English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Bringing up children is a costly business. People who have children and cannot afford to bring them up are a drain on society. The taxpayer ends up footing the bill. I resent paying (out of taxes) for other peoples greed and irresponsibility. Should people who earn less than, say, 25k, therefore be forced to abort their burden?

2006-11-23 02:10:00 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

24 answers

That's called eugenics, and has been tried in the US. It failed. See the link below for information about the eugenics program in Virginia - this is just one example.

We need to use social pressure, as they do in China, to discourage over-population. Particular cultures and socio-economic strata have a disproportionate number of children. We need to teach all Americans that they should only have one child each - that ensure a zero growth population.

Extra children should be taxed; there should be no tax incentives for having children. Similarly, welfare benefits for larger families should be reduced.

Over time, this will lead us all to a more prosperous nation.

2006-11-23 03:40:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

it is poverty or irresponsibility that concerns you?
not all people with kids living on the bread line are irresponsible... and i think they are the people who do the best job bringing up kids.
if you want to get facist... perhaps a better solution is that people have to do a parenting course... subsiquent to that a course every year for each age group so parents handle their children better and take better responsibility (course for each child - as brushing up skills is necessary), and those with difficult children get more support. crime would be reduced dramatically, and save your tax bill. parents found to be shirking their responsibilities as parents, are then fined... and after a period of time with no improvement... prison.
the real problem is that people have kids because the want kids... they don't think about the consiquences or what it means to be a parent... hence the burden on society. to say that it is poor people who are a burden because they have kids it a sweeping statement and narrow minded... there are many good parents, who bring up their children to be functional members of society. and as poor people have more children than rich, you would not be able to survive on the state pension when you got old, because there would not be a work force paying taxes to support it.

2006-11-23 10:33:42 · answer #2 · answered by sofiarose 4 · 0 0

No. I say that because termination of a pregnancy should be by choice and not mandated. Now if through counseling of the parents, if both are known and around, one could counsel the mother that she would not be able to raise a child economically then she might decide that her choice would be to terminate the pregnancy. This decision could be made easier if there was a limit to the number of children that would receive tax dollars. If the government limited the number to children covered to say two then the decision might be easier for the mother.

2006-11-23 10:23:14 · answer #3 · answered by 91106 3 · 1 0

You have a small minded way of thinking about things. I know, fair enough we all hate paying taxes and fair enough some people go to far and never put anything back into society but its the lesser of two evils i would rather my taxes went to help single mothers who some time can't help there situations than help the thousands of illegal immigrant's and asylum seekers. As for your cut off amount what it people simply can't get a job that pays that much or the field they wish to work in does not pay wages that high.

2006-11-23 10:24:01 · answer #4 · answered by dora 2 · 2 0

Sir Keith Joseph's political ambitions effectively came to an end when he made a speech in the 1970s in which he made, more or less, the same argument.

Choice of partner and right to procreate are basic human rights. Otherwise we are into The Third Reich or Brave New World. People are human beings first, not just economic units.

2006-11-23 10:21:34 · answer #5 · answered by 13caesars 4 · 4 0

im sorry but i cant believe your asking this
so your saying if parents are poor they have to kill their unborn child? well smartass what if the child has already been born then the parents go poor, what they gonna do then.... kill their child? think about it, not everyone is lucky enough to have loads of money, i have two kids and guess what i am very poor, infact i owe five grand, i only have a part time evening job and my partner is on income support. do you want me to kill my children? some people arent lucky enough to have kids at all, they have to go through treatment, they finally get lucky and your saying they have to kill the one thing they want in life just because they arent as well up as you? quit being selfish, try thinking of peoples situations before asking a question like this.

2006-11-23 10:24:30 · answer #6 · answered by mooka 2 · 3 1

children are costly but forcing someone to abort is wrong.
i am a single mother so i am sorry i am burdening you and your taxes as i am on benefits, but truth be known i am wokring dam hard to get off them! i am in college and i work part time, and if someone forced me to give up my child i would fall to pieces no matter how expensive she is.
i am not greedy or irresponsible, be careful when tarring everyone with the same brush, and i was in a relationship when i fell pregnant and had her, and i do not like living off of benefits but until i finished my course and can get a well paid job then its something i have to do for my child.

plus money doesn't mean a child will be loved

2006-11-23 10:16:57 · answer #7 · answered by sinnedfairy 5 · 4 3

no i do not agree that abortion shud be compulsary as it is their decision whether to have one or not, but i think condoms and the pill should be compulsary, because your not taking a life away, just preventing a life from being brought into this world that cannot be taken care of.the child is the most important thing

2006-11-23 12:31:13 · answer #8 · answered by i am wot i am 2 · 0 0

Are you bloody sure.....There always have been and always will be The have's and the Have not's
Who do you think will care for the super rich ? anyone on 25k. Then they in turn become the poor.

2006-11-23 10:25:09 · answer #9 · answered by David 4 · 2 0

I think abortion being compulsory may be harsh but i certainly agree that if they cannot afford children they should have there ovaries (i think) tied to stop them producing. I know a women who is 30 and she has 7 kids there ages are not more than 2 years apart. I find think appalling and something should be done to stop her having anymore. We are paying for women to produce children because they can't be bothered to get a job and would rather have babies than work unlike us hard working people who actually want to earn money and don't rely on the government to get us through life.

2006-11-23 10:15:52 · answer #10 · answered by shelz042000 3 · 4 4

fedest.com, questions and answers