Jump to content

Is having children an automatic right?


Recommended Posts

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?

 

The child be taken into care or vouchers for baby products like food and cots are given out. No money, no housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the way you describe yourself as a "liberal leftie" in the OP, when it is absolutely clear that you are neither liberal, nor a leftie.

 

My views were formed before I started work when I dismissed talk of scroungers as reactionary Sun talk. Having since worked hard and met countless people who don't and find it funny I have changed my views. Having spoken to social worker and police friends who's views I trust I have changed. The last straw for me was reading how many households exist where 3 generations haven't worked and then the Rauol Moat bandwagon.

 

I would like to be wrong but lets' face it I'm not. In terms of unions, womens/gays/ethnic minorities rights I'm a total Guardian reader. It's not possible to have simple left/right views anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state steals from its subjects via taxation, it prevents them from building housing, it prevents them from working.

 

The state steals with taxation? Do you think that without taxes it would be a better country and people would build their own houses?

 

Any place in the world without a state or properly functioning state is a hell hole e.g. Somalia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

I've got quite a few problems with that. The major one being that castration after the fact isn't a very effective solution.

 

You really should have thought your post through a little better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . 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?
In my parents' generation, people had to save up until they could afford to have a family (or a car, or fitted carpet, or a washing machine, or a new-fangled colour television).

 

People today expect everything for nothing because the do-gooders have convinced them they have a 'right' to everything they want, whether or not they have earned it.

 

Nobody should hav ethe 'right' to anything they have not earned or made personal provision for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my parents' generation, people had to save up until they could afford to have a family (or a car, or fitted carpet, or a washing machine, or a new-fangled colour television).

 

People today expect everything for nothing because the do-gooders have convinced them they have a 'right' to everything they want, whether or not they have earned it.

 

Nobody should hav ethe 'right' to anything they have not earned or made personal provision for.

 

Definitely. The 60's social revolution was good but the pendulum swung too far. Now people live in huge debt juggling cards never worrying about the day the baliffs turn up. The egalitarianism trend now means that rotten, lazy, loud antisocial people will walk around shouting "I'm as good as you" or "you can't judge me". Does a Vicky Pollard really think she is as good as a working taxpayer with some education, taste and codes of conduct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely. The 60's social revolution was good but the pendulum swung too far. Now people live in huge debt juggling cards never worrying about the day the baliffs turn up. The egalitarianism trend now means that rotten, lazy, loud antisocial people will walk around shouting "I'm as good as you" or "you can't judge me". Does a Vicky Pollard really think she is as good as a working taxpayer with some education, taste and codes of conduct?

 

The Vicky Pollard stereotypical chav is not the one whom is in debt.

 

The people in most debt are in their 40s 50s, 60s. Or those whom have recently been to university.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my parents' generation, people had to save up until they could afford to have a family (or a car, or fitted carpet, or a washing machine, or a new-fangled colour television).

 

People today expect everything for nothing because the do-gooders have convinced them they have a 'right' to everything they want, whether or not they have earned it.

 

Nobody should hav ethe 'right' to anything they have not earned or made personal provision for.

 

Where only the bloke worked, people bought houses in their 20s and had 4 children by 30?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.