Originally Posted by decon.YA (Post 10550280)

In answer to your question, about people no longer being able to feed their kids, people who have been responsible workers usually dont have such a large number of them that it would be an issue not having enough food to go round.

When a bum like that swine Philpot, whos last job was a paper round, goes on to have kids in double figures, knowing full well that no matter what job he gets, would never be able to support his offspring himself without massive handouts from the taxpayer, that is what is meant by the term, “if you cant feed them don’t breed them

The same goes for Karen Matthews, who pulled the kidnapping stunt, to squeeze more money out of the already generous British public.
How can a slob who has no intention of ever working be allowed to “breed” as a choice of career.

As for culling the kids, in this day and age, usually people who have jobs and then fall on hard times, are not parents of large families.

The usually have a “manageable sized family” ie one that has been formed around the capability of the parents to support their own children out of their wage packet.

In fact it you look at a section of high earners and rich peeps you will see that they have small families (Richard Branson, Prince Andrew 2, duke of Westminster 3.
Could that be because they don’t need to breed to up their income with extra benefits for each sprog produced.

Most people (workers) limit the number of children in accordance with their wage packet and and housing, so if the breadwinner does lose their job, the main reason for hardship in not the expense of feeding the children, but other factors such as credit cards, mortgage debts etc.

As a childless person yourself, although you do not have firsthand experience, you should at least understand the maths

I did not bring up the subject of “culling the kids”, you did.

Of course nobody would advocate that, so I answered in a sarky way to your stupid question, because an everyone knows, or should know, not breeding kids in the first place, is not the same as culling.

The term “if you cant feed them don’t breed them “ is sort of a “rule of nature”.

Even animals cease to breed if circumstances are not right, ie shortage of food and other factors, but the same does not seem to apply with people in the UK.

I must add that it does apply to people living in Spain, Italy .

Could that be because a child in those countries is seen as a financial burden and not a wage increase?

Originally Posted by Pocaloca (Post 10550729)

Thanks for taking the time to answer properly, and I'm sorry I misunderstood your earlier response. But having seen some comments on here that verge on neo-Nazi, I sometimes find it hard to tell who's serious and who isn't!

I mainly agree with you, but unfortunately not everyone is able to plan the number of children they have so it fits neatly with their income. Accidents happen, even if you take precautions, and many people don't believe in abortion. Then there are religious factors, my Catholic father would have had ten children if he could (fortunately my atheist mother called a halt at three!). Then you get families of stepchildren, second marriages where each partner already has two or three.

You can never predict the future, so there has to be a safety net for unexpected hard times to make sure the children don't suffer.

These days you leave university with a debt of £50k, pay half your earnings in rent or mortgage, another chunk into a pension scheme, and now you are expected to save for your old age care. How anyone other than the super-rich will ever be able to afford to have kids in future I have no idea! :huh:

Originally Posted by Pocaloca (Post 10550729)

not everyone is able to plan the number of children they have so it fits neatly with their income.

Originally Posted by decon.YA (Post 10550280)

In answer to your question, about people no longer being able to feed their kids, people who have been responsible workers usually dont have such a large number of them that it would be an issue not having enough food to go round.

When a bum like that swine Philpot, whos last job was a paper round, goes on to have kids in double figures, knowing full well that no matter what job he gets, would never be able to support his offspring himself without massive handouts from the taxpayer, that is what is meant by the term, “if you cant feed them don’t breed them

The same goes for Karen Matthews, who pulled the kidnapping stunt, to squeeze more money out of the already generous British public.
How can a slob who has no intention of ever working be allowed to “breed” as a choice of career.

As for culling the kids, in this day and age, usually people who have jobs and then fall on hard times, are not parents of large families.

The usually have a “manageable sized family” ie one that has been formed around the capability of the parents to support their own children out of their wage packet.

In fact it you look at a section of high earners and rich peeps you will see that they have small families (Richard Branson, Prince Andrew 2, duke of Westminster 3.
Could that be because they don’t need to breed to up their income with extra benefits for each sprog produced.

Most people (workers) limit the number of children in accordance with their wage packet and and housing, so if the breadwinner does lose their job, the main reason for hardship in not the expense of feeding the children, but other factors such as credit cards, mortgage debts etc.

As a childless person yourself, although you do not have firsthand experience, you should at least understand the maths

I did not bring up the subject of “culling the kids”, you did.

Of course nobody would advocate that, so I answered in a sarky way to your stupid question, because an everyone knows, or should know, not breeding kids in the first place, is not the same as culling.

The term “if you cant feed them don’t breed them “ is sort of a “rule of nature”.

Even animals cease to breed if circumstances are not right, ie shortage of food and other factors, but the same does not seem to apply with people in the UK.

I must add that it does apply to people living in Spain, Italy .

Could that be because a child in those countries is seen as a financial burden and not a wage increase?