Trying to get my head around it

PasturesNew

They also don't have free contraception in Ethiopia.

kegg_2

pipkin71 wrote: »

I entered into a conversation in DT regarding the 'poor' having children, and not for the first time it's been suggested that those on benefits would stop having children if their benefits didn't increase.

My own thoughts are though, that in places like Ethiopia, where there are no benefits, and where there is real poverty, women continue to have children, so I don't believe capping benefits would result in a dramatic decrease of babies either.

Of course, it may affect the decision of a percentage of women on benefits, but I still think that a higher percentage would continue to have babies, than not.

I can understand why people feel that benefits should be capped, and have had those views myself, but I'm also a tree hugging type who does think of the children, and can see that by capping benefits, the babies who continue to be born will then suffer a life of poverty

No idea what the answer is there, though.

Without a benefit system and a higher death rate then the 1st world having lots of children is how they survive once they are old or ill.
Much stronger sense of family and no old peoples home to shove the oldies in means their children will be the ones looking after them.

treliac

wigglebeena wrote: »

Uh, I think you're arguing against something I didn't say. I was just empathising about the daily grind in the post I responded to, not suggesting it's ok to put two fingers up to the working wo/man and live off the state if you're fit and able to work.

Apologies for any doubts over your intent wigglebeena. I'd always thought you had a fair and honest approach to life. I should have read more carefullly and worded my response better.

treliac

kegg wrote: »

Without a benefit system and a higher death rate then the 1st world having lots of children is how they survive once they are old or ill.
Much stronger sense of family and no old peoples home to shove the oldies in means their children will be the ones looking after them.

Two points here:-

1. The state looks after the elderly who have no assets. Care is free and unlikely to change in the UK.

2. The way some parents treat their children, they're unlikely to get consideration in their old age. 'You reap what you sow' comes to mind!

lemonjelly

carolt wrote: »

No, choice is fine - as in choosing between a range of jobs.

But not as in choosing whether to get off their backsides at all, or whether they'd rather stay at home with a cup of tea watching daytime telly. Because I think we now what most of the answers would be.

I think the whole notion of the conditionaluty prioposals that are being put forward via the welfare reform bill should make you happy then.

My looking into it, it appears that there can & will be all sorts of requirements placed onto benefit claimants. Possibilities include getting basic qualifications, undergoing required treatments, & where there is a situation of a long term period of unemployment, a requirement to do some form of voluntary work or community service.

It is already starting with ESA/Incapacity Benefit.

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out over the next 12-24 months...

kegg_2

treliac wrote: »

Two points here:-

1. The state looks after the elderly who have no assets. Care is free and unlikely to change in the UK.

2. The way some parents treat their children, they're unlikely to get consideration in their old age. 'You reap what you sow' comes to mind!

But in the third world they have none of the above and so a large family is more desirable to them in the knowledge that they will have someone to look after them.

In the 1st world with modern day contreseption and care from the cradle to the grave we should only be having children we can afford to look after

GeneHunt_2

kegg wrote: »

In the 1st world with modern day contreseption and care from the cradle to the grave we should only be having children we can afford to look after

So poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids?

beaujolais-nouveau

pipkin71 wrote: »

My own thoughts are though, that in places like Ethiopia, where there are no benefits, and where there is real poverty, women continue to have children

In Third World countries, your children are your "pension" - your security in old age when you can no longer work all day in the fields or in the diamond mine or fishing boat but you still need to eat.

kegg_2

GeneHunt wrote: »

So poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids?

Of couse they should have kids but limit themselves to the number they can afford to look after with what they have got.
Dont have more then go cup in hand for a larger council house and extra benefits.

tomstickland

Someone on here once added up how much someone who can't claim anything would have to pay for the things that a big time claimaint would get for free, and it came to a lot of pre-tax income.