Vasectomies Are Free

Bed Bradley wrote:Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can't afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.

Families who have never worked a day in their lives having four or five kids and the rest of us having one or two means it's not long before we're drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters that we pay to keep!

There's been a bit of a kerfuffle in the media this morning about the above comments made by Tory MP Ben Bradley on social media in 2012. Predictably Labour and the LibDems have jumped all over it, and even the Tories themselves have condemned the comments.

Forget the political bullshit for a minute, isn't what Mr Bradley said true? Very few people would take on a mortgage they couldn't afford, but it seems perfectly acceptable in Britain today to have 4 or 5 kids while claiming money from the state. No one needs 4 or 5 kids. Absolutely no one.

With the NHS on its knees and the welfare state struggling to cope, isn't it about time to outlaw people having more than two kids? It wouldn't save this generation, or the next, but eventually the population would start to decrease.

Sadly, Mr Bradley has apologised for his comments. I actually think less of him now. He should have stood by his comments because I suspect a lot of people share his (and my) view.

I really can't believe there is even an argument for having 5 kids.

I can't believe im saying this but yes i agree

I agree with the general idea that "If you can't afford 'em don't have 'em" but punishing adults financially for being irresponsible  will inevitably harm the kids

I don't think anything can be done about  it

China had a policy of only allowing one child per couple, which resulted in a lot of baby girls disappearing because many wanted a boy.We'll have to put up with silly people breeding too many times  rather than bring in measures such as the Chinese one

Growler wrote:I agree with the general idea that "If you can't afford 'em don't have 'em" but punishing adults financially for being irresponsible  will inevitably harm the kids

But if there was nothing to be gained financially they wouldn't have 4 or 5 kids.

Or if having more than two kids was punishable by death, they'd certainly think twice before having sex.

There's some truth in what he says, sure, it's just that only some Peter Perfect fucking Tory arsewipe would say it publicly.

The reality of it is that people make mistakes. People have kids they can't afford. In some cases it's carelessness and selfishness. Sometimes people have kids that they could afford at the time of having them, then circumstances change.

But yes, the Ben Bradleys and Natasha Dickems of the world are just spot on in everything they do.

doffcocker wrote:The reality of it is that people make mistakes. People have kids they can't afford. In some cases it's carelessness and selfishness. Sometimes people have kids that they could afford at the time of having them, then circumstances change.

So we should pander to these selfish and careless people?

Here is Natasha's viewpoint expressed in the Telegraph

wanderlust wrote:Here is Natasha's viewpoint expressed in the Telegraph

Do you disagree with me?

I don’t disagree with the fact people should be far more responsible, if you don’t have the money don’t have kids. It’s a fault in our society that everyone feels as if they have to get married and have kids, it’s not the only way to live.

The issue with this is, he has either been deliberately provocative in his choice of language and extremity of his views. Or he actually is a complete twat - very possible.

I have five boys and not one of them is a homosexual all pussy hounds, result.

Item on the news this morning, where some parents are complaining that the 30 free hours pw of childcare, isn't being funded properly, as they've been asked to provide nappies and lunches !!!
They'll be asking to have their kids by surrogates next, all paid for, of course.

Not the story I’ve seen? A poll has been carried out into the success of the governments free childcare scheme, and its returned damning results that the government are underfunding the scheme, leading to nurseries having to pick up the slack and increase prices for non government funded projects.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42639258

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Here is Natasha's viewpoint expressed in the Telegraph

Do you disagree with me?

I've been concerned about overpopulation since I learned about Malthusian Doom at school and although that specifically related to an agrarian society the principle stands. Clearly the Doom in question hasn't happened due to technological advances in food production and genetic engineering however it is assumed that technology will always be ahead of the curve yet ignores the fact that the planet has a finite amount of land and raw materials so it will inevitably go tits up eventually. I thought that the sacrifice that the Chinese made/had imposed on them probably gave the world an extra 50 years but more importantly reinforced the idea that despite being given the equipment and primeval drive it's not in our interest as a species to continue to breed at the rate we are doing. Whether or not breeding is a "right" should be debated more, but like many things in our society it is certainly considered to be a right regardless of the consequences and the biggest problem is that most cultures reward and to some extent incentivise breeding so any change would require a cultural shift as well as changes in the the legal and other societal systems. Plus no political party would be willing to question the right to breed or even just remove the support that is in place so I can't see much changing any time soon.

It'll never change, but one day there will just be too many people on this planet and that will be the end of life as we know it.

I don't care what anyone says, no one needs 5 children.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

I don't care what anyone says, no one needs 5 children.

xmiles wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

I don't care what anyone says, no one needs 5 children.

No one 'needs' two.

Can we take it you have no siblings Nat?

Soul Kitchen wrote:Can we take it you have no siblings Nat?

You can't take it, no.

So your parents drew benefits?

Soul Kitchen wrote:So your parents drew benefits?

Of course not, they started Whittam International plc.