mumkin Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Perhaps we should adopt this. It would certainly reduce the pull on our diminishing social housing stock. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/no-contraception-no-dole/story-fn8v83qk-1227169545069?nk=553a2934126430c3883e1558deae7173 "IF a person’s sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Perhaps we should adopt this. It would certainly reduce the pull on our diminishing social housing stock. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/no-contraception-no-dole/story-fn8v83qk-1227169545069?nk=553a2934126430c3883e1558deae7173 "IF a person’s sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit". You can 'have contraception' (that is easy to ensure), but how do the authorities propose to ensure that it is used, and used effectively? Spy cameras in people's bedrooms, or what? It also seems to be discriminatory against Catholics and other religious groups whose consciences do not permit artificial contraception methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mumkin Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 You can 'have contraception' (that is easy to ensure), but how do the authorities propose to ensure that it is used, and used effectively? Spy cameras in people's bedrooms, or what? It also seems to be discriminatory against Catholics and other religious groups whose consciences do not permit artificial contraception methods. Have a baby = no dole. Religion has no part, it will be a law of the land....like it or ship out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedy69 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) You can 'have contraception' (that is easy to ensure), but how do the authorities propose to ensure that it is used, and used effectively? Spy cameras in people's bedrooms, or what? It also seems to be discriminatory against Catholics and other religious groups whose consciences do not permit artificial contraception methods. So are you saying we should bow down to other religious groups who are in the minority? Edited January 3, 2015 by alternageek amended vb tags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anfisa Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 You can 'have contraception' (that is easy to ensure), but how do the authorities propose to ensure that it is used, and used effectively? Spy cameras in people's bedrooms, or what? It also seems to be discriminatory against Catholics and other religious groups whose consciences do not permit artificial contraception methods. Implant or monthly injections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) "IF a person’s sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit". I agree with this, they must have long term contraception, I have seen similar cheme in the USA. This could never be put into place by a Government seen ass millionaires just looking after their mates. This would be a good policy for the children of alcoholics, and people with any form of adiction. http://www.bestbeginnings.org.uk/drugs A 38-year-old heroin addict, identified only as John, has become the group’s(Project Prevention} first British customer, receiving £200 to undergo a vasectomy. He will join the 90,000 or so other British men, and 500,000 Americans, who will undergo the same procedure this year – albeit out of a simple desire for convenient contraception. Edited January 3, 2015 by El Cid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) I'm not arguing for or against the scheme on moral grounds (fwiw I think Catholics and other anti-contraception groups are misguided), simply pointing out the impracticability of enforcing it. If a scheme cannot be fairly and reasonably enforced, it's pointless. Have a baby = no dole. Religion has no part, it will be a law of the land....like it or ship out! But that is not what is being proposed. Refusing benefits to people who have babies is patently unfair on the babies (you wouldn't want to see children deprived of food, clothing and shelter, would you?)...unless you forcibly take them into care at birth and allow them to be adopted by rich people. I don't think we would want to belong to a society like that, though. What IS being proposed - refusing benefits to people who refuse to accept contraception - is doomed to failure because a local authority/govt dept cannot in practice ensure that the contraception is being used. Horses to water, etc. Edited January 3, 2015 by aliceBB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 An idea by a former politician, ousted nearly twenty years ago who wrote this for a Rupert Murdoch paper. Gary Johns is a former minister who has not been in Government since 1996. People on welfare should be required to have contraception to prevent parents of 'poor means, poor skills or bad character' having children. He cites two cases, both indigenous Australians. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 The OP's idea is atrocious and a wholly unnaceptable interference in other people's business. ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 10:26 ---------- Perhaps we should adopt this. It would certainly reduce the pull on our diminishing social housing stock. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/no-contraception-no-dole/story-fn8v83qk-1227169545069?nk=553a2934126430c3883e1558deae7173 "IF a person’s sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit". Are you a fan of fascist ideology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 The OP's idea is atrocious and a wholly unnaceptable interference in other people's business. ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 10:26 ---------- Are you a fan of fascist ideology? I suppose you think that workless people on benefits bringing a child into the world and raising the child on benefits money is okey-dokey. Its no wonder the western world is going to ruin because of dimwits like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now