The right to reproduce?

who what when

Its amazing that literally anyone is allowed to become a parent!
Surely there should be some sort of process which can be approved or declined by the relevent authorities. With only those who are deemed suitable being approved.
Its the only way to combat the scumbag epidemic we currently in the midst of!

MrPudding

who what when wrote: »

Its amazing that literally anyone is allowed to become a parent!
Surely there should be some sort of process which can be approved or declined by the relevent authorities. With only those who are deemed suitable being approved.
Its the only way to combat the scumbag epidemic we currently in the midst of!

Yeah, good idea. And maybe we could forcibly sterilise those that we think would never be good enough? You know, scumbags? Or ginger people.

MrP

turgon

Simply remove child benefit and other welfare supports, promote adoption, and watch the number of underprivileged kids drop.

deadhead13

The State has absolutely no right, nor should have the right, to determine who can and who cannot reproduce.

deadhead13

deadhead13 wrote: »

The State has absolutely no right, nor should have the right, to determine who can and who cannot reproduce.

I agree... however the state is not there to support people who go way beyond their means to provide for their own families. I have no problem with welfare supporting small families, but its stupid to provide a "free" resource to people who are incapable of acting responsibly. These people don't need to have so many children. They're not working a large tract of land or providing a service that requires such numbers of offspring.

My parents stopped after having three children. My dad got the snip. Their choice because it wasn't viable to have more. I don't know too many families whose parents are working that have more than three children. And yet, I know families whose parents haven't worked in years, and they have 6-7 offspring. Birth control is fully available should they not wish the more permanent solution.

While I don't agree with China's one child law, I can see the possible benefits to such a law on different terms. After living in China, and speaking to Chinese parents about it, it does have some merit depending on how it is implemented.

deadhead13

The average number of children per family in Ireland is 1.4, compared to 1981 when the figure was 2.2. Which would suggest that families of 6-7, irrespective of social economic class, are not common.

K4t

People can reproduce to their heart's content but they shouldn't expect other people to pay for their offspring through taxes.

deadhead13

deadhead13 wrote: »

The average number of children per family in Ireland is 1.4, compared to 1981 when the figure was 2.2. Which would suggest that families of 6-7, irrespective of social economic class, are not common.

Can I get a linky for where you got those statistics? Curious to look at it myself.

deadhead13

The CSO census.

http://www.cso.ie/Census/documents/2006 Principal Demographic Re...pdf

I'm having problems getting the link to work but you will be able to find it from the address.

allabouteve

who what when wrote: »

Surely there should be some sort of process which can be approved or declined by the relevent authorities. With only those who are deemed suitable being approved.

Who do you think that should be? Who would you trust to make those kinds of decisions? Would there be a government Eugenics panel, and what criteria would they follow? Would we determine purely on economic and parenting skills, or would we sieze the opportunity to 'weed out' those of lesser physical appeal or intellectual talent?

Remember, its been done. Those considered 'deficient' were sterilised in a huge Swedish scandal some generations ago (they got a lot of assesments wrong), and the best example would of course be Nazi Germany, and the unspeakable horror of their breeding laws.

I would never, ever, consider this a viable option in a civilised society, no matter how unsuitable some parents turn out to be.

K4t wrote: »

People can reproduce to their heart's content but they shouldn't expect other people to pay for their offspring through taxes.

I understand the sentiment. But the people who suffer most through welfare cuts aren't the parents you want punished, its the innocent children who neither chose their parents nor asked to be born.

Sharik

deadhead13 wrote: »

The State has absolutely no right, nor should have the right, to determine who can and who cannot reproduce.

Yes.

But we have to do something!

"The raging monster upon the land is population growth. In its presence, sustainability is but a fragile theoretical construct. To say, as many do, that the difficulties of nations are not due to people but to poor ideology or land-use management is sophistic." -- E.O. Wilson

growthmadness.org

waitinforatrain

who what when wrote: »

Its the only way to combat the scumbag epidemic we currently in the midst of!

No. It's not. It's called the justice system, pity we don't have one.

We can't really expect the Justice system to fix the social problems with our culture.. That's not its purpose.

Joey the lips

who what when wrote: »

Its amazing that literally anyone is allowed to become a parent!
Surely there should be some sort of process which can be approved or declined by the relevent authorities. With only those who are deemed suitable being approved.
Its the only way to combat the scumbag epidemic we currently in the midst of!

You were watching the hugh grant film! Go on tell the truth! the famous "Anynobody can become a parent but you must sit a test to learn to drive a car" line is brilliant

I think parenting is like squatters rights it has always been natural and there so laws were never needed,

Considering back in achient times we were have kids at 13 years old I think we have come a long way! Right maybe not in some parts of dublin

But seriously the gift of life... Its a wonderful thing its a beautiful thing and the day you start to restrict it you end up with a situation like china has seen where parents are giving up kids cause they were girls and not boys etc.


By the way coming from a working class area, being the offspring of a 12 year old and not being propperly educated might lead to you being a scumbag so why dont we just exterminate this kind of person and wipe the problem out!

Seriously. whats wrong! Is it the fact that an unmarried mother or 12 year old has got a house and you have not!

There are plenty of scumbags around that come from reasonably comfortable families... Its no longer the case that scumbags only come from the poorer areas. In the last 10 years I've noticed a lot for scum coming from respectable families.

Fugly

Although I do, when at my wits end with humanity suggest it, with me as the person who chooseswho gets to reproduce, of course:rolleyes:, I could never seriously endorse such a plan.

As for cutting benefits, that only hurts the child who is innocent and shouldn't suffer the punishment for the parents lack of responsibilty.

What is needed is a social service that works and has legislation to back it up and a judicial system that is suitable for todays society.

Blue_Wolf

A potential 21st century Hitler?

who what when wrote: »

Its amazing that literally anyone is allowed to become a parent!
Surely there should be some sort of process which can be approved or declined by the relevent authorities. With only those who are deemed suitable being approved.
Its the only way to combat the scumbag epidemic we currently in the midst of!

Nevyn

Deleted User wrote: »

There are plenty of scumbags around that come from reasonably comfortable families... Its no longer the case that scumbags only come from the poorer areas. In the last 10 years I've noticed a lot for scum coming from respectable families.

The new latch key kids, parents have money but not time and aren't part of their kids lives but give them money so they feel less guilty and then they wonder why their kids turn out the way they do.

Fugly

Fugly wrote: »

As for cutting benefits, that only hurts the child who is innocent and shouldn't suffer the punishment for the parents lack of responsibilty.

But until a change in the law is brought in against future irresponsibility the problem will continue. I'm not suggesting the removal of benefits for families that already have these children, rather that it be brought in against future endeavours.

Otherwise nothing will ever be allowed to change. Personally, I think this is the reason why nothing really changes in Ireland just given a new spin.

What is needed is a social service that works and has legislation to back it up and a judicial system that is suitable for todays society.

Another pipe-dream. Ireland has been dealing with a crappy welfare system forever, and even when this country had money to spare it still couldn't modernise it properly. Skip around the welfare system, and look to fix problems within our society instead.

Personally I don't think the Judicial system is relevant to the problem. Bad parenting is more of an issue, and I don't think that will change until parents are hit in their wallet for the mistakes of their children (and their own mistakes in raising the children).

RandolphEsq

Fugly wrote: »

As for cutting benefits, that only hurts the child who is innocent and shouldn't suffer the punishment for the parents lack of responsibilty.

But we shouldn't have to pay for those kids. I don't want to look after some random little Johnny through increasing my taxes which already take a ****'s share from my earnings. I would rather that child to die than my family go hungry

RandolphEsq

RandolphEsq wrote: »

But we shouldn't have to pay for those kids. I don't want to look after some random little Johnny through increasing my taxes which already take a ****'s share from my earnings. I would rather that child to die than my family go hungry

Thats rather excessive... We have the means to cover the children that are there now. Its the strain that more children would create that is part of the problem. Within 10 years, many of the current dependents on the system would have moved on, possibly producing incomes of their own.

Virgil°

I'm on the fence with this one. Im all for preserving basic rights but allowing convicted murders,rapists,pedophiles etc.. to reproduce as they see fit doesnt sit easy with me.

MrPirate

who what when wrote: »

Its amazing that literally anyone is allowed to become a parent!
Surely there should be some sort of process which can be approved or declined by the relevent authorities. With only those who are deemed suitable being approved.
Its the only way to combat the scumbag epidemic we currently in the midst of!

When did we start living in Oceania? Sh*t, better find Goldstein....

philologos

Irrespective of a useless debate of whether or not there should be restrictions on who can become a parent, we soon have to face up to the reality that one cannot stop people from having them. It's a biological function of peoples bodies.

ocianain

deadhead13 wrote: »

The State has absolutely no right, nor should have the right, to determine who can and who cannot reproduce.

In America they use to pull people off the street and forcibly sterilize them, for a great read see, War Against The Weak by Edwin Black. Americas eugenics program inspired Hitler.:eek:

cL0h

deadhead13 wrote: »

The average number of children per family in Ireland is 1.4, compared to 1981 when the figure was 2.2. Which would suggest that families of 6-7, irrespective of social economic class, are not common.

deadhead13 wrote: »

The average number of children per family in Ireland is 1.4, compared to 1981 when the figure was 2.2. Which would suggest that families of 6-7, irrespective of social economic class, are not common.

Whoa dodgy maths there deadhead.

If 1 family in 50 fell into a "severely under priviliged" category then they could all be 10 child families and only put your quoted 1.4 average up by 0.17 They could all be 5 child families and only put it up by 0.072

i.e It doesn't suggest large families are uncommon in the underprivileged. It can "suggest" any number of things including the fact that Ireland has high socio economic standards in general. The figures say nothing about the spread.

anonymous_joe

Eugenics is evil in my mind. (Effective, but evil.)

The downside is, lots of children will be born to parents who only had children because they're fcuktards who are neither intelligent nor responsible and thus the worst possible parents.

I'm not saying we should ban scumbags from having kids, or anything so Hitler-ish, but it is sad to see kids suffering because their parents shouldn't ever have been allowed have kids.

deadhead13

cL0h wrote: »

Whoa dodgy maths there deadhead.

If 1 family in 50 fell into a "severely under priviliged" category then they could all be 10 child families and only put your quoted 1.4 average up by 0.17 They could all be 5 child families and only put it up by 0.072

i.e It doesn't suggest large families are uncommon in the underprivileged. It can "suggest" any number of things including the fact that Ireland has high socio economic standards in general. The figures say nothing about the spread.

In 1981 38% of children lived in households with 4-6 children, by 2006 that figure had fallen to 13%. So it is safe to assume that families with 6-7 children are not common in Ireland. I do not know the social economic class of those families who have 6-7 children and said so in my post. In fact all I did say was, family size in Ireland was falling and those with 6-7 are not common. Which was relevant to the post I was replying to. So you are reading something into my post that is not even there.

turgon

Deleted User wrote: »

But until a change in the law is brought in against future irresponsibility the problem will continue. I'm not suggesting the removal of benefits for families that already have these children, rather that it be brought in against future endeavours.

Amen. Cancel Single parents supplement for all new applicants in 10 months time, and reduce CB severely for all new applicants in 10 months time.

Zombrex

who what when wrote: »

Its amazing that literally anyone is allowed to become a parent!
Surely there should be some sort of process which can be approved or declined by the relevent authorities. With only those who are deemed suitable being approved.
Its the only way to combat the scumbag epidemic we currently in the midst of!

You can't punish people for being bad parents before they have the opportunity to be a parent.

You can though punish people for being bad parents if they are actually bad parents.

Rather than spending a huge amount of money testing every single parent in Ireland I would much rather see money poured into a criminally underfunded social worker system

Zombrex

turgon wrote: »

Amen. Cancel Single parents supplement for all new applicants in 10 months time, and reduce CB severely for all new applicants in 10 months time.

And what do you do with the children produced in ten months time

Child Benefit is for the child (it isn't called parent benefit). I totally agree that people abuse the system but I would rather have that taking place than have all the children suffer because you want to make a point about responsibility to parents who are having children without adequate ability to support them.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't punish people for being bad parents before they have the opportunity to be a parent.

Totally agree. Every child is different and the ability to parent comes with experience.

You can though punish people for being bad parents if they are actually bad parents.

No, you can punish people for being awful parents in that they break the law with their children regarding hitting them, molesting, etc. There is no punishment in place for parents who neglect their children, ignore them. or raise them to be delinquents.

Rather than spending a huge amount of money testing every single parent in Ireland I would much rather see money poured into a criminally underfunded social worker system

I'd rather that the parents of children who repeat offend on matters ranging from school attendance, to minor crime be punished in their pockets. People are looking to boost the welfare system. Thats fine in itself, but its never going to be enough if we continue to ignore the social problems.

And what do you do with the children produced in ten months time

Say 12 months instead? The point would be to encourage parents not to have that child if they can't afford to provide for him/her.

Child Benefit is for the child (it isn't called parent benefit). I totally agree that people abuse the system but I would rather have that taking place than have all the children suffer because you want to make a point about responsibility to parents who are having children without adequate ability to support them.

And this is not about making children suffer. It is about Adults acting responsibly. If children are born into a family where there are only a few children, then this measure wouldn't affect them. This would only affect children who were born into a family, because their parents were too stupid to understand the consequences.

If you are always looking for the perfect system without considering the economic cost, you will never achieve that perfect system. Its all right to say that the welfare system should eb given more money, but where does that money comes from? Seriously... when there is the Health service, Education, etc all of which people believe more money is needed for, and all of which affect child growth. So where are these supposed funds to come from considering the size, and relatively few resources available to Ireland?

This country will not get the services it needs as long as people refuse settle for anything less than perfection. Actually quite a bit less than perfection. Time for a reality check.

thebaldsoprano

who what when wrote: »

Its amazing that literally anyone is allowed to become a parent!
Surely there should be some sort of process which can be approved or declined by the relevent authorities. With only those who are deemed suitable being approved.
Its the only way to combat the scumbag epidemic we currently in the midst of!

Sweden had such a policy up until the 70's that employed forced sterilisation to achieve its ends, mainly aimed at poor families and families where there had been a mental illness. IMO such policies say a lot more about the rest of society than the people they're aimed at, if someone is unwilling or unable to look after their kids that's what social services are for.

There's a good about this by Klaus Haro called "The New Man", needless to say, it's not very pleasent...

beans

What if 'benefits' came in the form of stamps and tokens that can be used for child-related things, rather than a cheque that can be spent on other things?

Sorry, I'm not very well versed on all the subtleties of the topic, but it just popped into my head

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

The new latch key kids, parents have money but not time and aren't part of their kids lives but give them money so they feel less guilty and then they wonder why their kids turn out the way they do.

There was an interesting article in last month's Psychologies about the differences in generational parenting. It pointed out that Generation X, children of the baby boomers, were the most neglected children in history, and as a result are raising the most coddled over protected kids in history to over compensate for this.

stovelid

The role and responsibility of parents (and the suitability of people to actually be parents) is an interesting and valid subject for debate, but it's unfortunate that it's always focused on the small minority of Irish families on social welfare as opposed to the families who produce offspring whose financial/professional imprudence costs Irish tax payers billions of Euro or who produce offspring that kick people to death outside middle-class nightclubs.

Max Power1

beans wrote: »

What if 'benefits' came in the form of stamps and tokens that can be used for child-related things, rather than a cheque that can be spent on other things?

Sorry, I'm not very well versed on all the subtleties of the topic, but it just popped into my head

I actually cannot think of one plausible reason to counter this statement. It would stop the career social welfare recipients, but still give the benefit to those who actually need it. Great suggestion.

RandolphEsq

stovelid wrote: »

The role and responsibility of parents (and the suitability of people to actually be parents) is an interesting and valid subject for debate, but it's unfortunate that it's always focused on the small minority of Irish families on social welfare as opposed to the families who produce offspring whose financial/professional imprudence costs Irish tax payers billions of Euro or who produce offspring that kick people to death outside middle-class nightclubs.

What?

stovelid

stovelid wrote: »

The role and responsibility of parents (and the suitability of people to actually be parents) is an interesting and valid subject for debate, but it's unfortunate that it's always focused on the small minority of Irish families on social welfare as opposed to the families who produce offspring whose financial/professional imprudence costs Irish tax payers billions of Euro or who produce offspring that kick people to death outside middle-class nightclubs.

How small is this minority, compared with the total population of people on Welfare? I'm curious as to whether they would indeed be a minority if you took those people on the dole out of the equation?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd rather that the parents of children who repeat offend on matters ranging from school attendance, to minor crime be punished in their pockets. People are looking to boost the welfare system. Thats fine in itself, but its never going to be enough if we continue to ignore the social problems.

That only works on the theory that bad parents will become good parents if it costs them. I see little reason to believe would be the case. A 9 year old running riot on the local estate isn't going to suddenly get loving caring parents because they are being fined. More likely the parents either a) have no idea how to control him, in which case fining them would be pointless or b) are horrible people themselves in which case they would probably just beat him and lock him in his room. Grand for the short term but does very little to stop the child turning into a life long menace to society.

Deleted User wrote: »

Say 12 months instead? The point would be to encourage parents not to have that child if they can't afford to provide for him/her.

I don't think we are talking about the most responsible forward thinking people here. Do you honestly believe cutting benefit would stop people having kids? That they are going to rationally decide no more getting drunk and having unprotected sex with Anto because I won't get me benefit anymore?

I think they would just continue to have kids yet live in greater squallier and deprivation. Which is not going to be good for the kids

Deleted User wrote: »

And this is not about making children suffer. It is about Adults acting responsibly.

Yes but it is about making adults act responsibly by threatening that children will suffer. We will not support your kids, if you have kids and cannot support them you are on your own, your kids will suffer. This threat is supposed to stop them having kids, but again I see very little chance of that working. It hasn't worked all through history I don't see it working now, because humans, particularly poor wretched humans, are not the most rational forward thinking people. And then you are left with the bluff called and you have kids that are living in squallier that you have already refused to support.

Society cannot allow a return to the situation of early last century. The social problems would be immense. That does mean in some ways these people have us all over a barrel because we have to support them even if they f**k up their lives. But that is just the way it is, it sucks but the alternative is much worse.

Deleted User wrote: »

If children are born into a family where there are only a few children, then this measure wouldn't affect them. This would only affect children who were born into a family, because their parents were too stupid to understand the consequences.

When we are talking about welfare benefit I would imagine that would be most of them.

Deleted User wrote: »

This country will not get the services it needs as long as people refuse settle for anything less than perfection. Actually quite a bit less than perfection. Time for a reality check.

You are simply assuming this plan will work. Threaten not to pay benefit and poor families in deprived areas will stop having children.

I see no evidence that would be the case. Poor families in deprived areas have been popping children out for thousands of years, long before benefit. They lived in terrible conditions but they never said "Well we just should stop having kids"

In fact if you remove all support you are going to increase infant mortality rates in these areas and that in turn will lead to greater number of births. Instead of having 5 kids that all survive they are going to have 10 kids and 5 of them survive.

Tom Dunne

I don't think it's a question of the right to reproduce, it's a question of taking responsibility for your actions. You know, like showing your children what is right and what is wrong.

A Christmas or two ago, I remarked to a friend how I thought it was inappropriate that he purchased Playboy curtains and duvet for his 11-year old daughter. He saw nothing wrong with it, yet got offended by his son's choice of CD that had expletives in a number of songs.

The same son has had the Gardai to the door a number of times and what do the parents do? They buy him a car (he's turning 17 soon) in the hope that it will, and I quote "calm him down". As somebody else remarked on the situation, they might as well buy him a coffin.

If parents are incapable in seeing the repercussions of their actions, what chance do the children have?

metrovelvet

If it were the case that poor or less than middle classes should be having kids then most of you would not be here. Ireland is historically poor.

I suppose some of you would like to sterilise the third world?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

That only works on the theory that bad parents will become good parents if it costs them. I see little reason to believe would be the case. A 9 year old running riot on the local estate isn't going to suddenly get loving caring parents because they are being fined. More likely the parents either a) have no idea how to control him, in which case fining them would be pointless or b) are horrible people themselves in which case they would probably just beat him and lock him in his room. Grand for the short term but does very little to stop the child turning into a life long menace to society.

And yet I've yet to hear anything viable from you except spending more on a system that doesn't work... Its very easy to say what won't work. How about suggesting what might?

I don't think we are talking about the most responsible forward thinking people here. Do you honestly believe cutting benefit would stop people having kids? That they are going to rationally decide no more getting drunk and having unprotected sex with Anto because I won't get me benefit anymore?

Yes, I do believe it would force them to actually consider the problems involved. In any case it would reduce the drain on the state, when the money could be spent on far more worthwhile efforts.

But I'd love to know why you think that stopping completely funds for children past a certain number wouldn't encourage these people to not have children?

I think they would just continue to have kids yet live in greater squallier and deprivation. Which is not going to be good for the kids

And having these kids being born to families already in such squalor is a better option? Hmm... that seems a rather strange compromise. If this is about the kids, then do you advocate that these kids should remain with these families, considering they'll probably have more children, reducing their already tenuous ability to manage their children... ?

Yes but it is about making adults act responsibly by threatening that children will suffer. We will not support your kids, if you have kids and cannot support them you are on your own, your kids will suffer. This threat is supposed to stop them having kids, but again I see very little chance of that working. It hasn't worked all through history I don't see it working now, because humans, particularly poor wretched humans, are not the most rational forward thinking people. And then you are left with the bluff called and you have kids that are living in squallier that you have already refused to support.

Not sure why it has to be a bluff. let people call the threat, and realise that they won't be supported for being complete and utter fools. After a year or two, I doubt too many people would put themselves in such a situation again.

You're missing something vital in all of this. The system we have now is not working. And this country isn't likely to have the funds required to improve the system to match your high standards. So what do you realistically propose? Apart from keeping things as they are, and ignoring the worsening social problem in this country...

Society cannot allow a return to the situation of early last century. The social problems would be immense. That does mean in some ways these people have us all over a barrel because we have to support them even if they f**k up their lives. But that is just the way it is, it sucks but the alternative is much worse.

Why do you ever only see one alternative, and always the most negative one? Myself and a few posters suggested something quite general without any detailed specifics, and you've automatically latched onto only one aspect. Why not run with the idea, and propose some ideas to improve on it, rather than shooting it down out of hand?

When we are talking about welfare benefit I would imagine that would be most of them.

Fair enough, then it would affect most of them.

You are simply assuming this plan will work. Threaten not to pay benefit and poor families in deprived areas will stop having children.

Nope. I'm not assuming the plan would work. In fact, I'm guessing that the plan would fail. Just like most plans have failed in this state to one degree or another. Instead, I'm looking at it as being a stepping stone. Rather than ignoring the problem, complaining about lack of funds which are unlikely ever to appear, I'd prefer that we make a start on fixing the problem. IF it doesn't work, analyse the process, and take what did work into a new idea.

I see no evidence that would be the case. Poor families in deprived areas have been popping children out for thousands of years, long before benefit. They lived in terrible conditions but they never said "Well we just should stop having kids"

In fact if you remove all support you are going to increase infant mortality rates in these areas and that in turn will lead to greater number of births. Instead of having 5 kids that all survive they are going to have 10 kids and 5 of them survive.

You're ignoring the fact that we said it would apply to children that haven't been conceived yet. Not even a biological speck. It would affect future children, so it would be more easily managed.

And I'd love to see your evidence for these infant mortality claims and how they tie into our proposal... I think you're pulling that from thin air.

NOW. When I replied to you I made a point about the economy of this country, and wondered where the money was supposed to come from to support your perfect system. Its funny that you couldn't be bothered to respond to anything even remotely relating to this. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet I've yet to hear anything viable from you except spending more on a system that doesn't work... Its very easy to say what won't work. How about suggesting what might?

Define "doesn't work"

The system as it is works as well as I think any system can. But you have to define what the goals are. To me the goal is to get money to children.

Deleted User wrote: »

But I'd love to know why you think that stopping completely funds for children past a certain number wouldn't encourage these people to not have children?

Because they people are not making long term life choices Klaz. If they were this issue wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Deleted User wrote: »

And having these kids being born to families already in such squalor is a better option?

I don't think we can forcibly terminate pregnancies.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure why it has to be a bluff. let people call the threat, and realise that they won't be supported for being complete and utter fools. After a year or two, I doubt too many people would put themselves in such a situation again.

Why do you doubt that?

The average family size in deprived areas have always been high. They were high when the state was giving them nothing and they lived in single rooms in city centre squallier.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're missing something vital in all of this. The system we have now is not working.

The system we have now is working as well as any system I can imagine. The life expectancy for children in this country has increased significantly. At the turn of the last entry 1 in 5 children did not live to 5 years old, and that was averaged out over the entire population, the morality rates in deprived areas was far higher.

Deleted User wrote: »

And this country isn't likely to have the funds required to improve the system to match your high standards. So what do you realistically propose? Apart from keeping things as they are, and ignoring the worsening social problem in this country...

Free contraception, better sex ed and legal abortions.

Once the person has had the child its game over. The State has to support that child because the social problems if they don't are far greater than the cost of doing so. You cannot use the threat of no supporting the child as motivation for not having it because you cannot actually go through with that bluff

If you want to make a difference get to them before they have children.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you ever only see one alternative, and always the most negative one? Myself and a few posters suggested something quite general without any detailed specifics, and you've automatically latched onto only one aspect. Why not run with the idea, and propose some ideas to improve on it, rather than shooting it down out of hand?

Ok, change the idea so it doesn't involve threatening to not support children, and we can talk.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. I'm not assuming the plan would work. In fact, I'm guessing that the plan would fail. Just like most plans have failed in this state to one degree or another. Instead, I'm looking at it as being a stepping stone. Rather than ignoring the problem, complaining about lack of funds which are unlikely ever to appear, I'd prefer that we make a start on fixing the problem. IF it doesn't work, analyse the process, and take what did work into a new idea.

Social policy doesn't work like that. You can't say to these people Stop having kids we are not longer supporting them, and they when they continue to have kids change your mind and start supporting them.

It is a bluff. It is obvious it is a bluff and as such going ahead with it would greatly decrease the credibility of the State.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're ignoring the fact that we said it would apply to children that haven't been conceived yet. Not even a biological speck. It would affect future children, so it would be more easily managed.

I'm not ignoring that at all. But there is no point saying that, because tomorrow turns into next year and next year turns into the year after and then you have a whole load of children that the State is refusing to support with child benefit.

If the State then says "Ok, that didn't work" you are back at square one except now the State looks ridiculous.

The problem is also that in order for the bluff not to be called it has to work universally. If 95 parents say "Oh, no more benefits better keep my legs closed" and 5 of them don't you still have support the new children of those 5, which signals to all the others that the State was never serious about letting babies rot in squallier just to stop benefit take up.

Deleted User wrote: »

And I'd love to see your evidence for these infant mortality claims and how they tie into our proposal... I think you're pulling that from thin air.

That was the infant morality rate in Ireland at the turn of last century.

When families have greater risk of infant death they do not stop having children, they have more children.

Deleted User wrote: »

NOW. When I replied to you I made a point about the economy of this country, and wondered where the money was supposed to come from to support your perfect system. Its funny that you couldn't be bothered to respond to anything even remotely relating to this. :rolleyes:

Oh don't be silly.

It is a bad idea. It is a bad idea if I can come up with a better one or if I can't come up with a better one.

Bad idea, simple as. No need to get stroppy about it.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Define "doesn't work"

The system doesn't work because it is being abused.

The system as it is works as well as I think any system can. But you have to define what the goals are. To me the goal is to get money to children.

Fair enough. But the system is not there to provide incentive for people to have children. There should be measures in place to monitor and control who gets the welfare. To do otherwise, is unrealistic.

Because they people are not making long term life choices Klaz. If they were this issue wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

And until people put different barriers in place against them, they will continue to not plan at all.

I don't think we can forcibly terminate pregnancies.

Nor did I say we would. I said this would apply to everyone nor pregnant, and should they become pregnant after this idea was to come onto being, then it would apply to them. Fairly simple, and said quite a number of times already.

Why do you doubt that?

The average family size in deprived areas have always been high. They were high when the state was giving them nothing and they lived in single rooms in city centre squallier.

Because peoples expectations have changed. You're talking as these people still have the same expectations as their ancestors had during the famine. People been receiving benefits for decades, and fankly that will change their perspectives. What would they do if they were told that any more children would not provide them with more welfare? That they would have to make do with their current incomes? You're shortchanging anybody that isn't off their heads on drugs, if you believe they won't be aware of how new children would drain their existing funds for luxaries and necessities.

The system we have now is working as well as any system I can imagine. The life expectancy for children in this country has increased significantly. At the turn of the last entry 1 in 5 children did not live to 5 years old, and that was averaged out over the entire population, the morality rates in deprived areas was far higher.

And that comes down solely to the welfare schemes? Hardly.

Free contraception, better sex ed and legal abortions.

All of which cause more expense for the state, and less guarantee of success than our own idea above.

Once the person has had the child its game over. The State has to support that child because the social problems if they don't are far greater than the cost of doing so. You cannot use the threat of no supporting the child as motivation for not having it because you cannot actually go through with that bluff

Actually, the state could go through with it, since I can't recall anything in the constitution requiring the state to support every child that comes. No, the true restraint is the Irish people, but I wouldn't be too suprised at how accepting people here might be after 10 years of a ****ty economy, high unemployment, etc. Especially if their own benefits which they've invested their own money in are threatened by other people.

If you want to make a difference get to them before they have children.

/sigh. Which is what I've been saying, but you can't seem to see that.

Ok, change the idea so it doesn't involve threatening to not support children, and we can talk.

Then talk about something else. If it sounds useful, I'll agree with you. If its daft, I'll disagree. But I won't ignore something without wondering if some changes could make it worthwhile.

Social policy doesn't work like that. You can't say to these people Stop having kids we are not longer supporting them, and they when they continue to have kids change your mind and start supporting them.

AGAIN, this is about children not born or conceived yet. Existing children would continue to be supported until they left the system as before. It would only apply to those conceived past the introduction of the change.

It is a bluff. It is obvious it is a bluff and as such going ahead with it would greatly decrease the credibility of the State. [/quote[

It is only a bluff if its not followed through on. As I have said before, it should be carried through on. And lets be honest, the state as very very very little credibility left to lose.

I'm not ignoring that at all. But there is no point saying that, because tomorrow turns into next year and next year turns into the year after and then you have a whole load of children that the State is refusing to support with child benefit.

Whereas you have the existing system, with more and more children being born and supported, who in turn later have children which adds more strain to the system. Ten years pass, and people wonder whats wrong with the welfare system, and say more money is needed. And all the time people are demanding more money for education, health, infrastructure, etc.

If the State then says "Ok, that didn't work" you are back at square one except now the State looks ridiculous.

Strange, they've done it plenty of times before, and being ridiculous didn't matter after a few months.

The problem is also that in order for the bluff not to be called it has to work universally. If 95 parents say "Oh, no more benefits better keep my legs closed" and 5 of them don't you still have support the new children of those 5, which signals to all the others that the State was never serious about letting babies rot in squallier just to stop benefit take up.

Again, I'll say it. No bluff. I don't believe in bluffs, hence the only way that such a thing could work.

That was the infant morality rate in Ireland at the turn of last century.

When families have greater risk of infant death they do not stop having children, they have more children.

Grand, but that still doesn't explain how cutting welfare past a certain number of children per family would firstly increase infant death, and secondly encourage them to have more children.

Oh don't be silly.

It is a bad idea. It is a bad idea if I can come up with a better one or if I can't come up with a better one.

Bad idea, simple as. No need to get stroppy about it.

Stroppy? Hardly, since when I responded to you before, you advocated a system that was far beyond what this country can afford. Could ever afford in fact. And you keep jumping the answer. Where does the money come from to support all these people?

And lastly, Wicknight, don't call me stroppy again. Deal with my posts, not me. Otherwise I will indeed get angry with you, and you will know about it.

deadhead13

Deleted User wrote: »

Where does the money come from to support all these people?

Can you quantify that? How many people are "all these people"?