Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Should disabled people be allowed to have children?


Recommended Posts

I was watching the news this week. A disabled woman was on that was in a wheelchair and she had three carers.

She was pregnant. So you've got a siuation where a woman can't look after herself and is a massive drain to the taxpayer. She gets pregnant and realistically the taxpayer will have to employ someone else to look after the kid. It just doesn't seem right that the taxpayer has to subsidise someone's lifestyle choices.

Then since her disability was genetic there is a fair chance the baby will have something wrong with it and require special care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes, that would be my default position. Without that you have the ludicrous position of working couples unable to have children because they can't afford a bigger place whilst the unemployed have

I think over the last few decades western society has changed and there is some sort of fetish for people that don't contribute. You watch programmes like "DIY SOS" and some massively disabled kid has

People should be allowed to have what they want providing they pay for it. It's shit like this why I keep my income tax under 12k. I don't gaf what anyone else does that way, cos I sure as fuck aint c

Posted Images

Don't mind about it.

But people shouldn't get extra welfare for having children whilst on welfare.

[I suppose the 'having disabled children' part is a negative and they should be given advice, but that's quite a complicated ethical matter]

Otherwise, if they've got the cash good for them.

Edited by dgul
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dgul said:

Don't mind about it.

But people shouldn't get extra welfare for having children.

[I suppose the 'having disabled children' part is a negative and they should be given advice, but that's quite a complicated ethical matter]

Otherwise, if they've got the cash good for them.

Fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, quite simply the West hasn't actually paid for the boomer good times, it was on the plastic. The pensions and now this Corona virus economic armageddon now means even more financial hardship to pay for what we can't afford. People who are severely disabled having children when they can't look after themselves is probably up there in the top 20 items of what will break the camel's back. It might make us feel warm and fuzzy, like letting in third worlders with nothing to offer, but someone has got to pay the bill at the end of the day. It is more dangerous to allow this to proliferate beyond what is already a cluster f**k of a welfare state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Great Guy said:

I was watching the news this week. A disabled woman was on that was in a wheelchair and she had three carers.

She was pregnant. So you've got a siuation where a woman can't look after herself and is a massive drain to the taxpayer. She gets pregnant and realistically the taxpayer will have to employ someone else to look after the kid. It just doesn't seem right that the taxpayer has to subsidise someone's lifestyle choices.

Then since her disability was genetic there is a fair chance the baby will have something wrong with it and require special care.

That's why she should be allowed to have children, they become carers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bedrag Justesen said:

That's how the Nazis came to power.

First they came for Nail Technicians with their 16hr Beauty Business, Help To Buy Starter Home, leased BMW 116d, Working Tax Credits, and Free School Meals (even during school holidays)...

Then they came for severely disabled parents, with five severely disabled kids, all looked after by the State.

...and I did nothing.

Except defend them on Mumsnet.

It is definitely a fine line to tread. IMO we've lost the balance though. If the Nazis were on one end, the modern PC West has gone completely to the other end. Both are destabilising, when fairly ordinary people start questioning wft is going on you start losing consent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is not the disabled people per se. If the generous support was not there then the "demands" would reduced but not completely disappear.

The problem is the industry/racket surrounding it. 

Deprivation/poverty is a source of power and wealth for a complete industry and the middle class people that profit from it. They might not get paid as much money as some jobs, although many get paid more, but they also get paid 'kudos' which could be seen as modern day piety.

They can then use this kudos to improve their standing within the community, often for political means. Just look at how common it is for TV commentators, local councillors etc to have a charity background.

Its a racket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sarahbell said:

I think people have a legal right to family under the UN's human rights.


But who pays isn't mentioned.

 

Yes, what a shame the people paying for it cant afford the family that they want because they are too busy working and paying taxes to give the resources-drain the family she wants.

But their rights, as farm animals in the system, arent important. In fact, they dont really have any.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, SillyBilly said:

It is definitely a fine line to tread. IMO we've lost the balance though. If the Nazis were on one end, the modern PC West has gone completely to the other end. Both are destabilising, when fairly ordinary people start questioning wft is going on you start losing consent.

The rise of the Nazis happened because Germany was in a position where ordinary people were impoverished with no recourse -- the means of having a decent life was removed from them and sent elsewhere.

Same thing is happening to productive people now: an arbitrary transfer of resources to others, and with no recourse. The most important resource being the living- and economic-space needed to have a family IMO. Up to now the deprivation and reallocation has been subtle/cushioned enough to be tolerable; that might well be about to change.

Edited by Lightly Toasted
Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal opinion is that there should be a modern version of the workhouse where those who cannot function in society or support themselves can live with others with similar 'problems' as a self-contained and self-sufficient community with all the support and supervision they require on-site rather than driving around or them wondering around trying to find it. The work aspect would involve them doing their part for the workhouse community to support its function and the other residents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, reformed nice guy said:

The problem is not the disabled people per se. If the generous support was not there then the "demands" would reduced but not completely disappear.

The problem is the industry/racket surrounding it. 

Deprivation/poverty is a source of power and wealth for a complete industry and the middle class people that profit from it. They might not get paid as much money as some jobs, although many get paid more, but they also get paid 'kudos' which could be seen as modern day piety.

They can then use this kudos to improve their standing within the community, often for political means. Just look at how common it is for TV commentators, local councillors etc to have a charity background.

Its a racket.

It's partly due to the breakdown of family and extended family.

People just dump their problems on the state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that many of you would consider me naive but;-

If it's not illegal and you can pay for it then you can have it.

If you can't pay for it then you can't.

The welfare state was meant to be a temporary safety net for those that fall on hard times. It was never meant to be a lifestyle choice for the feckless.

We should give the feckless fair warning - say 12 months - that the benefit tap is going to be turned off; when the day comes then we provide for the few people that really can't provide for themselves, the feckless we chuck into poor houses where they are housed, fed and clothed - but they don't get a penny in hard cash. Foreign nationals that fall into need get immediately deported.

People that don't comply with the rules of the poorhouse get sent to jail where they stay living an incredibly austere lifestyle until they either change their ways, or die.

If the private sector cannot find jobs for the poor buggers who geniunely cannot find work then the state should create meaningful work that does things  that are not currently being done. eg picking up rubbish, genuinely caring for the old (doing their washing, cleaning their houses.....)  generally making the country a nicer place to live.

I am happy to contribute to a welfare state that follows rules similar to those described above, anything more generous than that can go and fuck itself.

I appreciate that the SJWs would go absolutely apeshit, but sometimes it is really necessary to upset the apple cart - and maybe when this virus thing has sorted itself out and the country is essentially bankrupt then it's time for the big reset, after all desperate times require desperate measures.

 

Edited by Bornagain
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bornagain said:

I am sure that many of you would consider me naive but;-

If it's not illegal and you can pay for it then you can have it.

If you can't pay for it then you can't.

The welfare state was meant to be a temporary safety net for those that fall on hard times. It was never meant to be a lifestyle choice for the feckless.

We should give the feckless fair warning - say 12 months - that the benefit tap is going to be turned off; when the day comes then we provide for the few people that really can't provide for themselves, the feckless we chuck into poor houses where they are housed, fed and clothed - but they don't get a penny in hard cash. Foreign nationals that fall into need get immediately deported.

People that don't comply with the rules of the poorhouse get sent to jail where they stay living an incredibly austere lifestyle until they either change their ways, or die.

If the private sector cannot find jobs for the poor buggers who geniunely cannot find work then the state should create meaningful work that does things  that are not currently being done. eg picking up rubbish, genuinely caring for the old (doing their washing, cleaning their houses.....)  generally making the country a nicer place to live.

I am happy to contribute to a welfare state that follows rules similar to those described above, anything more generous than that can go and fuck itself.

I appreciate that the SJWs would go absolutely apeshit, but sometimes it is really necessary to upset the apple cart - and maybe when this virus thing has sorted itself out and the country is essentially bankrupt then it's time for the big reset, after all desparate times require desperate measures.

 

The poor houses in the past had a high percentage of residents who were there through no fault of their own. Once in it was very difficult to get out without outside help. They were also stigmatised which made things even harder for them.

Filtering out the feckless and giving them jobs or nothing would take some effort and would have the SJWs up in arms but would be worth it long term.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Option5 said:

The poor houses in the past had a high percentage of residents who were there through no fault of their own. Once in it was very difficult to get out without outside help. They were also stigmatised which made things even harder for them.

Filtering out the feckless and giving them jobs or nothing would take some effort and would have the SJWs up in arms but would be worth it long term.

At the moment the feckless stay suckling on the state all their lives - it's a lifestyle choice - if they are in the poorhouse all the lives I could not give a shit- it is entirely upto them. I would imagine that given the choice of a poorhouse or getting a proper job and taking care of yourself then a lot of them might make the decision to get off there arse and get a job - that is the whole basis of my proposal.

 

It would also be worth in in the short term.

 

 

Edited by Bornagain
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bornagain said:

At the moment the feckless stay suckling on the state all their lives - it is a lifestyle choice - if they are in the poorhouse all the lives I could not give a shit- it is entirely upto them. I would imaging that given the choice of a poorhouse or getting a proper job and taking care of yourself then a lot of them might makeca decision to get off there arse and get a job - that is the whole basis of my proposal.

 

It would also be worth in in the short term.

 

 

Agreed up to a point, but there have to be jobs available. The state can always create jobs via infrastructure projects, exactly as they did after the second world war.

Only one of the feckless household needs to work as long as they earn enough to keep the rest.

National service for the young and feckless 😊

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...