-
Posts
-
The thing is its never going to happen, and theres no way to penalise (as if they havent done enough “PENILising” anyway) the mothers without negatively affecting their bastard offspring (thats not swearing btw, its a proper word used properly :D:D:D
And its STILL locking the gate after the “whore’se has bolted so to speak as taxing them WONT make them not a mother will it?
To address a problem logically you have to look at ALL the ways people arrive in it, not just the ones each particular paper will brainwash the moronic majority with, and we end up with women in this predicament (or should that be postDICKament?) in a variety of ways not limited to
arriving here pregnant or with a child claiming ASSylum or immigrating here
just shagging about so they can get a council house and never have to work
having a child because they dont see anything more promising in their future
accidental pregnancy and moral/religious problems with abortion or adoption
a couple planning a child UNTIL pregnancy occurs then the bloke (wisely) does a linford
the father dies (probably from the shock of seeing how fat she gets)and countless other reasons
The ONLY way to avoid the majority of those is to make pregnancy a planned occurence, research contraceptive methods and find a form of steralisation thats easily reversed then steralise ALL women over the age of 12
Then they would have to apply to have it reversed AND be able to prove they are not only capable of raising a child, are having one for the right reasons but also have some degree of ability to afford to raise a child as would their partner they plan to have the child with
After they’ve bred their little arses off she could then be resteralised until she applies again when their ability to raise a child would be examined again now they already have the financial burden of one child
This way ALL breeding would be purely by CHOICE, no accidents, and it would be protecting the rights of the CHILDREN to be born to at least reasonably decent parents
After all, we have to jump through loads of hoops JUST to drive a car, but any drooling retard is allowed to have a kid, where are the kids rights protected in that?
With all rights come responsibilities, and its about time people started to take responsibility for their breeding habits
Fine. Just hang the immoral b*stards instead, then!
They might enjoy a bit of bondage tho :D
This is what we get when you live in a touchy feely left wing dictatorship tho
Personally I reckon that we need to look into a reliable and easily reversible method of steralising all girls over the age of 12 then have them apply a year in advance when they want to procreate before its reversed in which time they and their partner will have to have parenting classes and have their ability and means to support a child examined before its granted
At least then ALL children will be born by choice to parents with at least some idea on what raising a child entails and the ONLY thing it would stop is accidental pregnancies or ones undertaken on a whim or during a drinking session
I also think that benefits should ONLY be paid for a maximum of 2 adults and three kids especially where that family has always or mostly been unemployed, after all working couples dont magically get a payrise everytime they knock a kid out do they? So why should non working couples?
@smiley wrote:
I read an article the other day about how the Tories are planning to, finally, reward married couples by giving them tax breaks.
The move is designed to “prevent further break-up of our morals and values in society”
Hmmm, talon thinks that the move is designed to “grab some badly needed votes at the next election before Cameron and Co terminally disappear over the horizon of history”.
The thing is tho we DID have this “reward” not that long ago called the married persons tax code which was then scrapped and the money distributed through social services instead
The pros and cons tend to be selectively seen, ignored/liked or disliked depending on someones political stance but in a nutshell
paying married couples extra via a tax code is easy to implement, it costs hardly anything in administration BUT it also applies to people who are married AND are earning massive amounts of money
Whereas paying it through a social services with everyone on the same tax code can be means tested so the rich dont qualify but also requires thousands of civil servants wage bills merely to hand the money back out
Realistically we only need two forms of taxation, income tax with a floating code and VAT with variable percentages for each type of item, but although that would be SUCH a cheap way of collecting tax it would also be far too transparent for a governments liking which would make increasing the level of taxation that much harder when you only had two places to alter rather than hundreds you can gradually sneak up when nobody is looking
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!