Meems, with safesearch off, google image search for "vaginal prolapse".

Of course there should. Using a gun or driving a car pales into insignificance compared to the potential capacity for damage to society of bringing in children to this world and failing to bring them up well.

Of course, it's technically impossible to actually stop people breeding in a temporary fashion.

And how would you enforce that limit?

Malc

Meems, with safesearch off,

google image search for "vaginal prolapse".

ARARARARARGH.

Ah, maybe I am confused. I thought prolapse was just an anus thing, didn't realise you could have vaginal prolapse.

I'll paste something on here tonight for you then....

Everyone would be chemically sterilised, and would have to apply for a parenting licence in order to have a child. This way you not only restrict the numbers, but you can also prevent potentially shit parents from having children.

Copyright on this idea is Craster's, obviously. Or so he claims.

You could solve it by having the benefits system as a law of diminishing returns.

No you do not. Seriously, I will hunt you down

You could solve it by having the benefits system as a law of diminishing returns.

Or merely not give money to people who can do nothing but fuck. Perhaps if they knew no cash would be forthcoming from the government, they might think twice. Probably not though, but at least then they'd all die of poverty and solve the problem

The *kids* would die of poverty. The parents would keep themselves in Benny Hedgehogs and White Lightning somehow.

I think people are conflating two differing concepts in this thread.

1) Preventing overpopulation by limiting births
2) Preventing social issues by preventing people from breeding if they are not able to show the capacity to raise the children in a safe and socially responsible way.

Only the second has anything really to do with the taxpayer, as we have no information on how the Duggers support their kids.

*hovers over 'foe' button*

The *kids* would die of poverty. The parents would keep themselves in Benny Hedgehogs and White Lightning somehow.

They must have some support, the guy would have to be some kind of millionaire to support so many kids. Although I suppose the TV and book deal were profitable, thus funding more kids and making it evermoreso of interest. I see a plan forming.

If you can't afford to keep a child in nappies and food, then I think you should be prevented from having children, of course. Then again, you don't need to earn much in order to do that. It's not about having wealth, it's about not being below the breadline.

If you can't afford to keep a child in nappies and food, then I think you should be prevented from having children, of course. Then again, you don't need to earn much in order to do that. It's not about having wealth, it's about not being below the breadline.

I'm not sure at what point the welfare state should apply to providing funding for people who decide they want to have kids exactly. If I decide I want a new car, should the welfare state fund that?

Is your car alive? Does the future of our species rely on there being more cars?

Shit, don't check your PMs.

*pounds 'foe' button so hard it breaks and all myp can see is posts by Mr Chris and Craster*

Only the second has anything really to do with the taxpayer, as we have no information on how the Duggers support their kids.

The future of our species doesn't rely on everyone who wants kids having kids either. In fact, the current greatest threat to our species is the fact that there's 6bn of us, consuming massively more resources than the planet can provide us with.

They must have some support, the guy would have to be some kind of millionaire to support so many kids. Although I suppose the TV and book deal were profitable, thus funding more kids and making it evermoreso of interest. I see a plan forming.

Blimey. This threads got a bit Daily Mail-y. I'm.... shocked.

I've got two kids and get a negligable amount of child benefit for the second. I'm pretty sure it goes down to zero at some point, whether that's the next one or the fourth, I'm not sure. The amount I get for the first kid it pretty tiny, anyway. It isn't even enough to pay for nappies.

I suppose the benefits thing is a totally different argument, but there you go.

LTIA

Overall, yes. But here in the UK as with most industrialised first-world nations long term trend in birthrates is downward, hence our forthcoming crisis when we have too many old retired people and not enough working young folks to support them.

This isn't a problem though, or at least not a long term one, it'll solve itself in 20 years when they die.

The way to solve that problem is not "Have more fucking kids", it's "Have a sustainable number of kids and ride out the consequences of the generation or two when you were fucking stupid".

Also the retirement age is now laughably low, the life expectancy has increased by a decade or two without it changing.

That's why the retirement age isn't now compulsory though, yes?

Overall, yes. But here in the UK as with most industrialised first-world nations long term trend in birthrates is downward, hence our forthcoming crisis when we have too many old retired people and not enough working young folks to support them. Where now your "sterilise the chavs" policy, hmmm?

Increased birthrates is so far from a sustainable solution to that problem that it's not funny.