License to Breed

[pap]

Does she? News to me, you're obviously more well informed. I would ask for a few of the numerous examples you could no doubt provide, but frankly I don't care. To suggest we shouldn't allow her to procreate because of it is getting a little too near eugenics for my liking.

 

...and this affects her ability to be a good parent?

 

1) Time.

2) Attention

3) Putting long-term interests of kids ahead of your own

 

Three straight away; you agreed with me.

 

Do any of these involve those who are distraught at being unable to have children paying for others who choose to but can't afford it?

 

Everyone has their cross to bear, KC. There are plenty of things I can never do. I don't spend my time worrying about the tax I pay funding those that can.

 

 

Why not increase minimum wage & introduce rent control?

 

A question I've posed on here, and to my MP.

 

No-one is "playing God". Merely suggesting that you shouldn't make a choice that you can't afford to take.

 

You are. You're going against nature. You are saying that someone that can have kids shouldn't have them, because of their position in an ostensibly arbitrary (but actually rigged) financial system.

 

Who the fúck are you (or anyone) to say that someone should not have kids, even if they can? God?

Edited 17 September, 2014 by pap

[KingdomCome]

1) Time.

2) Attention

3) Putting long-term interests of kids ahead of your own

 

Three straight away; you agreed with me.

Does being in the media mean she can't achieve these three commendable objectives?

 

Everyone has their cross to bear, KC. There are plenty of things I can never do. I don't spend my time worrying about the tax I pay funding those that can.

 

What can you never do that others do being funded by tax payers money?

 

 

You are. You're going against nature. You are saying that someone that can have kids shouldn't have them, because of their position in an ostensibly arbitrary (but actually rigged) financial system.

 

Who the fúck are you (or anyone) to say that someone should not have kids, even if they can? God?

 

It's against nature to refuse to fund someone elses lifestyle choice?

 

You come across as very angry.

[pap]

Does being in the media mean she can't achieve these three commendable objectives?

 

No; many do.

 

What can you never do that others do being funded by tax payers money?

 

The list is endless, but would incorporate any sort of money being spent on a specific group of people, youth clubs. I could put a real Tory head on and argue that as a bloke that barely gets ill, with a family much the same, I'm paying too much for every bugger on the NHS. I'm not using it. I'm healthier than those people - not a burden. Why should I pay? I'm not using it.

 

We pay because we want it if someone we care about needs it. Similarly, and imo, we should pay for kids come what may and ensure that they have a decent standard of living, whatever díckheads their parents happen to be. Failing to support the kids leads to more problems down the line, and if you take the I shouldn't pay for someone else's kids to its logical conclusion, kids will end up starving. We've already got people reliant on foodbanks, simultaneously a vile indictment of government policy and a testament to the generosity of the British public.

 

It's against nature to refuse to fund someone elses lifestyle choice?

 

It's against nature to say that something naturally capable of conceiving a child is not allowed to conceive said child, based on your own beliefs. Because that's what your funding bollócks is really about. Centuries ago, "funding" involved being able to hunt your own food, FFS.

 

Goes against empathy to want to deny support to kids based on your prejudice toward their parents.

 

You come across as very angry.

 

Sometimes, yes.

[Polaroid Saint]

Inexplicable envy refers to people who are well off themselves, thinking that those on benefits and in poverty are living the life of Riley, not those looking to adopt.

 

I fundamentally disagree with any sort of parental fitness test. For one, life will be full of dull fúcking blobs from suburbia. Enforcement would be a complete pain in the arse, and I'm sorry, but abortion and sterilisation are two possible means of enforcement, however emotive or disturbing you might find it.

 

I'd rather we spend money making sure every kid was fed, housed and educated at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

 

Agree with all of that tbh.

[Lighthouse]

Away working in Sweden and I've just found this again. Obviously it's impossible to enforce such a law.

 

I think it's a fundamental necessity that you should be able to pay for your child with no help from the state, before it is conceived. Benefits are for those who have fallen on harder times, not for people to plan their lives around using them.

[KingdomCome]

The list is endless

 

So from this endless list of publically funded things that you can't use you've chosen to pick one thing that receives virtually no public funding and one thing that you can use.

 

 

It's against nature to say that something naturally capable of conceiving a child is not allowed to conceive said child, based on your own beliefs. Because that's what your funding bollócks is really about. Centuries ago, "funding" involved being able to hunt your own food, FFS.

Thanks for telling me what I really mean. I thought I just meant that people shouldn't be encouraged to bring children into the world if they can't afford to look after that child properly. How wrong was I?!

 

While we're talking about what's "natural" and hunting for food. Nature dictates that the weak die. Survival of the fittest. A poor standard to look to in a civil society. I'm a little perplexed why you hold it in such high regard. Why not just not give birth?

[pap]

So from this endless list of publically funded things that you can't use you've chosen to pick one thing that receives virtually no public funding and one thing that you can use.

 

No, I picked quite a few examples. I really don't know why people bother with retorts like this. Defeated by the scrollbar, mush - whether you selectively quote or not.

 

Thanks for telling me what I really mean. I thought I just meant that people shouldn't be encouraged to bring children into the world if they can't afford to look after that child properly. How wrong was I?!

 

With no further thought as to what comes next, which is why you've dodged every serious point about enforcement, what happens to the kids, what happens to the parents, etc.

 

How much money is enough money? Surely we can't rely on an unstable job market to see these people through? They could be a burden at any minute, so give us all a figure that you think is a guaranteed safe amount so that the kids never be a burden to the state.

 

While we're talking about what's "natural" and hunting for food. Nature dictates that the weak die. Survival of the fittest. A poor standard to look to in a civil society. I'm a little perplexed why you hold it in such high regard. Why not just not give birth?

 

So instead we have the thriving of the richest.

 

Look, you've had a go and I'm sure you're very proud of your contribution, but if you're going to wax faux clueless on what is a very simple point; that someone's natural ability to have kids trumps the requirements of a 300 year old central banking system, then there's no point in continuing this discussion, particularly when you've no follow up points for your fantastic "stop poor people having kids" idea.

[LGTL]

Any female that has their job listed on Facebook as 'stay at home mummy' needs to have their child/children taken off them instantly.

Edited 17 September, 2014 by LGTL

[Whitey Grandad]

Any female that has their job listed on Facebook as 'stay at home mummy' needs to have their child/children taken off them instantly.

 

What??? Are you saying that every child should be put in a crèche and the mothers forced to work? If the husband can afford to support the household then there is nothing wrong with the mother being at home to raise the child. In fact I would go further and say that this is the ideal home.

[CB Saint]

Any female that has their job listed on Facebook as 'stay at home mummy' needs to have their child/children taken off them instantly.

 

I reckon this could be a winner in the bite stakes.

[KingdomCome]

No, I picked quite a few examples. I really don't know why people bother with retorts like this. Defeated by the scrollbar, mush - whether you selectively quote or not.

Please feel free to highlight a couple of the examples you picked. I only see youth clubs and the NHS.

 

 

With no further thought as to what comes next, which is why you've dodged every serious point about enforcement, what happens to the kids, what happens to the parents, etc.

 

So if a total solution is impossible we should just endorse the status quo. Why bother making drugs illegal?

 

Look, you've had a go and I'm sure you're very proud of your contribution, but if you're going to wax faux clueless on what is a very simple point; that someone's natural ability to have kids trumps the requirements of a 300 year old central banking system, then there's no point in continuing this discussion, particularly when you've no follow up points for your fantastic "stop poor people having kids" idea.

I'm evidently not as fluent in clueless as you so as you are reducing this to a slagging match I agree it's time to draw it to a close.

[pap]

Please feel free to highlight a couple of the examples you picked. I only see youth clubs and the NHS.

 

Asks for more information when it's still there!

 

 

So if a total solution is impossible we should just endorse the status quo. Why bother making drugs illegal?

 

Changes the subject to something I've been discussing for six years.

 

I'm evidently not as fluent in clueless as you so as you are reducing this to a slagging match I agree it's time to draw it to a close.

 

For your next trick, rub a couple of ten pound notes together for 24 hours and let us know how many children are born.

[bridge too far]

What??? Are you saying that every child should be put in a crèche and the mothers forced to work? If the husband can afford to support the household then there is nothing wrong with the mother being at home to raise the child. In fact I would go further and say that this is the ideal home.

 

Or, of course, the wife could be the breadwinner and the husband could stay at home. Don't stereotype old chap!

[Whitey Grandad]

Or, of course, the wife could be the breadwinner and the husband could stay at home. Don't stereotype old chap!

 

Of course, totally agree, it's just that typing long essays on an ipad gets tedious. For 'husband' read 'breadwinner' and 'wife' read full-time child and home carer.

[Saint-Fred]

Now that survival of the fittest is no longer an issue (what with medical advances and welfare state supporting those that otherwise would starve. Does this mean we live at the end of human evolution or will separate species evolve over time based on class and wealth? (Although as Katie price is proving the reality star trend means anybody even without talent can have wealth now)

[Whitey Grandad]

Now that survival of the fittest is no longer an issue (what with medical advances and welfare state supporting those that otherwise would starve. Does this mean we live at the end of human evolution or will separate species evolve over time based on class and wealth? (Although as Katie price is proving the reality star trend means anybody even without talent can have wealth now)

 

That's a very interesting thought. Have you ever read 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley? Incredibly prescient for 1931.

[aintforever]

Now that survival of the fittest is no longer an issue (what with medical advances and welfare state supporting those that otherwise would starve. Does this mean we live at the end of human evolution or will separate species evolve over time based on class and wealth? (Although as Katie price is proving the reality star trend means anybody even without talent can have wealth now)

 

It's been reverse evolution for a while now, anyone with brains has the number of offspring they can afford whereas it's the dumb ****ers who breed like there's no tomorrow, because sex if free.

[Jonnyboy]

Now that survival of the fittest is no longer an issue (what with medical advances and welfare state supporting those that otherwise would starve. Does this mean we live at the end of human evolution or will separate species evolve over time based on class and wealth? (Although as Katie price is proving the reality star trend means anybody even without talent can have wealth now)

 

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Hokie]

Just checking in on this thread again, and I am confused. Are we testing for wealth, brains, or being free from all government support before licensing parents? Or do we reckon it's all the same thing?

 

I get that unlicensed breeders will be aborted, sterilized, and/or have children taken away from them. That's a nice touch. I often think that the only thing wrong with government is its limited authority over family decisions.