Forcing poor people to have disabled children

[chem1st 10]

Forcing poor people to have disabled children.

 

This is not something we should do, rather it is something we already do. It is something we need to stop happening.

 

We apply stresses and strains upon poor pregnant women, not faced by previous generations, we restrict their incomes and deprive them financially, subsequently denying them the ability to eat a healthy diet, or enough calories to ensure they are fed well. This has knock on effects and hurts their children, leading to some of them to be born disabled.

 

It is akin to Zika virus, but in our country, the willful harm of the next generations is confined to those of lower class. Because of this, it is not raised in polite conversation, seldom is it raised at all, and there is no fear about it in the media, unlike the fear of Zika, as Zika knows not of class boundaries and will harm poor and rich children, hence the fear of it.

 

What is it, I talk of? Sanctioning pregnant women of course.

 

How do we stop it, for starters we stop sanctioning women we know to be pregnant, but we must then also realise we have to stop sanctioning all women, as they may be pregnant and ensure they have a basic income so that they can always eat. Because when a women falls pregnant it is not instantly known. Basic income and the ability to eat healthily are fairly simple concepts and have been in place for many decades, only recently have we started denying people these basic social safety nets.

 

The only women who could be sanctioned, without there being a risk of harming future citizens are those who are infertile, as depriving them of income does not risk harming a future generation.

 

At the end of the day we shouldn't sanction anybody, but we must definitely not sanction pregnant women, and women who may fall pregnant.

 

What do you think of this?

 

Perhaps you fully agree with sanctioning and think it makes financial sense to sanction pregnant women and save £70 for a few weeks, then pay out disability benefits for life for a disabled child that can never work, due to the harm inflicted upon it before birth when it's mother was starved by the state?

[tinfoilhat 11]

"We apply stresses and strains upon poor pregnant women, not faced by previous generations"

 

LOL.

[geared 303]

"We apply stresses and strains upon poor pregnant women, not faced by previous generations"

 

LOL.

 

My thoughts exactly, along with this little gem:

 

we restrict their incomes and deprive them financially, subsequently denying them the ability to eat a healthy diet, or enough calories to ensure they are fed well.

 

All complete nonsense.

 

---------- Post added 21-02-2016 at 15:38 ----------

 

At the end of the day we shouldn't sanction anybody

 

Yes we absolutely should, if people think they can doss around on benefits and not bother working they should most definitely have their money stopped.

[chem1st 10]

"We apply stresses and strains upon poor pregnant women, not faced by previous generations"

 

LOL.

 

The benefit regime is much more strict now than it ever used to be, for both men and women, but particularly for women.

[Mossway 15]

The title of this thread is ludicrous. No-one is forcing them to do anything.If they get pregnant it should be their problem, unfortunately it ends up being 'our' problem in many cases because the tax payer has to fund their life style through benefits.Regarding sanctions (presumably Benefits' sanctions) pregnancy isn't an illness, people still work till quite a late stage, why shouldn't pregnant women be required to 'sign on' etc if they want to get their benefits?

[chem1st 10]

All complete nonsense.

 

People are left destitute and forced to rely on foodbanks. This did not used to happen. We used to have a de facto basic income for all. In some respects we still do, but this is now much lower than it used to be and far harder to claim due to a very harsh means test.

 

Yes we absolutely should, if people think they can doss around on benefits and not bother working they should most definitely have their money stopped.

 

Sanctions do nobody any favours and they do not help people back into work, they prolong people's unemployment, cause mental health problems and even physical health problems, leading to many people ending up on the sick for long periods, instead of remaining on unemployment benefits for a short period before finding work.

 

I'm not totally against having some form of sanction and punishment for those on certain benefits, but the way sanctions work now is counterproductive and does nobody any favours. A sanction should be a proportion of income e.g. 20%, not 100% of income.

 

If I was to stab you multiple times and chop off your head, I would be housed, fed three meals a day, and have access to many things, library, gym heating, showers etc..

 

Yet if unemployed I would not be treat as well as this, and what meagre benefits I would be entitled to, could be sanctioned for up to 3 years for minor infringements of the rules, e.g. being a minute late for an appointment.

 

Treating unemployed people so badly makes no sense whatsoever, and if a pregnant women is sanctioned, there is subsequently serious risks to her child due to her lack of income and ability to eat properly among other things. This can have serious affects upon the child and that is an insane risk to take, as the future citizens of this country can be harmed, and the financial consequences of such actions can be well into the millions of pounds to the society/country.

 

---------- Post added 21-02-2016 at 16:12 ----------

 

The title of this thread is ludicrous. No-one is forcing them to do anything.If they get pregnant it should be their problem, unfortunately it ends up being 'our' problem in many cases because the tax payer has to fund their life style through benefits.Regarding sanctions (presumably Benefits' sanctions) pregnancy isn't an illness, people still work till quite a late stage, why shouldn't pregnant women be required to 'sign on' etc if they want to get their benefits?

 

The state is not openly forcing poor people to have disabled children, but it's policies increase the likelihood of this happening, so essentially it is forcing the poor to have disabled children via poverty.

 

Is it worth risking the health of future citizens for the sake of a few quid now, when the cost to the country could subsequently be in the millions?

 

Surely we should give UK citizens the best start in life, one way of doing this is ensuring the mothers of UK citizens have a basic income that is secure and cannot be reduced by the state.

 

Are you saying you are happy to put at risk the health of UK citizens before they are born?

Edited February 21, 2016 by chem1st

[Hogg 10]

Benefit sanctions should only be applied by a panel of trained and independent professionals, not by a clerk at the Job Centre desperate to meet their targets.

[srt2016 10]

here's a unique suggestion.

if you cant afford kids.

DONT HAVE THEM.

 

Not rocket science is it?

[Ms Macbeth 73]

Sanctions seem to be applied for minor infractions, and as chem1st says shouldn't be 100%, particularly IMO with no warning.

 

However, I'd refute the claim that people are being forced to have children in worse conditions than previously. I remember people's living conditions in my life time being extremely frugal, and before the NHS, often there was no medical help for the poorest women. Contraception wasn't freely available as it is now, so choice was far more limited. No child benefit for the first child until the seventies, and welfare benefits back then weren't generous.

 

Women and men who risk pregnancy should accept its their joint responsibility. If potential parents and their families were expected to fulfil even some of the conditions expected of adoptive parents the birth rate would fall massively.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Sanctions seem to be applied for minor infractions, and as chem1st says shouldn't be 100%, particularly IMO with no warning.

 

However, I'd refute the claim that people are being forced to have children in worse conditions than previously. I remember people's living conditions in my life time being extremely frugal, and before the NHS, often there was no medical help for the poorest women. Contraception wasn't freely available as it is now, so choice was far more limited. No child benefit for the first child until the seventies, and welfare benefits back then weren't generous.

 

Women and men who risk pregnancy should accept its their joint responsibility. If potential parents and their families were expected to fulfil even some of the conditions expected of adoptive parents the birth rate would fall massively.

 

I'm reading road to Wigan pier and I've read an article showing pictures of northern slum housing as late as the 1960s, including Sheffield. Chem hasn't got a scooby do what he's on about.

[gomgeg 10]

Another excellent idea from the left. What about Bensons, tattoos and face studs on prescription as well, we don't want them feeling deprived. Or on the other hand they could stop having kids they can't afford and are not capable of looking after.

[sgtkate 10]

It has been proven time and time again that it is cheaper to eat a healthy diet than an unhealthy one. Fresh fruit and veg are pennies. Whilst I agree with your sentiments that for society as a whole it would be better to have pregnant women eat a healthier diet and to try to reduce some stress on them where possible and sensible, but you undermine your entire post by saying that people can't afford a healthy diet. More likely they don't KNOW how to cook or don't know enough about nutrition to do it. This is perhaps what should be fixed. At no point has my midwife had a discussion about my diet and that's a shame. Perhaps she took one look at me and 'she MUST have a kick-ass diet, look at her'