No contraception, no dole

[anfisa]

And if your child is a female? The culture of the Chinese is that boys weren't discriminated against. Many infant females were murdered as a resultant pressure of the 1 child policy.

 

Removing a right to bare a child (life) isn't much different to removing a life..they both have the same outcome..only one is dressed up as a policy.

 

Any one prepared to kill a child because it is the wrong sex should be forcibly sterilised because they do not deserve children.

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2015 at 15:46 ----------

 

 

But, in my eyes, the issue is down to inequality. Nothing to do with people having children that they can't afford. Give people well paid, permanent employment and the problem is eased massively.

 

Who do you think is responsible for giving people well paid, permanent employment?

Edited January 6, 2015 by anfisa

[Hots on]

and the rest of the mob who want to stop materially poor people having children.

 

Materially poor people CAN have children for me; the issue is the money needed to raise the children and it can not be right that degenerate non contributing people have an automatic right to taxpayers money so as to ensure that the children get what they need.

My solution would be to have the new born taken from them and put in to a care system or let a decent family adopt the child until the parents pull themselves together.

 

I do realise that this approach is much more expensive (in the short term) than the status quo, but this issue isn't about money for me, its about repairing society.

[alternageek]

Mod Note:

 

Sexist and abusive language will not be tolerated. These posts will be removed and users will face a ban from posting.

Thank you.

[Plain Talker]

Alternageek, I want to object to the description attached to my deleted post. It was not at all sexist, I was complaining about the now-removed offensive and sexist comments

[aliceBB]

Plain Talker, your message box is full!

[chem1st]

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".

 

Instead of forcibly sterilising people we could replenish the social housing stock.

 

We could build 10 million units of social housing in a decade if we wanted.

[tinfoilhat]

Instead of forcibly sterilising people we could replenish the social housing stock.

 

We could build 10 million units of social housing in a decade if we wanted.

 

Why on earth do we want to do that. How many more people do you want in this country chem? 100 million? 150 million?

[chem1st]

Why on earth do we want to do that. How many more people do you want in this country chem? 100 million? 150 million?

 

To better house the people in the country and have spare capacity for the immigrants we will most likely receive. Instead of people having 1m^2 space less per person per year, we could increase people's access to housing and the amount of housing space they can occupy.

 

Improving the health of many in the process, reducing demand on NHS services in the future.

 

Especially to end homeless and the shockingly low life expectancy of people who find themselves homeless and unable to acquire housing that is essential for a healthy life and in many cases to merely sustain one's life!

[anfisa]

Instead of forcibly sterilising people we could replenish the social housing stock.

 

We could build 10 million units of social housing in a decade if we wanted.

 

Do you want them to be built on allotments, school playing fields, farmland, woodland, floodplains, or parks?

[chem1st]

Do you want them to be built on allotments, school playing fields, farmland, woodland, floodplains, or parks?

 

No I think we should have requirements for amenities to go with housing, such as 2 allotments per 100 new dwellings, access to a small park within a 1 mile radius and a large one within a 5 mile radius, access to schools playing fields etc.

 

We have plenty of land, enough for a house and allotment each, and we'd still have plenty. We don't need an allotment each, there isn't enough demand for that many. But if we did, there would be enough room.