Is it time to limit family size?
Discussion
Given the level of "Green" this and "Green" that. Reduce carbon footprints, reduce emmissions, reduce landfill, and reduce polution etc., etc.,
Is it not time we set a limit on the amount of children a family are permitted to bring into this crowded world. With diminishing resources and an increasing population on what is a shrinking landscape; is it not time to put in place legislation to regulate family size.
Government could start by no longer paying any benefits for child number three or more. If parents wish to breed beyond their means then they should support the excess without state help (yours and mine more likely).
Having large families should be seen as anti-social as are those of us who do not recycle or those of us who do not have "Green blood" flowing through their veigns.
With the onset of global warming affecting crops and food supply can we really afford to support larger than average family sizes in the western world?
Is it not time we set a limit on the amount of children a family are permitted to bring into this crowded world. With diminishing resources and an increasing population on what is a shrinking landscape; is it not time to put in place legislation to regulate family size.
Government could start by no longer paying any benefits for child number three or more. If parents wish to breed beyond their means then they should support the excess without state help (yours and mine more likely).
Having large families should be seen as anti-social as are those of us who do not recycle or those of us who do not have "Green blood" flowing through their veigns.
With the onset of global warming affecting crops and food supply can we really afford to support larger than average family sizes in the western world?
Edited by XMG5 on Monday 12th April 13:04
XMG5 said:
Given the level of "Green" this and "Green" that. Reduce carbon footprints, reduce emmissions, reduce landfill, and reduce polution etc., etc.,
Is it not time we set a limit on the amount of children a family are permitted to bring into this crowded world. With diminishing resources and an increasing population on what is a shrinking landscape; is it not time to put in place legislation to regulate family size.
Government could start by no longer paying any benefits for child number three or more. If parents wish to breed beyond their means then they should support the excess without state help (yours and mine more likely).
Having large families should be seen as anti-social as are those of us who do not recycle or those of us who do not have "Green blood" flowing through their veigns.
With the onset of global warming affecting crops and food supply can we really afford support large than average family sizes in the western world?
Eh?Is it not time we set a limit on the amount of children a family are permitted to bring into this crowded world. With diminishing resources and an increasing population on what is a shrinking landscape; is it not time to put in place legislation to regulate family size.
Government could start by no longer paying any benefits for child number three or more. If parents wish to breed beyond their means then they should support the excess without state help (yours and mine more likely).
Having large families should be seen as anti-social as are those of us who do not recycle or those of us who do not have "Green blood" flowing through their veigns.
With the onset of global warming affecting crops and food supply can we really afford support large than average family sizes in the western world?
V88Dicky said:
XMG5 said:
Given the level of "Green" this and "Green" that. Reduce carbon footprints, reduce emmissions, reduce landfill, and reduce polution etc., etc.,
Is it not time we set a limit on the amount of children a family are permitted to bring into this crowded world. With diminishing resources and an increasing population on what is a shrinking landscape; is it not time to put in place legislation to regulate family size.
Government could start by no longer paying any benefits for child number three or more. If parents wish to breed beyond their means then they should support the excess without state help (yours and mine more likely).
Having large families should be seen as anti-social as are those of us who do not recycle or those of us who do not have "Green blood" flowing through their veigns.
With the onset of global warming affecting crops and food supply can we really afford support large than average family sizes in the western world?
Eh?Is it not time we set a limit on the amount of children a family are permitted to bring into this crowded world. With diminishing resources and an increasing population on what is a shrinking landscape; is it not time to put in place legislation to regulate family size.
Government could start by no longer paying any benefits for child number three or more. If parents wish to breed beyond their means then they should support the excess without state help (yours and mine more likely).
Having large families should be seen as anti-social as are those of us who do not recycle or those of us who do not have "Green blood" flowing through their veigns.
With the onset of global warming affecting crops and food supply can we really afford support large than average family sizes in the western world?
Scraggles said:
shame all the immigrants on HB can't be restricted to say 2 kids and not the usual 10 or so they seem to like
not just an immigrant problem - far from it.The
who has just put my kid bro in intensive care is the second eldest of ten kids. None working, living in a huge fking house I'm paying for.While the idea of controlling who breeds is fine in principle there is one HUGE snag.
Do you really want someone like comrade winky saying who can an who can't breed. Can you imagine the amount of hassle it would be to get a shagging license it is hard enough to get the DVLA to get a driving license right.
Do you really want someone like comrade winky saying who can an who can't breed. Can you imagine the amount of hassle it would be to get a shagging license it is hard enough to get the DVLA to get a driving license right.
Strangely Brown said:
swerni said:
Why should they get any benefits at all?
It may be their right to have children.
But it's also their duty to fking pay for them.
It may be their right to have children.
But it's also their duty to f
king pay for them.
Absolutely spot on.
These 16 year old mums that do get knocked up can ask the father for help but if he won't then they can just leave the babies at charity orphanages. If there are no orphanages they can just starve or die or something.
Has anyone mentioned forced steralisation for people without jobs yet?
swerni said:
chim666 said:
XMG5 said:
Government could start by no longer paying any benefits for child number three or more. If parents wish to breed beyond their means then they should support the excess without state help (yours and mine more likely).
Although I'd say no benefit after child number two.
It may be their right to have children.
But it's also their duty to f
king pay for them.Lots of things I want in life that I can't afford. I don't go out and get them and expect someone else to pay
I presume you think education shouldn't be provided free at the point of use either?
swerni said:
el stovey said:
Strangely Brown said:
swerni said:
Why should they get any benefits at all?
It may be their right to have children.
But it's also their duty to fking pay for them.
It may be their right to have children.
But it's also their duty to f
king pay for them.Absolutely spot on.
These 16 year old mums that do get knocked up can ask the father for help but if he won't then they can just leave the babies at charity orphanages. If there are no orphanages they can just starve or die or something.
Has anyone mentioned forced steralisation for people without jobs yet?
It's only become an issue since the welfare state lost the plot.
It should be there to support the needy not the "wanty"
If people actually are encouraged to have children just to get more money then it's all gone wrong somewhere but I don't think we can simply say don't support people who need help. How then do we decide which 16 year old mum needs help and which just wants a new telly?
Edited by el stovey on Monday 12th April 10:01
thinfourth2 said:
While the idea of controlling who breeds is fine in principle there is one HUGE snag.
Do you really want someone like comrade winky saying who can an who can't breed. Can you imagine the amount of hassle it would be to get a shagging license it is hard enough to get the DVLA to get a driving license right.
Simple solution really, just end the child allowance benefits to parents who have never bothered to work and the underclass will be stopped from breeding Do you really want someone like comrade winky saying who can an who can't breed. Can you imagine the amount of hassle it would be to get a shagging license it is hard enough to get the DVLA to get a driving license right.
Be interesting to see the teenage pregnancy rate if that happened...el stovey said:
Sure but what should a government do if some teenager still gets knocked up and can't afford to look after her baby.
If people actually are encouraged to have children just to get more money then it's all gone wrong somewhere but I don't think we can simply say don't support people who need help. How then do we decide which 16 year old mum needs help and which just wants a new telly?
It started going wrong when they got rid of poor houses IMO.If people actually are encouraged to have children just to get more money then it's all gone wrong somewhere but I don't think we can simply say don't support people who need help. How then do we decide which 16 year old mum needs help and which just wants a new telly?
Of course there's always medical experimentation, it'd keep PETA happy.
Bill said:
It started going wrong when they got rid of poor houses IMO.
Snag is, in my more extreme moments I find myself thinking the same. The benefits situation has got truly out of control in the UK. Things have polarised such that those who do work need to work ever harder to pay more tax to find those who don't work. Those who do work can't afford kids until later in life. Those who don't work simply have more kids.
How do you dissuade those who don't work from having kids, thus perpetuating the situation? Not giving them a place of their own, and expecting them to live with their parents (/grandparents) would be a good answer. Couple that with no increase in benefits and it's sounding good. Snag is that you then get into overcrowding, which is probably against 'human rights' (and, more practically, is not healthy for anyone.) So, let's give them a well-managed place to live where they can be looked after, the kids can be decently educated and the parents put to useful work. As and when they find a job which allows them to move into their own place they are welcome to leave.
Sounds like the poor house to me.
Oli.
....Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff