a moral dillema question than one with an answer that can easily be acted on.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by willman

It wouldn't be acceptable to me morally - but i preserve the right of others to have the opportunity of that decision.

Even though their decision will impact adversely on other people, who get no say in it?

[Mathom]

Originally Posted by Cyclone

Abortions are 100%, adoption works 100% as well.

Except imposing either of those options onto a woman because she is poor (or indeed for any reason) is infinitely more morally repugnant than if she had two dozen children and claimed benefits until the day she died.

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by willman

It wouldn't be acceptable to me morally - but i preserve the right of others to have the opportunity of that decision.
What if they have a child and then an epiphany and decide to get a job?
They#d never get that opportunity or desire to work 'cos you decided they weren't good enough to have children.

Now I'm going to ignore myself and suggest a solution.

How about, benefits will never be given to take you above your income at the point that you conceive.

So if you've got a job, and loose your work, you get the benefits.

If you couldn't afford it in the first place, well then you get no help as it was your choice to end up in that situation.
If children are then being 'sold' or made to work, take them into care.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Mathom

Except imposing either of those options onto a woman because she is poor (or indeed for any reason) is infinitely more morally repugnant than if she had two dozen children and claimed benefits until the day she died.

Says you. Others may say different.

[Grandad.Malky]

It seems that this is the key point, knowingly making a decision to have children.

Cyclone can correct me if I'm wrong but I took the poll to mean making the decision to have kids knowing that you can't support them.

Someone buying a car or a house they couldn’t afford would be considered foolish or reckless but somehow having a family you can’t afford is ok.

If some women feel they have a “right” to have a child surely men with a high testosterone level have a right to a sports car , I like this quote.

I desperately want a ferrari, can the government sort me out please?

[discodown]

Originally Posted by willman

It wouldn't be acceptable to me morally - but i preserve the right of others to have the opportunity of that decision.
What if they have a child and then an epiphany and decide to get a job?
They#d never get that opportunity or desire to work 'cos you decided they weren't good enough to have children.

You're attaching "what if" circumstances to justify your argument.

It is irresponsible to have children you can't afford to look after. As a parent you should be showing your children the benefits of a good work ethic and responsibility. If you can't do that then you shouldn't have children.

I for one applaud Heyesey and his attitude. They have no children even though they may want them because they aren't really in a position to have them (I hope to god that is his attitude. No doubt he will correct me otherwise)

[tulip]

Originally Posted by willman

No i'll find you are wrong. FREE eductaion was for the masses and part of the historical social reform to remove poverty and illiteracy.

Having no intention of working is not the same as being able to afford children.

I didn't realize the education system was part of the poll

[happyhippy]

Originally Posted by Cyclone

I don't want to talk about compulsory sterilisation or eugenics

Originally Posted by Cyclone

Abortions are 100%, adoption works 100% as well.

Hmmm ........ thought you weren't going down that route?

[Mathom]

Have we accidentally stepped back into a Gentlemen's club, populated by men in stove pipe hats who sit around pontificating while puffing on cigars, before maybe going out to bone a whore later?

Did Emmeline Pankhurst actually exist?

Though I suppose the orphanages will provide a steady supply of urchins to polish your boots...

[Mathom]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

Says you. Others may say different.

Others, yes, like Hitler et al.

Forced abortion would be recognised as a Crime Against Humanity by the United Nations, which would have you facing a noose in The Hague.

[Digsy]

Children are the best investment, I like it how a few people in sheffield can make having a child sound so depressing.

Glad we don't live in a totalitarian country with some of you guys in charge, I think you should take this argument to africa or india, in England the children get educated, grow up, work, pay taxes.

Most of the people saying get rid of the public education, and ban childbirth, probably grew up in public schools, and have relative's that claim some support or other.