No contraception, no dole

Pregnancy is not always a choice

Worst case Scenario, Abstinence is a choice, Pills, implants etc ... all exist and do work most of the time - The idea surrounding this is that when you are already an existing state burden and decide have a child, it will not benefit you.

condoms or the rhythm method in the list of approved methods of contraception.

However there would be no way to prove either method was used in the case of a pregnancy while claiming SW, hence the reason I mentioned the implant which is required to be removed surgically - thus giving proof the device failed if pregnancy occured if contested.

forgive me, I assumed that when you suggested a couple could choose whatever contraception they liked, you meant they could choose whatever method of contraception they liked, and not only from the subset of chemical contraception, responsibility for which falls on women.

Yes I mean anything they like - the implant example (it was only an example) gives one of the highest pregnancy protections and the easiest for the woman to prove was in-fact in use at the time the unexpected pregnancy occurred and thus, social welfare would then be allowed for that child.

If guys had some means of getting a temporary "Chemical Snip" I would also suggest that as an alternative, however I don't believe that is currently the case.

But yes in hindsight any contraception could be used so long as the financial burden of the unexpected pregnancy will not be shouldered by the state.

Nor have you addressed the idea that in fact, state sanctioned forced medication is not the hallmark of a mature society.

There is no forcing of medication, it was only an example as outlined about as a means of proof of trying NOT to have a baby or else everyone would just be claiming "the condom broke"

If you think the rhythm or condoms methods works for you, go for it, like rabbits if needs must. BUT don't look for additional Social welfare payments when that method fails and you have no prescription, surgery or sex tape to back up your story.

Why stop there, why not include low paid workers as part of this.
For example if the paye\prsi\USC deductions are less than your current child benefit, then contraception for you also.

Honestly I'd just scrap it and bundle it into the tax free allowance - there should not be a shortfall, I know there is currently, but there shouldn't be.

Bottom line is that people who have jobs (of any sort) should be able to afford things that people on the dole cannot - that includes kids.

Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a child as that's basically what's being proposed. Or is this only for the lower class.

I'd probably agree that there should be a minimum threshold of income prior to having kids - why on earth would you want kids if you cant (on your own dime) put food on the table ?

No I'm saying people should have the common sense themselves.

And many couples do

Unfortunately it's not the case.

The ugly truth.

was.deevey wrote: »

However there would be no way to prove either method was used in the case of a pregnancy while claiming SW, hence the reason I mentioned the implant which is required to be removed surgically - thus giving proof the device failed if pregnancy occured if contested.

You really are clueless. This is exactly why there is a problem. The only traceable options are hormonal ones which you suggested could be traced through medical card claims.

was.deevey wrote: »

There is no forcing of medication, it was only an example as outlined about as a means of proof of trying NOT to have a baby or else everyone would just be claiming "the condom broke"

The only methods of contraception which match your requirements for traceability involve state sanctioned medication and target women only.

This idea of forcing people to take a hormonal contraception is gender specific and discriminatory. Not only that, hormonal contraception is contraindicated for some people. Forcing people to take medicine like this for economic rather than health reasons is an idea that is so utterly stupid I cannot believe someone came up with it. And before you bleat once more that if there was an equivalent for men, you'd sanction that too, deal with the reality that right now there isn't.

Oh and don't bother saying that this isn't state sanctioned or forced. If you link it to state benefits or welfare support, it is forced and state sanctioned.

Again, the primary method by which you can reduce the risk of the poverty trap is through education, education support and opportunity improvement.

Havent read the whole thread, I am sure there are some very valid arguments in it.

Just wanted to contribute to the "its a good idea" team.

I think it is a brilliant idea. I know of several women living in North Cork who have had children with the sole aim of going on benefits.

Sickening bunch. We need progressive moves like this in Ireland.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Any fact based statistics on this or is it just my brothers cats dog knows a guy who knows a guy sure their all at it. And I bet they all get free sky hd

Something like that. Just because I don't have documented evidence I think we all know what goes on. This report took me 5min to find. Pg 7 shows in 2012 11,900 reports were made of people claiming and working, I'm sure there are far more working & claiming that were reported.
http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/dsp_fraud_initiative_progress_report_to_end_dec_%202012.pdf

na1 wrote: »

you have a choice: take contraception & the welfare money, or no contraception & no money

In other words, "take potentially dangerous hormonal medication, or starve to death".

TheSheriff wrote: »

I disagree. What you see as progressive is not necessarily how everyone else sees it.

The idea of medicating a section of the population for economic grounds, and doing it on a gender discriminatory basis comes under the heading of totalitarianism.

hollster2 wrote: »

Why has this thread gone to attacking single mothers?? I was working and my partner (now ex) was working at time I got pregnant I stayed home with baby and he worked, Weve 3 children and unfortunatly im by myslef now I get lone parent this is not by choice its the situation im in, Im living with my parent at the moment no 50inch plasma like someone said, Ive a college degree behind me, not all of us choose to sit on are bum all day grabbing off the state id love to be out working but at the moment im being a mother and a single one at that some of you are so obnoxious dont be so quick to judge people!

if you had read the whole thread you should be able to see that nobody on here is against people who are in situations like yours or similar , people who were in stable relationship with regular income and for whatever reason circumstances changed, in fact this point was made by a number of posters. What people have the problem with is the kind of ones ' the sherriff ' referred to above , fresh out of school and start a family with no earned income

hollster2 wrote: »

I did read it and there were a few saying it I understand that point of it maybe just be being sensitive some comments were making me feel crap that im on a payment and would love to be working like im being judged in ever single mother catagory!

I'm on here giving out about people having babies they can't afford. I most definitely was not talking about you or the situation you find yourself in. Hard times can hit anyone of us, at any time and you should feel that the rest of us will be there to support you, and the majority of us are, sorry if you took any offence in any of my posts.

hollster2 wrote: »

I did read it and there were a few saying it I understand that point of it maybe just be being sensitive some comments were making me feel crap that im on a payment and would love to be working like im being judged in ever single mother catagory!

no offence meant , i have a lot of sympathy for people in your situation I have friends in same situation. keep your spirts up things have a habit of working out