Forcing poor people to have disabled children

[Event Horizo 10]

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.

 

loads of cobblers. eating good food actually costs less. Maybe stop all these mums thinking that junk food is the norm to feed their young ones. not only is it expensive but absolute rubbish

 

Actually i read your post and thought rubbish lol...

 

---------- Post added 22-02-2016 at 12:25 ----------

 

Infact Chemist give all mothers a fresh food hamper every week instead of benefits and see how many would start kicking off :hihi:

Edited February 22, 2016 by Event Horizo

[Jomie 30]

Chem1st has chosen an inappropriate title for this thread but leaving aside the comments about sanctioning pregnant women, he does have a point when considering the overall damaging impact of poverty on childhood health and education. These links have long been known and are well documented.

Childrens Society:

Children in households a affected by disabilities:

4 in 10 disabled children have been found to be living in poverty...

Child Poverty Action Group:

They (children) are more likely to suffer chronic illness during childhood or to have a disability.

 

It is too simplistic to say that sanctioning pregnant women causes disability but we know that poverty can increase the likelihood of it. This is a very complex problem which, even with great sums of money we may not be able to solve. Even if benefits were increased, and other advantages given the problem of disadvantage may not just go away because people in this country have free choice as to how they spend their income.

 

The real challenge is to educate young people to consider having children when they are mentally, physically and financially prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood. We live in an age when we have reliable, free contraception and yet people are still having children that will start their lives dependent on the state and probably living in poverty. If chem1st can solve that problem it would probably go a long way to reducing the incidence of disability in children.

[onewheeldave 22]

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?

 

I agree fully. 100%

 

Personally I favour the total dismantling of our inhumane and disgusting benefits system, in favour of some form of 'universal wage', which would guarantee everyone access to a healthy diet and a home, as well as make benefit fraud impossible.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

 

But, in the meantime, banning the sanctioning of pregnant women is a good interim step

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

it seems to be to those who have never lifted a finger in their entire lives

If they're having children, it's not the man's finger that lifted but another anatomical protrusion.

[monkey104 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?

 

Do you have a source for this latest twaddle?