TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
She started off by saying that the interview with the mother of five was "very powerful" and should be played to all local authority councillors.
She didn't seem to clarify why and for what reason.
Later she did seem to offer some opinions somewhat in line with what Brendan has been arguing for.
Many people questioned why somebody eight years homeless would have five kids during that time and seem to expect to be handed a home close to their parents.
It is if you have to pay for them yourself.It is not a selective genetic condition to be triggered on and off depending on where you live and how much you earn.
Really, that's the justification for continuing to pop out sprogs and expecting someone else to pay for them?This is a country that survived a famine. Not because of those who held wealth, but because of those who were impoverished continued to reproduce.
It is if you have to pay for them yourself.
Yes, exactly. Eating is also a natural desire but unless you want to be a fatty you have to control the amount of foot you stick in your gob. I am fond of fillet steak and fine wines but I can't afford them very often so I can't have them very often.I'm talking about the basic desire for sex and to reproduce. It is not something that you can switch on and off.
You can of course choose not to have children, but that does not extinguish the desire (if you have it).
That's why they invented rubbers.
There are not 17 people living in the house.17 people in a house
And nobody should - but it's fair comment to point out that some level of reproduction and in certain circumstances is arguably irresponsible.To which Alice responded that she was never going to start moralizing people about who should or should not, or how many kids should people have.
Not sure what you mean. But in this day and age there's a large element of choice to it too. And it is always a responsibility.Human reproduction is a human condition
I consider this an irrelevant non sequitur to the topic in hand to be honest.it is essential for the survival of the human species. It is not a selective genetic condition to be triggered on and off depending on where you live and how much you earn.
This is a country that survived a famine. Not because of those who held wealth, but because of those who were impoverished continued to reproduce.
Eating is also a natural desire but unless you want to be a fatty you have to control the amount of foot you stick in your gob.
There are not 17 people living in the house.
And nobody should - but it's fair comment to point out that some level of reproduction and in certain circumstances is arguably irresponsible.
Not sure what you mean. But in this day and age there's a large element of choice to it too. And it is always a responsibility.
I consider this an irrelevant non sequitur to the topic in hand to be honest.
Maybe not inconceivable, but highly unlikely.And that is ultimately the issue. Where do you draw the line? Is it inconceivable that her children grow up to be high achievers? Inventors? Scientists? Peace makers? Entertainers? Artists? Etc..etc and in turn, return everything and more to society than was ever provided to them growing up?
Maybe not inconceivable, but highly unlikely.
I find it irresponsible to have children if you are not in a reasonable stable environment. Having 5 kids whilst being homeless is shocking. Why would you want to disadvantage your kids so severely from the start? Pure selfishness.
Except we do not have a civil war, nor a famine, nor is the species threatened. You cant be comparing those situations...
They know they can't possibly afford to raise the 5 kids, they cant even afford to house them.
Just because the safety net is there doesn't mean we should all go jump in it!
and not have that many kids while in this situation.
Did they expect someone else to house them, cloth them and feed them?My grandparents got married in 1932. They had a small farm holding in East Kerry. By any yardstick they were poor. No central heating, no electricity, no industry, no welfare, life expectancy about late 40's, infant mortality way higher than today no doubt.
Conditions arguably far worse with even less potential opportunity than today.
Should they have had any kids?
Bismarck introduced the first State old age pension in Germany in 1881.The 'safety net' as you call I think was first adopted in Japan around a hundred years ago when they started paying the old age pension. Human kind has survived for thousands of years before that without the 'safety net'.
The correlation between the introduction of 'safety net' and the advancement of modern societies through the past century, in life expectancy, in reducing infant mortality rates, innovation, education, health and medicine etc is there for everyone to see in all nations across the globe that have adopted welfare policies
Maybe not inconceivable, but highly unlikely.
I find it irresponsible to have children if you are not in a reasonable stable environment. Having 5 kids whilst being homeless is shocking. Why would you want to disadvantage your kids so severely from the start? Pure selfishness.
Did they expect someone else to house them, cloth them and feed them?
Bismarck introduced the first State old age pension in Germany in 1881.
People got it at 70. Life expectancy was 71. Most people started work in their teens so 50 years plus at work before getting a pension for a few years = sustainable.
They know they can't possibly afford to raise the 5 kids, they cant even afford to house them.
Yet, they chose to have them, because they knew social welfare will foot the bills.
Yes, social welfare should help now, and it will. But that family should have also acted more responsibly and not have that many kids while in this situation.
Just because the safety net is there doesn't mean we should all go jump in it!
My grandparents got married in 1932
The correlation between the introduction of 'safety net' and the advancement of modern societies through the past century, in life expectancy, in reducing infant mortality rates, innovation, education, health and medicine etc is there for everyone to see in all nations across the globe that have adopted welfare policies
So how many kids should they, or anyone for that matter, have?
Have you got a chart that outlines how many kids anyone should have?
If people in poor conditions should not have kids, how many kids should wealthy people be having?
That's personal responsibility.
So perhaps time for the ownership of all wealth to be transferred to those who do all the work?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?