tinfoilhat Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I am talking about out of work benefits really in the main. So your claiming Benefit as you dont work and you get pregnant. I think that's wrong, why should the state pay for something you can't afford in the first place without help from taxpayers I see you're point, but the end result could well be starving children, or kids dumped at the social. Do we want a load more kids in care ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AF Removals Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I think every1 has the right to have kids weather your loaded or skint, love comes free and I bet a lot of kids with less money are happier & closer than the 1s with too much & we take a lot of people into this country & pay for them so kids would be my last debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I think every1 has the right to have kids weather your loaded or skint, love comes free and I bet a lot of kids with less money are happier & closer than the 1s with too much Yes, they should be allowed to have kids; but what can happen is that the parents get money to help them raise them. But it gets spent on wide screen TVs and not on swimming or spanish lessons. They get free school meals, why not reduce benefits and give more freebies, but for everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AF Removals Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Yes, they should be allowed to have kids; but what can happen is that the parents get money to help them raise them. But it gets spent on wide screen TVs and not on swimming or spanish lessons. They get free school meals, why not reduce benefits and give more freebies, but for everyone? That's fair enuff I totally understand as when your baby is due some people qualify for the 500 grant & a couple I no jst blew it down town! This is frustrating as I have a baby due & because off our income we can't have it, no too disappointed as it would just go into a bank for the child but it's not the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Yes I know its not possible. But what eckolad is suggesting is that it SHOULD NOT be and couples should get NO EXTRA BENEFITS if they chose to have a.child whilst out of work (on JSA) x Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android If they chose to have a child but how do you prove it? What if their contraception failed and the conception was a mistake? If they then chose to progress the pregnancy would they be advised to terminate under threat of witholding of payments? What if a couple had jobs when they conceived but then lost them during the pregnancy, and if they lost them before the cut-off for terminaion would they be advised to terminate? These kinds of issues throw up a multitude of moral and ethical dilemmas. It's why no politicians will seriously take them on. And I'd expect that when the cost savings were calculated they'd be minimal andyway, say compared to the spend on disability benefits and pensions. Any policy such as this would be political posturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Yes, they should be allowed to have kids; but what can happen is that the parents get money to help them raise them. But it gets spent on wide screen TVs and not on swimming or spanish lessons. They get free school meals, why not reduce benefits and give more freebies, but for everyone? The kids might watch Dora the Explorer on their wide screen TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Yes I know its not possible. But what eckolad is suggesting is that it SHOULD NOT be and couples should get NO EXTRA BENEFITS if they chose to have a.child whilst out of work (on JSA) x Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Get you now, I'm a firm believer that if a couple go on benefits with say 2 kids, they get money for 2 kids, if they add to the number they should stand to that not expect state to keep paying for additional ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erebus Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 One day it will be necessary to make sure the potential parents are suitable for the job. Today everyone qualifies who manages to draw breath. But we now have single parent families and the usual nuclear family, which are a modern invention allowing people to learn on the job. So a bit like learning surgery a couple of hundred years ago or so. So providing a roof, food and such is all that is required, and anything goes with this new form of child-rearing. Sexual abuse of children is so extensive, that it is no longer the sole privilege of the religious organisations, who also are known for their sadistic tendencies, in their workhouses for instance, where strict supervision in their missionary adventures was enjoyed by the elites. So maybe one should think about what childrearing is all about, and not the privilege of couples or singles to abuse, psychologically or physiologically their offspring when and if they feel like it, for their own narrow pleasure. A child requires looking after these days for nearly 2 decades, and one might question if the inexperience of the parents or carer is the only qualification. Obviously state care through Councils or charities allow fringe benefits as has been shown in many recent court cases in the UK and Channel Islands have shown. With 7 billion mouths needing feeding such a reassessment of suitable applicants will inevitably be introduces in the not too distant future. On the other hand with climate change we can enjoy documentaries on TV showing millions starving to death as infotainment, entertainment with a conscience of course. On the other hand let them breed, watch the effect of those that survive childhood, watch how they support those that feed them, watch the world dissolve into what we are now accepting, terror, and pat ourselves on the back for being so creative and inventing the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Do you think people who are on benefits or very low income have kids If they can't afford to bring them up without benefits? Ok people loose their jobs etc through no fault of their own but I am talking about people who are already on the breadline. Personally I think they shouldnt get any handouts if they are already claiming benefits when they get a bun in the oven This seems to be rather simplistic and I am surprised anyone takes the idea seriously.If a person did become pregnant would they need an abortion to retain the right to benefits?This would upset many influential people.No its a silly idea.You have a thing about people living on council estates judging by your other posts-you seem to consider them ignorant and deserving your contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 if poor people didnt have children how would the gov be able to run the country ?the gov needs millions of people to tax them to the hilt to pay for their failures. after all their isnt enough rich people to be able to tax them for the country to be able to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.