Is having children an automatic right?

[chem1st]

In the light of the Baby P debacle and that woman who hid her child for reward money this is a question I often ask myself and I wonder what others think. A friend of mine who worked amongst the underclass said a few years ago that if it were up to him there would be compulsory sterilisation that could only be reversed on application. I told him he was an extremist and took my usual liberal leftie view but...I saw a Swedish politician recently saying that messed up junkie women are given a pill that makes them infertile for a year and the situation is reviewed annually according to their behaviour. The other issue is the much hated situation where Vicki Pollard types knock out kids by various Waynes and Kevins to live at the taxpayers expense while wailing that they are entitled if anyone dares criticise them. In reality for normal people is it not plain common sense to not have kids if you have no money or security? Why should the taxpayer cover the difference?

 

Is having children an automatic right? No.

However, those that are capable of having children, and whom wish to do so, will. Even those whom aren't capable might use scientific advances to breed.

 

There are many unwanted children, and the state will pay you to have them.

 

Our nation's most precious resource. And even the state don't want them!

 

We have a welfare state. Taxpayers pay for everything, pensions come out of todays money, childcare comes out of today's money (although it is quite apparent children are now born with state debt). When deciding to have a child you should consider the welfare state. It would be foolish for people not to factor it into your equations, generally people don't. You have to laugh when people contribute to the state but don't use it to their advantage. We pay towards children because we need them and our own futures will be affected by their's.

 

Children receive benefit from taxpayers and as taxpayers they pay towards the development and upkeep of children. If you can afford to have a child at 20,25 with help from the state which you support, have one. Even if you don't contribute, have one. Don't complain 20 years after when your body has packed in. Seriously. You made a mistake, you can't change the past. Sorry, it was your choice not to have a child. Don't begrudge others, taxpayers/non taxpayers, because for our state to succeed we need a steady supply of children.

 

To be perfectly honest, our state only functions as it does, because (working) population grows.

[chem1st]

The problem with that is...the criteria of proof that you are capable. How can you "prove" you're capable before the fact? Money? Job? House? Car?...None of those 'make' you a good parent...yet all of them can contribute. There are probably as much *****d up kids on the streets from so called wealthy/healthy parents....are they inc in the eugenics programme?

 

The question should be, should some somebody be allowed to create human life naturally?

 

And the answer is Yes.

 

Should people be allowed to kill others or sterilise them if they personally deem them to be unworthy?

 

The answer is No.

 

should the state be allowed to take a child at risk away from a parent and give them a better life.

 

Probably.

[chem1st]

Can we actually afford as a country to keep going the way we are, and allow the present rate at which the country is growing?

 

Afford what?

 

Food, 3% financial growth?, to wage war, to meet current oil demand, to keep pensions high enough, to keep state wages growing, to give MP's pay rises?, to sell of state companies, to allow immigrants in, allow people to have kids, pay benefits?

[fake]

Under the human rights act:

 

Article 12 states that "men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family." Civil partnerships are also included. The state have no right to interfere and only in exceptional circumstances can they.

 

Those people also have the right to seek IVF or other fertility treatment to help them have children.

 

Unmarried partners can argue their right to have children under Article 8.

 

So basically it is a right and no one should interfere with that right, state or otherwise.

[Guest sibon]

Self control of your body and thus your fertility is a right. Having the state pay for your poor decisions, that shouldn't be a right.

 

So, what is the solution? Abdicating responsibility for the upbringing of a child isn't the way forward. If the parent(s) don't have the resources to do it, what happens next?

[Cyclone]

The state controls your decisions.

 

Many an able man amongst us has the ability to wage war upon another and take from him his possessions and use them to provide for his family. The state will stop them from doing so.

 

But that man is a subject of the state. Subsistence payments are necessary.

 

You think that the state should pay for children because it stops people stealing. You have some weird moral values.

[Cyclone]

So, what is the solution? Abdicating responsibility for the upbringing of a child isn't the way forward. If the parent(s) don't have the resources to do it, what happens next?

 

I didn't say I had the answers.

[mossdog]

In someways the poster is right - i would say a cap on children may be better though. Maybe there should be a proper debate on the subject.

The vast majority of people on the planet past and present were not directly planned,but are here by default..............makes you realize that we are not really in control,but nature is!

[mossdog]

So, what is the solution? Abdicating responsibility for the upbringing of a child isn't the way forward. If the parent(s) don't have the resources to do it, what happens next?

In the Sunday Times this week is the story of a "bloke" who has 12 children mostly by different women,still lives with his male pal on benefits in a council house.Cost to the taxpayer over £2 million!........................solution? castrate him! publicly if possible!.......you got any problem with that?As this post may not please the PC brigade, I expect to have any further posts removed......................oops how right I was!

[Mr Prime]

Under the human rights act:

 

Article 12 states that "men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family." Civil partnerships are also included. The state have no right to interfere and only in exceptional circumstances can they.

 

Those people also have the right to seek IVF or other fertility treatment to help them have children.

 

Unmarried partners can argue their right to have children under Article 8.

 

So basically it is a right and no one should interfere with that right, state or otherwise.

 

A perfect answer. Maybe the question should be "do those wanting children have the right to expect others to pay for it?"

 

I would say yes if you are a taxpayer, no if you are not and even then if you are on a low income then no after the first.

 

I sometimes wonder what would happen if a government announced the end of benefits in 5 years except for the disabled or injured.