Anthony Butcher

Leading on from the thread on Unmarried couples.

Personally I think that it is grossly irresponsible for parents to have children unless they can adequately provide for them, and that includes people living off state benefits. State benefits are supposed to be a temporary safety net, not a financial blanket in which to raise a family.

However, the worst, for me, is people living in real poverty who can't even guarantee being able to feed their children. Strictly speaking this is no different to child abuse - they are deliberately placing a child in the position of being malnourished, probably uneducated and probably without access to proper medical care.

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

The Bear

There’s a lot to be said in favour of reintroducing Children’s Homes along the lines of Dr. Barnardo’s.

For all that it is of course best for a kid to be brought up in a family environment there’s a point at which the con’s of such a situation outweigh the pro’s and at that point a child should be removed from a toxic or impoverished environment and put where less harm will result to him or her.

Should people who have had kids taken from them then be allowed to have more? Personally I say not, though I know that I’ll be in the minority since the implications of such a course carries a high “yeugh” factor which is a shame.

What I absolutely believe is that any underage child who becomes pregnant should have the pregnancy terminated by law (won’t happen of course) but that at the very least she should be required by law to name the person who impregnated her and he in all cases should be brought before a court and steps appropriate to his circumstances be taken.

__________________
I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

Ea of Dune

I agree with Anthony. People who do have children whilst living of benefits and the dole are being irresponsible.
In ye olden times people had large families when they where poor. This was mainly so they had more children to work their land, care for them in old age, bring in extra money and also the fact many children died in child birth or at a young age.

Since we don't live in those times anymore in Britain there really is no excuse.

Ea of dune

chikrodah

So what's next? State-sponsored abortion/sterilisation if a woman on benefits turns up at her GP to confirm the results of her pregnancy test?

What about those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves on benefits due to the changing economic climate? Locally, one factory has cancelled 320 temporary worker contracts and is making 500 redundant in an effort to stay afloat.

Are you all seriously going to tell those out-of-work parents that they should be sterilised and/or have their children taken away from them for their feckless irresponsibility in needing financial support? Or are you just planning on tripling the size of the local council staff so that state-funded investigators can determine just how bad the parents are? With a sliding scale of 1 for "needs to be sterilised" to 10 for "ex-MP; needs sympathy"?

Seasider

Exactly. I totally agree with your post, chikrodah.

Considering that some posters reckon marriage is totally outmoded when it comes to parenting yet they advocate these views makes my heart sink.

Who is going to act as judge and jury here?

Is having children going to be a luxury that only the well heeled or at least comfortable should afford.

I remember Zandra Rhodes espousing this smug stuff many years ago as she had no time for her sister who was less than well off, but had the brass neck to have children and dear old Ms. Rhodes thought that was reckless and irresponsible.

The only bit of Bear's post I do agree with however is that if a woman has a child taken off her, then she should have no more.

The Bear

If ya can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

In any case what’s wrong with having state sponsored abortion and state sponsored sterilisation for those “on benefits” aka state hand out of tax payers money?

We’re living in times that the sheer number of us in this overcrowded over taxed country makes additional kids a luxury, and unwanted kids a disaster.

As for people who can’t afford to look after their kids, the help offered should be conditional on the circumstances wherein they became unable to look after their own, how long they’ve been in that position, what they’re doing about it, and what are the probabilities of their succeeding to get to a point where they CAN look after their own.

__________________
I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

kernow

Well said Anthony, I agree with you on this one 100%!

kernow

That sounds too Nazi Germany for my taste!

Ea of Dune

I'm not advocating steralization or anything of that nature that would IMO be very wrong. At any rate that is not treating the root of the problem. People need to learn to be more responsible for themselves and the benefits system should be treated as a safety net, not as a cash machine that rewards people for sitting at home popping out sprogs.

Ea of dune

The Bear

State sponsored, not state mandated.

__________________
I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.